Sitting of 14 September 1914

Preamble
The House, being met a Quarter before Three of the Clock,
The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

"EMPRESS OF IRELAND" (CASUALTY REPORT).
Copy presented of Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Casualty to the British steamer "Empress of Ireland," which sank after collision with the Norwegian steamer "Storstad" in the River St. Lawrence on the 29th May, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 8th September, 1914, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to Claims for Exemption by Married Women [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 469.]

PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Rule proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under The Prison Act, 1898, regarding communications by Officers of Prisons with discharged Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Draft of Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under The Prison Act, 1898, regarding the conveyance of articles to and from a Prisoner in custody, and regarding communications by Officers of Prisons with discharged Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Forty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1913–14. Part II. Housing and Town Planning, Part III. (a) Public Health and Local Administration; (b) County Council Administration; (c) Local Taxation and Valuation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Forty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1913–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COUNTY COURT RULE.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of County Court Rule (Postponement of Payment Act, 1914) [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EMERGENCY ACTS.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, at the close of the present Session, he can see his way to have all the emergency Acts issued forthwith in a separate volume?
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can arrange for the immediate issue of a volume containing copies of all the emergency Acts passed since the present crisis arose, with an appendix containing all the Proclamations now in force?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): It is proposed to publish at the end of the Session, or earlier, if possible, a collection of emergency Acts and of the various Orders in Council and other documents issued in connection with such Acts.

  LONDON AND PROVINCIAL YEARLY DIVIDING FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the secretary of the London and Provincial Yearly Dividing Friendly Society is refusing to accept any further subscriptions from Reservists called up for service; and whether, as this is against the rules of the society, he will take steps to protect the members of this and other societies?;
  Mr. MONTAGU: Complaints to this effect have been made. As there appears to be nothing in the rules of the society to justify them in refusing to accept contributions from Reservists called up for service, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies is communicating with the society.

  BRITISH COMPANIES (GERMAN OR AUSTRIAN SHAREHOLDERS).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the employment of some 8,000 British workers is in immediate danger of ceasing in consequence of the Press campaign that is being carried on against British companies manufacturing in this country, employing British labour but who have German or Austrian shareholders; and if the Government will take steps in the interests of these workmen, many of whom belong to trade union associations, to make the position clear to the general public and issue a statement to that effect on similar lines as the Proclamation issued by the Treasury on 21st August?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the Trading with the Enemy Proclamation No. 2, from which it is clear that a company incorporated in this country is entitled to carry on its legitimate business in this country not withstanding that it may have German or Austrian shareholders.

  BELGIAN REFUGEES (STATE HOSPITALITY).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an index can be made and kept up containing the names of the Belgian guests of the nation in order that they may be the more easily traced by their compatriots in this country?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. A record as complete as practicable is being kept of all persons for whom accommodation is provided.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if a careful scrutiny is made lest enemies might come in under the guise of Belgians?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

  WAR BULLETINS (POSTAL TELEGRAPH OFFICES).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General who is responsible for posting the bulletins at the Post Office on Sundays; whether he is aware that they usually consist of information already published the previous day; and whether, in the event of such communications as have been published by the Press Bureau from the Secretary of State for War usually on Sunday afternoons being continued, he can arrange for summaries of these to be posted particularly where no Sunday papers are published?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The bulletins which are posted at various telegraph offices on Sunday mornings are prepared at midnight on Saturday by the Press Bureau, and consist of a summary of official war news received on Saturday up to that hour. The telegraph offices in country districts are only open in the morning, and if communications from the Press Bureau were to be transmitted on Sunday afternoons to the 9,500 telegraph offices concerned it would necessitate keeping all those offices open, with such an increase of Sunday labour and at such heavy cost that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. HOGGE: Would the right hon. Gentleman try to meet us by sending a later version to the larger towns?
  Captain NORTON: I do not think that anything further can be done than what is being done.
  Mr. HOGGE: What is the use of Saturday's news in large towns being posted in the morning at the post offices?

  CODED CABLEGRAMS.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that mercantile houses, while recognising the need for the regulations forbidding coded cablegrams, complain that cable companies have abandoned the practice in use before the War of sending uncoded messages at half rates, subject to twenty-four hours' delay in transmission, if it suited the table companies' purpose, and now charge full rates for similar messages; is he aware that the greater part of a merchant's business is conducted by cable; that the penalties imposed by the cable companies are bringing much business to a standstill, handicapping efforts to do business as usual and to capture trade from the Germans, and are even imperilling efforts to keep establishments in this country open; can he say in what way cable companies seek to justify their present action; and whether he can do anything to persuade them to revert to the practice which they found profitable before the War, and not to seek undue advantages out of the present situation?
  Captain NORTON: The service of deferred telegrams at half rates has been suspended on the systems of certain cable companies because their lines are so pressed with Government and ordinary traffic that a deferred service, which would of course have to give precedence, would be of quite illusory advantage to the public. My right hon. Friend understands that the cable companies have been in communication with the Treasury as to the possibility of reducing the rates.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bills of firms in the City in many instances are trebled now in consequence of this?
  Captain NORTON: I am not aware of that fact, but we have no control over the cable companies.
  Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman not establish control as has been done in so many other matters in regard to the War?
  Captain NORTON: We do not think it is desirable to do so.

  PRESS BUREAU (DIRECTOR OF NAVAL CENSORS).
  Mr. SHERWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state, for the information of the House, if Sir George Armstrong, who has been appointed Director of Naval Censors, is the person of the same name who was summoned to the Bar of the House and censured by Mr. Speaker for an improper publication of an article affecting the privileges of Parliament?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the question is in the affirmative. The incident referred to took place thirteen years ago. Sir George Armstrong was appointed to the Admiralty before the commencement of the War as a Lieutenant in the Emergency List of officers, to fill the duties of Assistant to the Chief Wireless Censor. On the formation of the Press Bureau he was transferred by the Admiralty from the Chief Wireless Censor's Department to the Press Bureau for special service in that office. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division informs me that his work there, which is entirely confined to naval duties, has been of the greatest value.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether the offence amounting to a breach of privilege for which Sir George Armstrong was censured by this House, and which was described in the presence of the Prime Minister as a scurrilous publication, was an attack imputing gross personal corruption to Members of the House of Commons in relation to Private Bill legislation, and may I ask why a

  759
  gentleman who was unable to censor himself in his own Press is made Director of Naval Censors?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no doubt whatever of the accuracy of my hon. Friend's memory, but my own is not sufficiently clear on the subject to enable me to reply to the question of fact. As regards the second part of his question, the answer which I have given I think completely explains the circumstances under which Sir George Armstrong came to assist at the Press Bureau.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not the fact that on the occasion referred to, thirteen years ago, Sir George Armstrong was abroad at the time and had only official responsibility for what was done by the editor?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no doubt the hon. Member's memory is correct, but for myself I have no recollection of the facts at all.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I have.

  LICENSED VEHICLE WORKERS (WAR SERVICE).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether any arrangements have been made so that the licence of any licensed vehicle worker will not lapse in the event of the man being on active service at the War; and, if so, will he make the arrangements known among such as the tramwaymen?
  Mr. McKENNA: Licences of men on active service will be allowed to lapse on expiry so as to save to friends the trouble and expense of keeping them alive, but special facilities will be afforded for renewal in all such cases when the licensee returns to civil life.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of letting the men holding those licences know that?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think they are certain to see my hon. Friend's question and the answer I have given.

  GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS.

    CERTIFICATES OF NATURALISATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary if he can say how many certificates of naturalisation have been granted to Germans and Austrians who made their applications upon, or just before, the outbreak of the War; and whether any such certificates are now being granted to such nationals resident in this country who applied in such circumstances?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I stated last Thursday, twelve certificates of naturalisation have been granted to Germans since the war began; three certificates have been granted to Austrians and Hungarians. The Act gives me full discretion to grant or refuse such certificates as I think most conducive to the public good, and this consideration guides me whether the applications were made before or after the outbreak of war.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it the case that when a person is naturalised in England he is not required to renounce allegiance to his own country; and, if that is so, is not England exceptional in that respect?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should have to have notice of that question.

    COMMUNICATION WITH ENEMY.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that telegraph wires have been cut and bombs and firearms and carrier pigeons found in possession of alien enemies, he can see his way to pass a short law ordaining that all persons found either attempting to obtain or to communicate information useful to the enemy, or to commit any act of injury or destruction, should be handed over to the military authorities to be dealt with according to military law?
    Mr. McKENNA: Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the police and military authorities already have full powers to deal with acts of the kind referred to if any should occur. Since the War began there has been no single case of a telegraph wire being maliciously cut, nor has any bomb been found in the possession of any alien.

    GERMAN MINES, NORTH SEA.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the House any information as to the safety of the North Sea for ordinary shipping, and as to the methods which are being adopted by Germany to sow mines near to the English coast?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Instructions are issued from time to time to shipowners giving routes which can be followed without undue risk according to the latest information in the possession of the Admiralty. It would appear that the German method is to lay mines in the open sea without any regard to loss that may be caused to peaceful traders.
    Mr. PIRIE: Has attention been given to the encouraged traffic in trawling by foreign trawlers between the Moray Firth and Dutch and German ports? Might not that traffic well be responsible for some of the mines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that.
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question?

  LORD KITCHENER'S NEW ARMY.

    ALLOWANCES FOR DEPENDANTS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a Resolution passed by the Corporation of Glasgow asking the Government to make more adequate provision for the wives and dependants of recruits; and whether, in view of the fact that in a very large number of cases the provision made is a very considerable reduction in the family income, the Government will favourably consider the possibility of giving an increase?
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, before making his statement as to the weekly amount to be paid to the wives and mothers of serving soldiers, he will take into consideration the fact that it has been widely published by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association that a
    762
    wife without children or a mother dependent on her son will receive not less than 12s. 6d. a week, and that wives with children, according to their number, will receive up to £1 a week?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I will answer the latter part and Question No. 28 together. I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject before the end of the Session.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of the hardship arises from the length of time it takes to get the separation allowance—very often three weeks or more elapse—and also from the length of time it takes to get the bounty? Will he take that into consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; these matters are carefully engaging our attention.
    Mr. HUNT: When the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement, may we take it that he will make it quite clear that when breadwinners have gone to the War, wives, mothers, and sisters will not be left destitute? Did the right hon. Gentleman get a letter that I sent him?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these points will be considered.

    VIOLATION OF RULES OF WAR.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if any official information has been received of acts committed by the German soldiery, such as firing under cover of or upon the Red Cross flag, the killing and maiming of wounded, which are a violation of the ordinary rules of war and in conflict with the provisions of The Hague Convention, to which Germany was a party; and if he will consider as to the issue of an authoritative statement on the subject and of taking any necessary steps to secure a complete record of all such acts, alike for the guidance of the Army in the field and also to enable the full facts to be placed at the proper time before the Governments of neutral nations?
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any official information as to the killing of women and children, of inoffensive persons and non-combatants, and of the killing and maiming of our wounded soldiers; and, if so, whether he will have the evidence of such cruelties carefully taken and sifted and have all the evidence which confirms such outrages published to the world?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to these questions, I understand that no official information has reached my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. The subject is, however, under consideration and inquiries are being made.
    Mr. F. HALL: In view of the possibility of reports emanating from this country not receiving on the Continent that credence to which they are entitled, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of communicating with the official members of the American Embassy or the Consulate in London, and getting them to publish the facts of the case?

    WHEAT SUPPLY.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that far less wheat than usual will be grown in Germany, Austria, France, and Belgium next year, the price is most likely to be 35s. a quarter or more, he will reconsider his decision and guarantee that farmers growing wheat next year shall receive not less than 35s. a quarter for all wheat suitable for making bread; and is he aware that, although this would in all probability cost the Government little or nothing, it would be an encouragement to farmers and probably cause more than double the amount to be produced next year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Prime Minister has asked me to take this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the hon. Baronet say why the answer to the first part is in the negative? Is he aware that if the Government would guarantee to pay the 35s. it
    764
    would make an enormous difference, especially to small farmers?
    Sir H. VERNEY: Yes, but the question at issue is how much difference! The amount of difference would not be anything like as great as is estimated by the hon. Member.
    Mr. STANIER: Is the hon. Baronet aware that farmers in general state that they would double the area of wheat if the Government would grant this concession?
    Sir H. VERNEY: I am aware that farmers say that.

    INDIAN ARMY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that ninety-four warrant officers recalled from leave to India, and for the most part married men belonging to the Indian Army Departments, have been obliged to leave their families behind them and have not been granted the separation allowance allowed to warrant officers belonging to the British Service and to non-commissioned officers and men in the British Army on field service on and off the strength; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): It has already been decided that the families left in this country by warrant and noncommissioned officers of Indian Army Departments recalled from leave in consequence of the War shall receive the same separation allowances from the State as the families of similar grades in the British Service.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can say whether, in the case of an ex-corporal of the transport branch of the Army Service Corps, anxious to rejoin the Army, now employed in the Supreme Court of Judicature in a subordinate position as a piece-worker (typist) if he rejoined the Army, enough (typist) pay would be allowed to make up with military pay the

    765
    amount ordinarily earned as typist, and if the place would be kept open till the end of the War?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Member aware that there are a great many men in the Supreme Court of Judicature and the Royal Courts of Justice who are very anxious to join the Army on these conditions if he will let his answer be known?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The terms in regard to members of the Civil Service have already been published, and the question of the hon. Member will make it further known that they will not lose anything by joining the Colours.

    BADGES FOR RECRUITS REFUSED.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, with the view of assisting recruiting, some badge or document can be given to men who have offered themselves for enlistment and been refused?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The object the hon. Member has in view is already secured in another way. A man refused on medical grounds has a statement to that effect entered on his notice paper, and he retains this notice paper in his possession. The "notice paper" is given to every recruit offering himself and it states the general conditions of the contract to be entered into.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in the hurry of recruiting no notice papers are handed to the rejected recruit? To my personal knowledge, I have seen men with tears in their eyes because they have been refused. Is it not possible that he might be given some simple kind of badge so that he might be known in his village as a man who had not shirked his duty?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the notice paper ought not to be omitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "But it is!"] I am sorry to hear it. I shall certainly try to see that it is not omitted in future.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some other answer? It is quite impossible for recruiting officers, when they are dealing with hundreds of cases, to see that the notice papers are given to the recruits. It is so simple to do what is asked.
    Mr. TENNANT: I will look into the matter.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Would the right hon. Gentleman remember how easy it would be for a simple badge to be copied by those who never intended to enlist?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Would it not be very much better to take all who present themselves for enlistment and give them some kind of military drill?
    Mr. TENNANT: The men we are considering now are men rejected by the doctor on medical grounds.
    Mr. F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the feeling of many of these men who have presented themselves, and who are unfortunately taunted for not having, according to the outer world, offered themselves to the recruiting officer; will the right hon. Gentleman once more consider the advisability or otherwise of allowing some badge to be given?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course I fully appreciate and sympathise with the position of the men alluded to, and I shall certainly consider what has been put before me.

    FEEDING SCHOOL CHILDREN.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to state the number of local education authorities that have put into force the Act recently passed for the feeding of school children during holidays?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): On the same day as the Act became law a circular was issued to all local education authorities calling attention to the extended powers given them by the Act, and urging that prompt steps should be taken to prepare for any emergency that might arise. The returns since received do not

    767
    enable me to say to what extent advantage has been taken of the Act to provide meals out of the rates before the schools reopened, but a number of authorities have certainly used the Act to provide meals on Saturdays and Sundays.
    Mr. WARDLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply Members, on request, with a copy of the circular?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, I shall be glad to send a copy to the hon. Member.

    COPYRIGHT WORKS OF ALIEN ENEMY.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a firm of British publishers who published copyright works of an alien enemy during the War would be able to continue publication after the conclusion of the War, or if not, would they be able to dispose of all stocks in hand at the conclusion of the War without incurring the penalties for infringement of copyright?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am advised that at the conclusion of the War claims for accounts and for damages for infringement during the War would be entertained by our Courts.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    SUPPLY OF BOOTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what Grant is made to recruits in the Territorial Force; and whether such Grant as is made includes provision for one or more pairs of boots suitable for long marches?
    Mr. TENNANT: A payment of 10s. is made to each non-commissioned officer and man of the Territorial Force called up on embodiment, and to each recruit enlisted subsequently, who is in possession of a certain prescribed kit of necessaries in good order. This kit includes a pair of ankle boots. No payment is made to a non-commissioned officer or man who is deficient of any article required, but the county association concerned is authorised
    768
    to complete any deficiencies at the public expense.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recruits for the Territorial Force have been marching through Kent and Middlesex with boots that were very inefficient?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring that instance more fully to my notice, and I will have it inquired into.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commanding officers can only spend 20 per cent. more than the contract price for such articles as may be required?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring that more fully to my notice?
    An HON. MEMBER: War Office Memorandum!
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a list of the items that the men require would cost about three or four times the amount allowed?

    DRILL HALL, KILMARNOCK.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the work of erecting a large Territorial hall in Kilmarnock has been stopped, and the workmen thrown out of employment; whether the War Office is responsible for this; and whether the work can be continued and the advice given to private employers, to keep in employment as many workmen as possible, acted upon?
    Mr. TENNANT: The building referred to is apparently the headquarters of the 4th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers, the erection of which was commenced without War Office authority and subsequently suspended following upon the issue of general instructions from the War Office, that building schemes not finally approved were not to be proceeded with for the present. The War Office were not aware that building had been begun in this case. In view of the circumstances now disclosed instructions will be given for the work to be proceeded with, subject to certain minor modifications of the scheme.

    RESERVE OFFICERS.
    Mr. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is a fact that in some Territorial Regiments officers on the Reserve have not been called up on embodiment and are still civilians, while their places have been filled by junior and inexperienced officers and supernumerary officers have been commissioned; and whether this is a mistake on the part of the commanding officers, and whether the War Office will at once issue a notice to all officers commanding Territorial units reminding them that on embodiment Reserve officers should be called up to join the unit?
    Mr. TENNANT: Officers commanding Territorial units have authority to fill existing vacancies from officers of the Territorial Force Reserve. The names of those recalled were reported to the War Office, and they were gazetted to the active list. It is not possible to instruct commanding officers to call up the Reserve officers irrespectively of whether such officers are fit and efficient. Discretion on these points must be left to commanding officers.

    BARRACKS AND MARRIED QUARTERS.
    Captain TRYONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when the barracks and married quarters in this country which were till lately occupied by units of the Expeditionary Force are taken over and occupied by other units, arrangements will be made to ensure that no loss shall be incurred by the families thus removed from their quarters; and, in the event of lodging allowance being granted, will he see that such allowances be adequate, taking into account the cost of housing in the district concerned?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Special arrangements are being made to compensate these families for their removal, and allowances on an adequate scale will be granted.
    Major HOPE: If the woman and family of a man serving are turned out, cannot the Government be responsible, not
    770
    merely for a money allowance but for adequate housing for the family?
    Mr. BAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that full provision has been made for putting these women in as favourable a position as they were before.
    Major HOPE: May I give an instance?
    Mr. BAKER: Perhaps it would be better that I should let the hon. Member know what the arrangements are.
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us now what the increase in the money allowance is?
    Mr. BAKER: There are several different allowances, and it would require a rather long answer to give them; but I shall be very glad to send a copy to the Noble Lord. It will be published as an Army Order in a day or two.

    ORDERS FOR UNIFORMS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the orders for uniforms are being widely distributed in order to extend the area of employment as much as possible; and whether he is aware that London firms accustomed to make uniforms are complaining at receiving no orders?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, that is so. The orders to be placed are by no means exhausted, but the orders already placed in London do not compare unfavourably with those placed in other parts of the country.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is there any truth in the rumours that have been put about that there is likely to be a change in the colour of the uniform?
    Mr. BAKER: I must have notice of that question.

    BRITISH ARMY (TITLE).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the use of the word English in describing the British Army in the reply of the Secretary of State for War to General Joffre; and whether, in view of the part played in our Army by other than English troops, he

    771
    will undertake that in future no such partial description of our forces shall be permitted?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, my attention had not previously been drawn to this matter; the published telegram was a translation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Joffre used the words "British" Army in his communication to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State in his reply used the words "English" Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that, but I will bring the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman to the notice of the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. HOGGE: Arising further out of the answer, will my right hon. Friend make perfectly certain that the word "British" is used in future; will he remember that the British Force is made up of Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, and Colonials, and those of us who are not Englishmen object to the use of the word "English" in describing that Army?
    Mr. PIRIE: I do not want to attach too much importance to this, but may I dare to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration the appropriateness, especially in view of the fact that British troops and those of the Overseas Dominions may shortly be fighting shoulder to shoulder, of the more general use of the word "Britannic"?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will consider the suggestions, and bring them before the Secretary of State.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCES (WEEKLY PAYMENTS).
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to paying dependants on the Army weekly instead of monthly; whether he is aware that monthly payments lead to in many cases unwise use of the money and great distress, and if he could arrange for weekly payments through the county councils and borough council organisations, to whom money could be remitted
    772
    in bulk for distribution at council offices and by sub-division at schools, etc.?
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the widespread dissatisfaction existing with respect to the manner in which the pay for soldiers' wives and families is being managed and distributed owing to pressure of work; and whether he will, in cases when assistance is applied for, authorise the appointment of an official to be paid by the Government to superintend and assist the work now being done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association?
    Mr. BAKER: I am fully aware of the circumstances, and gladly acknowledge the great assistance rendered by voluntary workers to the War Office in dealing with an unprecedented situation. A system of direct weekly payment of these allowances will be put into operation at the beginning of October, and will, I hope, remove the difficulties to which the hon. Members refer.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: That does not quite answer the question I asked about the system.
    Mr. BAKER: The system of direct weekly payment which I mentioned in my answer will cover that point, and so it will be unnecessary.
    Mr. BOYTON: May I ask whether it would not be possible to do it in the same way as old age pensions by giving a form of cheque for the amount?
    Mr. BAKER: That is a very valuable suggestion, but I would rather the hon. Member waited until he saw the machinery.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (LIFE INSURANCES).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking with regard to life insurances on soldiers and sailors?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have really nothing to add to what I stated on the 9th instant, except that a conference is being arranged between the Life Offices Association, the Treasury, Admiralty, and War Office to deal with the outstanding points.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: When will that conference be held?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope in the course of the next few days.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I have an answer about the sailors?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. I received the following letter from the Chairman of the Life Offices Association on the 11th September:—
    "Referring to your letter of the 4th instant, the questions raised therein have now received the attention of this Association, and I have the pleasure to inform you that it has been decided to recommend that the Royal Naval Reserve shall be placed upon the same footing as the Naval Volunteers, i.e., that no extra premium shall be required from persons in the Royal Naval Reserve who were insured prior to the declaration of war. The question of including the Royal Fleet Reserve in the same category has been carefully considered, but the Association does not see its way to recommend any departure from the original decision in regard to this Force. The Association is of opinion that the concessions made by the offices are all that can possibly be expected of them in justice to the main body of their policy holders.
    P.S.—I must point out that the decision embodied in his letter applies only to the English offices belonging to this Association. The point is still under the consideration of the Associated Scottish Offices."
    To this I replied on the same date:—
    "I have to thank you for your letter of to-day. While regretting that you have not found it possible to include the Royal Fleet Reserve, I am very pleased to learn that you have extended the decision to require no extra premium from persons insured prior to the declaration of war to men of the Royal Naval Reserve.
    I trust that the Associated Scottish Offices will see their way to follow the example of the English offices."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like to ask, in reference to the two answers given by the right hon. Gentlemen, whether they will now reply to the question I asked—namely, what course the Government propose to take, not what course the life assurance companies propose to take?
    As no answer is forthcoming, I will repeat the question to-morrow.

  BILLETING OF TROOPS IN UNITED KINGDOM.

    APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that billeting is likely to lead to considerable over-
    774
    crowding in various localities, and what steps the Government propose to take with regard to the housing of the troops during the coming autumn and winter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A Special Committee has been formed to inquire into and regulate all matters connected with the billeting of troops in the United Kingdom. As regards the housing of the troops during the coming autumn and winter, a large number of hutments are already in course of construction, and all training centres will eventually be provided with huts.

  CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY VACANCIES).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether it could be arranged instead of filling up vacancies in the Civil Service which may occur during the War, at a time when many who are eligible for such appointments are engaged in military service, to accept, as far as possible, the services of retired Civil Servants, who are prepared to serve gratuitously in any subordinate capacity, and to leave those places vacant at the end of the War, for those who would otherwise be injured by having acted under a sense of patriotic duty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Steps have been taken to ensure that persons who have been successful in an examination held by the Civil Service Commissioners, but are prevented from taking up an appointment in the Civil Service by military or naval obligations to which they were subject when they sat for the examination, shall have an appointment retained for them on their return to civil life.
  The General Regulations for open competitions already contain a provision that candidates for Civil Service appointments shall be allowed to deduct from their age any time during which they may have been in receipt of Army pay, and certain further aspects of this question are under consideration.
  A number of retired Civil servants are now giving their services in various Departments. Heads of Departments will doubtless consider carefully any further offers of assistance that they may receive.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the number of clerks at present out of work should not be taken into Government employment rather than that ex-Civil servants in receipt of pensions should thus diminish the amount and volume of employment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member would give notice of that question.

  SCHOOL BOYS AS ORDERLIES (GLASGOW SCHOOL BOARD).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the case that the Scottish Education Department have refused the request of the Glasgow School Board that the time given by school boys as orderlies should be counted as school attendance, although the officer commanding recruits in Glasgow and the Scottish branch of the Red Cross Society have asked for their services; whether the school board has decided so to reckon these services, in spite of the Department's opposition; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the Department's decision?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The matter is not within the discretion of the Department at all. The amount of money involved is trivial.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Department has been appealed to and declined sanction not on the ground that it was not within their power, but stating they were unable to sanction the proposal of the Glasgow School Board? Is not that the case?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I understand the right hon. Gentleman said it was not within the powers of the Department.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am now asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that the question was asked of the Department, and the Department refused to sanction it?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question was asked of the Department; the Department did not refuse because it had not the power to do it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has a further question let him put it down for to-morrow?
  Sir H. CRAIK: I have a further question.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Put it down for to-morrow.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I only got a shifty answer.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR RECRUITS (PORTSMOUTH DISTRICT).
  Mr. B. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has had letters eulogising all the arrangements made for soldiers and recruits in the Portsmouth district, and if on the other hand any complaints have been received by him?
  Mr. TENNANT: No complaint has reached me of the treatment of recruits in the district referred to. On the other hand, I have received a very satisfactory account of the arrangements made at one depot in the district where accommodation for 500 troops was successfully expanded in a very short time so as to provide for 1,700 men.

  ARTIFICIAL DYESTUFFS (PRODUCTION IN UNITED KINGDOM).
  Mr. HODGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether aniline oil is placed as contraband of war on the List issued last Friday by the Government, and is he aware that previous to the War Germany dominated neutral markets, and that by its inclusion unemployment will result, and the endeavour to capture neutral markets be prevented?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my hon. Friend is under a misunderstanding. It is true that previous to the War Germany was the largest producer of aniline and other artificial dyestuffs which are largely used in the British textile and other manufactures. Efforts are now being made to

  777
  fill the gap by extending the production of these dyestuffs in the United Kingdom, and with that object and also with the object of diminishing the shortage in the interval the export of artificial dyes and of coal-tar products for use in dye manufacture has been prohibited. The effect, it is hoped, will be to decrease and not to increase unemployment in the important groups of trades dependent on dyestuffs.

  CODE CABLE ADDRESSES.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has considered the possibility of allowing the use of code cable addresses which were registered prior to the War, even though code messages are not at present allowable?
  Captain NORTON: I have had no notice of that question, and consequently I am not able to answer it.

  GERMAN TRADING COMPANIES.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in the cases of German companies registered in this country, where the board are Germans and also the capital, the Government will take steps to have them classed as alien enemies, and make it illegal for British subjects to deal with them for business purposes?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received notice of the hon. Member's question, but if he will put it down for to-morrow I will give him a considered reply.

  CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING EUROPEAN CRISIS.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to circulate abroad copies of the recent White Paper, "Correspondence respecting the European Crisis" (Miscellaneous, No. 6, 1934), and Sir Edward Goschen's dispatch of 8th August (Miscellaneous, No. 8, 1914); and whether it is proposed to translate these Papers into any foreign languages, and, if so, which?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Copies of White Paper, Miscellaneous, Numbers 6 and 8 (1914), were at once, upon publication, sent to all of His Majesty's Diplomatic representatives abroad. Copies have also been sent to all of His Majesty's salaried Consular officers throughout the world. Instructions have been issued to His Majesty's representatives in France, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands to prepare translations of the correspondence, and to distribute copies gratuitously in the countries in which they are resident. The numbers authorised for distribution in each case are very considerable. A translation into Portuguese is being prepared in this country. The Dutch translation has already been published and widely circulated in Holland; and it is understood that the Swedish and Danish translations have also appeared. Arrangements are being made to send copies of the Spanish translation to the Spanish-speaking States in Central and South America as soon as it is ready, and copies of the Portuguese translation will similarly be sent to Brazil.

  CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT FOR RECRUITS.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether commanding officers have authority to purchase locally necessary articles of clothing and equipment such as boots and shirts urgently required by recruits joining their units when these cannot be immediately supplied by the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 10th instant, officers in charge of depots have full powers to make local purchases of necessaries, and have so been informed on more than one occasion.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Are they limited as to the price they can give?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Are they limited to the contract price, or have they a discretion?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have not had time to look into that, and perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice. I imagine that where the prices were minutely above the contract there would be no objection.

  EXCHANGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the German and Austro-Hungarian Governments any reply to the proposals made by His Majesty's Government on 31st August as to the exchange of British subjects abroad for the subjects of those Governments in Great Britain?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Government have received this morning from the United States Ambassador a telegram which he received from Washington yesterday, stating that the German Government agrees to allow English women and children not over sixteen years of age to leave Germany, and will facilitate their departure. They refuse to allow British subjects of military age who are not under duty of military service to leave on giving an undertaking not to take part in assisting the operations of war, and consequently they will detain all male British subjects of military age. It is stated in the telegram that the period of liability to military duty in Germany is from seventeen to forty-five, but further inquiry will be necessary and is being made on this point, in view of statements which have appeared in the Press that the age of obligation for service has been extended to fifty-five in Germany. I am thus not able to state yet above what age male British subjects will be allowed to leave Germany.
  I would ask relatives of those who are affected to refrain from writing to the Foreign Office, asking that their relatives may have early or special treatment in the matter of being brought back from Germany. We may rely on the Representatives of the United States Government to do all that is possible, as soon as suitable arrangements can be made, to deal with every case in the best way available. I must repeat that neither the United States Embassy nor the Foreign Office can undertake the forwarding of letters or money to particular persons in Germany. Supplies of money for relief and repatriation are in the hands of the United States Representatives, and will be increased if necessity arises. No answer to our proposals for exchange has yet been received from the Austro-Hungarian Government.

  NATIONAL RESERVISTS (BOUNTY).
  Colonel WARDE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that National Reservists who have rejoined the Colours on the understanding that they will receive a bounty of £10 on doing so, are unable to obtain this money, and whether, seeing that many of them have left wives and families at their homes who may be with out means of subsistence, he will take steps to see that the said bounty shall be promptly paid in every case on the final approval of the Reservist?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I have no information of any failure to pay these bounties to the men entitled to them. I will inquire into the particular case of which the hon. Member has furnished the details.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any number of men belonging to the National Reserve have joined for three weeks and have not had any payment?
  Mr. BAKER: This is the first time the matter has been brought to our notice.

  Saughton Mains New Prison.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the new prison at Saughton Mains is to be proceeded with or whether work is to be suspended?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Progress is being made with the buildings, and there is no intention to suspend operations.

  Arrest for Obstruction (Harlesden).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrest of Charles Reginald Taylor on Friday, 24th July, at Manor Park Road, Harlesden, by Police-constable 716X, assisted by Police-constable 52G, who dragged Taylor from the platform at which he was speaking and marched him to the police station, a distance of about half a mile, when he was charged with wilfully obstructing the roadway; whether he is aware that the case was heard on Monday, 27th July, and that the magistrate, in dismissing the case, stated that

  781
  the police were wrong in arresting the man Taylor; and whether he will advise that adequate compensation be paid for wrongful arrest?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend has been misinformed in this case. I learn on inquiry that no such comment as is suggested in the question was made by the magistrate. It appears that the case was one of serious obstruction in a busy thoroughfare by two rival meetings. The arrest, which was only made after the fullest warning and when no other course was open to the police, appears to have been justified. In these circumstances there is no ground for any grant of compensation.
  Mr. W. THORNE: How was it that no arrests were made from the other platform?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire in regard to that point if my hon. Friend wishes; but, as I understand, in one case the warning was accepted, while in the other it was not.

  National Penny Bank (Liquidation).
  Mr. TOUCHE(who had given notice of the following question: "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any steps to meet the needs of the depositors in the National Penny Bank, Limited, by advancing a sufficient sum to the liquidator on the security of the assets of the bank to enable him to distribute a dividend at an early date?"): This question has been answered since I gave notice of it. Therefore I do not propose to put it unless the right hon. Gentleman has anything to add.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave last week. The offer has been made.

  British-made Cigars (Drawback).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to prevent unemployment in the tobacco trade, of which signs are already apparent, the Government will consider the propriety of crediting a drawback to manufacturers on British-made cigars deposited in a
  782
  bonded warehouse or other approved place of custody, and allowing such credit to be drawn upon for duty payments due?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This question is under consideration, and a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

  Iodine Supply.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in view of the necessity for an increased supply of iodine from home sources, steps will be taken to develop the kelp industry on the West Coast of Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that with good drying of the seaweed and incineration to a light ash more than double the average amount of iodine can be obtained, a new issue of the leaflet already prepared by the Department will be circulated amongst members of the district councils on the Western Coast of Ireland?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The leaflet to which the question appears to refer was published by the Congested Districts Board and not by the Department. The kelp industry is almost entirely confined to congested districts, but the Department are prepared to co-operate in any steps which may seem practicable for developing the industry, in view of the present shortage of chemical products derivable from kelp.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will impress on the Estates Commissioners the necessity of giving a free grant to Thomas Hannan, of Blackilla, Lixnaw, an evicted tenant on the Ramsden estate, who was evicted in 1887 and reinstated in 1896; and whether, owing to the treatment meted out to Hannan in the past, the Estates Commissioners will favourably consider his application now for a free grant?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have decided that this is not a case in which to make a grant to Hannan as an evicted tenant.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND AND ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILLS.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take to-day and during the rest of the week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take to-day the Orders of the Day down to and including No. 6 (Army Pensions Bill).
  With regard to the future, the Government hope that the Prorogation may take place this week. As I stated a fortnight ago, it is their intention that the two Bills—Government of Ireland and Established Church (Wales)—which have complied with the conditions of the Parliament Act, shall be placed upon the Statute Book.
  I shall introduce to-morrow—and should have done so to-day, but, to my regret, we cannot proceed without notice, objection being taken—a Bill to provide that no steps shall be taken to put either of the two Acts into operation for twelve months in any event, and if the War is not then terminated until such further date, not later than the date of the termination of the War, as may be fixed by Order in Council. I cannot further anticipate the fuller statement which I shall make tomorrow, but I understand that to-morrow it will be for the general convenience that we should take a debate on this Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDITIONS TO BRITISH ARMY.
    SUPPLY.— [10th September.]

      ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1914–15, VOTE A.
      Resolution reported, "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 500,000 all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, in consequence of the War in Europe, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
      Lord HUGH CECIL(indistinctly heard): There are several points I wish to put before this Resolution is carried. The right hon. Gentleman stated that an excellent response had been made to the appeal for recruits but that the number had fallen short of the demands made upon them. I should like to know whether other arrangements have also fallen short. There is some reason to believe that the provision made before the War for recruits and for the furnishing of camps and the like was insufficient for the needs which have since been experienced, not merely in respect of enrolment of recruits, but even in respect of the Territorial Army. I know from my own knowledge that Territorial soldiers called out have no straw, or palliasses I think they are called, to sleep upon. They are overcrowded in a most inconvenient way in all sorts of buildings, not at all suited to such a purpose. It would have been far more convenient to have placed them in camp under canvas, or in huts. I do not understand why these provisions were not made, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to explain to the House how much equipment was in store before the War broke out with a view to these contingencies, because, after all, although the response has been very magnificent, I do not think that it can reasonably be said to have been unforeseen. To say that such a splendid response was entirely beyond expectation is like saying one does not know of the law of gravity. I should have
      794
      thought that it was one of the first things the War Office would have most naturally borne in mind. It is very regrettable that so many of the Territorial Army coming to their duty should have found themselves in such a position of discomfort. The War Office and the Imperial Committee of Defence have been considering these possibilities for a great many years. They have arranged many things in a most admirable way, but these, which seem the most obvious of all, appear to have been overlooked. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to explain what equipment there was. I dare say I am using the word "equipment" in an erroneous sense. I mean provision in the widest sense—palliasses for the troops to sleep upon and tents for them to live in. What equipment was there both for the Territorial Force and the other auxiliary arms which came to the Colours? The Prime Minister told us that this could not have been foreseen, but I think it must have been foreseen by all those who knew what war would mean. There are a great many people who think the War Office deserves criticism, but who, nevertheless, think the utmost should be done to strengthen their hands and to support confidence in them.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am sure I am the last person to think that the great response which the country has made to our appeal in this national emergency may be construed into a vote of confidence in the War Office. I am sure the Noble Lord will acquit us of any such arrogance on our part. The Noble Lord has asked me what provision was made prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Full provision was made for the entire Territorial Force. The Noble Lord shakes his head, but I can assure him that was so, because, although in some cases certain Territorial soldiers have been denied some things, such as palliasses, it does not follow that there was not full provision made for the camp which the Territorial Force would have gone to had there been no outbreak of hostilities. Of course that was so, but when mobilisation came the whole of the camp arrangements made broke down and fell through. The Territorial Force was distributed over places in a manner of which nobody had any idea before the outbreak of war. I

      795
      think that is really a perfectly simple explanation, and one which I hope my hon. Friends will understand. I do not think it is really quite fair to any of us to say that it was as obvious as the law of gravity that a great response would be made in this emergency. Of course we knew that, but the Noble Lord alluded to a period prior to any outbreak of war, and he really took us to task for not having made provision for a condition of things which was not only unforeseen, but unforeseeable. Surely it was unforeseeable, first of all, that we were going to War to this extent! Full and ample arrangements were made for the Expeditionary Force—so ample were they that, although we have increased our Army by 400,000 or 500,000, it is remarkable what provision we have been able to make.
      Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to ask the War Office if they would pay greater attention than is being paid to the hospital accommodation provided, not for the sick and the wounded from the front, where I believe most that is possible is being done on the best lines, but for troops, particularly of the Territorial Force, which are now in places where there are no proper quarters for them. I have in mind a particular place, which I will not mention but the facts of which I will send to the War Office. There are some thirty-patients on one floor, where there is no bathroom and no hot-water arrangements, and only one sanitary accommodation both for nurses and patients. There has been two cases of scarlet fever in the last two days, and there is no infectious hospital. There are 9,000 troops quartered in this small district where normally there are no troops at all, and the arrangements are such as in medical opinion may give rise to a very serious epidemic. I hope that the War Office will pay serious attention to the hospital accommodation provided for the troops who are now stationed in such large numbers throughout the country. It is not only a question of the accommodation provided for the troops while they are in health, but the season is advancing, with men billeted in large numbers in small houses, if any epidemic breaks out, the consequences will be most serious. I know well that the whole resources of the War Office must be and
      796
      are being very severely strained in providing for the Expeditionary Force, and I hope that they will realise that the only way of dealing with this kind of question is devolution as far as possible. There are scores and hundreds and thousands of civilians, medical and professional men of all classes, who are only too anxious to place their services and property at the disposal of the War Office, and in a time like this it is impossible that everything can be worked by rule from one centre. The one thing that cannot be decentralised is authority. It must come from one centre. If the War Office, however, will give any individual or individuals in any district who are responsible people the authority which the War Office alone can give, these things will not happen. If the War Office will insist on keeping all the authority and the whole of the machinery in their own hands, then the consequences may be very serious. But I hope that they will bear these suggestions in mind, so that troubles may be met half way, and we may not be faced with epidemics of illnesses among our troops at home at a time when they are so urgently needed in good health to fight our battles abroad.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: Speeches such as that we have just had from the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) might, I think, be better delivered after the War is over. No doubt some mild forms of criticism may be admissible relating to the management of affairs, but I would point out that, so far as the Territorial Associations are concerned, those which were responsible for equipment were always limited in their operations financially. They were only able to buy uniforms for men who had actually joined, and it was all a question of money with them. In addition to that, no barrack provision in the event of mobilisation was made by the Territorial Associations whatsoever. It may be remembered we had an all-night discussion in this House, when the late Sir Charles Dilke was a Member here, and the Territorial Bill was being passed through Committee. We were then told that the Territorial Force was to be mobilised purely for defensive purposes, and we asked if the War Office were taking powers sufficient to deal with the housing problem.

      797
      We know perfectly well, those of us who have had any experience in the matter, that in these days, when the population is so overcrowded, it is utterly impossible to billet a huge army upon civilians. It could not be done, whatever we might be willing to pay for it, and therefore there is not the slightest doubt that in the future both the War Office and the Territorial Associations will have to work on the basis that when the Territorial Force is mobilised adequate housing accommodation must be provided for the troops. There has been a failure in that direction on this occasion.
      Let me say, so far as the equipment of the Expeditionary Force is concerned, the results have been most remarkable. We have heard it stated that on historic occasions commanders in other countries have announced that their armies have been ready in every particular, and yet, when the prophecy has been put to the test, the statement has been found to be empty of fact. But on this occasion, judging from conversations I have had with many officers, I gather they are simply astounded at the magnificent organisation which has enabled our Expeditionary Force to be sent abroad in so smooth a manner. But still, on more than one occasion, I have asked in this House if, in the event of a raiding force landing in this country the War Office had made ample preparations for dealing with the hundreds of thousands of recruits who would immediately demand to be trained for warlike purposes. The answer has always been—and I find on looking back on the records of this House that a like reply has been given to many similar questions—that the War Office authorities have declared that they are ready to arm, maintain, and equip the whole population whenever it is necessary. We know now that that is an empty statement. We know, as a matter of fact, that, beyond maintaining the Expeditionary Force abroad and keeping up a constant supply of both men and material, no arrangements have been made by the War Office for dealing with the extra recruitment which might be anticipated in the case of a great national emergency. We know, however, that the War Office are doing their best. But they are faced with great difficulties. Still, in view of the fact that we have such a splendid soldier at
      798
      the head of affairs, a man of such wonderful organising capacity, I think we may take it for granted that any criticisms we may venture to offer here would only amount to throwing sand in the axle, and would not assist in the great work which is in hand. It is for that reason that I do not propose to call attention to much correspondence I have received, complaining of existing working arrangements and, in some cases, of absolute obstacles being put in the way of recruits and others who want to assist in the defence of their country. Any failure, I think, has been largely due to the absence of initiative in the locality concerned, and I am not sure that even now there are not some local depot officers who really do not understand the powers which have been given to them by the telegram that was issued a short time ago by Lord Kitchener. I am afraid that some of them are anxious to avoid using the powers they possess, although, if they did use them, they clearly would obviate and do away with many of the grievances of which we have heard so much from time to time. While there are shortcomings—as I suppose there always will be in everything—I believe we can trust the man at the head of affairs, and we should remember that our petty criticisms may hinder rather than help him.
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I want to say a few words in support of the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) in favour of some organisation being set on foot in time to bring in civilian aid in dealing with the medical needs of the troops in this country. My words will be very few, but I can assure the House they will be earnest in purpose and based on some experience. I know quite well that in the early stages of responsibility for a war there is a perhaps natural disinclination on the part of any constituted power to recognise that its main capacity is not equal to the need of the times, and then when the need arises, when the pressure comes, when a great amount of sickness develops, there is no organisation ready and prepared to afford the civilian aid which is always ready in this country and properly available. Very often offers are accepted and forms of civilian aid are taken which are not the best that might be secured if

      799
      earlier consideration had been given to the subject. Therefore, I only rise for the purpose of saying that, because there is no need now, and apparently no evidence of need, yet it should not be taken for granted that that need will not arise, and every possible step should be taken by the War Office to avail itself of civilian aid and to do something towards organising civilian aid, or allowing civilian aid to organise itself, to meet the medical needs, at least, of the soldiers in this country.
      4.0 P.M.
      Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The point raised by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is a very important one, not only in the interests of the Territorial Force or the recruits who are stationed in the towns or county villages, but also to the public health in the various districts. I am very much surprised to learn that in a district mentioned by the hon. Member there was no isolation hospital belonging to anybody. That indicates to me that the place is very badly governed.
      Mr. PRETYMAN: There is a small cottage where a few people can be put, but there is no proper isolation hospital.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: That indicates that there is a very serious lack of control on the part of the local authority. I am going to make a suggestion to the War Office which is a practical one. In all our well-governed towns and counties throughout the country we have a very large number of isolation hospitals. These hospitals are more or less occupied in many cases; for instance, we have small-pox hospitals, which are not used at all. I would advise the War Office to get into communication with every local authority of a district where troops are stationed, so that when the first case of scarlet-fever, typhoid, or any other infectious disease occurs, I am quite sure the local authority will make all provision to isolate that case and prevent any epidemic. That is the only way, unless the War Office itself makes adequate provision for hospital accommodation. Where they do not, the local authorities might, and would, in my opinion, provide accommodation for the first cases, so as to prevent an epidemic.
      800
      I should like to say one word with regard to the question of recruiting raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). I have had ten days' experience inside a recruiting office in my own town, and have seen there the very serious defects of the War Office with regard to recruiting. Here again I should like to make one or two practical suggestions to the War Office as to the difficulties of which I have experienced, which we ourselves overcame by disregarding their method. It was heart breaking to see men, who had given up their situations in which they had been earning from £2 to £5 a week and who had come forward, compelled to stay about a recruiting office, in some cases for three or four days. I was quite willing to try to rectify this very serious delay. The delay is caused in this way: The officer sent down by the War Office to organise the recruiting office was, in my opinion, lacking in the essential knowledge to organise a recruiting office in the proper way. There are five forms to be filled up for every recruit. That takes up an enormous amount of time. In the case in which I was interested in my own town the War Office had only provided one medical register, and the physical condition of every man examined by the doctor had to be entered up in that medical register. We found from experience that the doctor could pass about 200 men per day, while the clerk extracting information from the medical register and writing up the five forms necessary before the man could be sworn in by the magistrate could only turnout on an average three or four per hour. That meant that he could not turn out more than thirty or forty papers per day, while the doctor was turning out over 200 per day. We experienced congestion there. What we did was to disregard the book and to make extracts in the form of sheets.
      I suggest to the War Office that they should disregard the book and that the particulars which a doctor has to note as to a recruit's height, chest measurement, and physical condition, should be placed upon a sheet, and that those sheets should be provided by the War Office. Then you could get nine or ten men to extract the information from those sheets, instead of getting one clerk to extract them

      801
      from the book. I hope the House will understand the point. We were able by this means to provide a very large surplus number of men ready to pass the recruiting officer, and at one stage we had 160 men ready under our system for the recruiting officer. It is the medical register which causes the detention of these men. A very large number of these men had been called up as Reservists. They depended upon receiving the bounty the following day, but they had no chance under the old system, and therefore this new system was adopted. As recruiting is more or less suspended at the present time, I suggest that the War Office should put one man in every recruiting district and make him responsible, because the recruiting officer himself cannot look after the whole organisation, as he is engaged the whole day approving the recruits and passing them into their several units. We have seen this suggestion carried out in my own town with success. There is nothing more depressing to a man than that he should be compelled to stay about a recruiting office for three, four, or even five days unemployed. Many of these men got tired and wanted to go back to their work, because they were discouraged by the system. We had great difficulty in getting them to continue with their recruiting on account of this very serious delay. I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising the question with regard to the pay for the wives and compensation. I notice the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) shakes his head. I thought I was treading on rather dangerous ground. I hope, however, in view of the meetings which are now taking place in different parts of the country that the War Office will attend to the recruiting conditions and give better facilities for passing the recruits. If men are passed by the doctor, they ought to be passed in at least two days by the recruiting officer.
      Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: With regard to what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said as to the detention of recruits after they have been examined and the inadequate provision made for them, may I say I have had considerable experience of the matter since the War broke out, and I can only say that the reason for these difficulties was that im-
      802
      mediately on mobilisation the recruiting staff was necessarily called away, and a new staff was provided which had not, I quite agree, adequate knowledge of the district in which they were placed. That was unavoidable, but the War Office and the various recruiting staffs in the different parts of Yorkshire, of which I can specially speak, did their utmost to meet those difficulties, have met them to a very great extent at present, and are providing further facilities for the future. These recruiting officers have worked night and day to try to get their offices in order. They have done extremely well, and have been supported by the War Office. Sometimes I have had to criticise the War Office, but on this occasion I think the War Office has worked well and done their very best. It is rather unfair to come down and blame them when you have now an entirely new staff and have not got non-commissioned officers to fill up these forms, which, I agree, are very complicated and difficult to fill up. When we are making every endeavour to put these recruiting offices in order, the criticisms of the hon. Member are rather belated and unfair to the War Office and recruiting offices in the different districts. One thing which has immensely alleviated our difficulties has been that the War Office has now granted 3s. a day to those men for whom we cannot provide accommodation in the depot or barracks—that is, 3s. a day to provide for messing allowance until the men are sent forward. I do not know whether the hon. Member was aware of that.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Oh, yes.
      Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I feel very grateful to the War Office for having done this. I think it is possible to make the attestation forms more simple. That would enable us to get the men through quicker. I hope the War Office will make a note of that; in fact, I am sure they will. I deprecate the calling of recruiting officers over the coals. They have done their very best, and have done a great deal to alleviate the difficulties we first experienced.
      Colonel YATE: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War a question with reference to what has been said as to the inadequate provision

      803
      of clothing and equipment for the Territorial Force. Is he aware that this want of provision of clothing and equipment is largely due to the autocratic or the centralising action of the War Office itself? In one case, which I can call to mind, the County Territorial Association wrote asking for permission to expend a certain portion of their reserve funds in providing a complete set of spare clothing for all their men. The War Office wrote back absolutely refusing to give permission. The association again applied and urged that they should be allowed to purchase the clothing, but the War Office wrote back and said that if they dared to do such a thing they would surcharge them. The consequence was that when mobilisation came, all that clothing which would have been ready was absolutely wanting. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the measures of devolution recommended by my hon. Friend should be more largely enforced, and that the County Territorial Associations should be allowed to do the work which has been entrusted to them without this autocratic action on the part of the War Office.
      Major MORRISON-BELL: In connection with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) I would refer to the statement issued by the War Office on Saturday, or yesterday, that they have plenty of clothing. If that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get that clothing released as soon as possible? There are Reservists who have been called up for three weeks—they are not new men, but Reservists—who are still in plain clothes. If the War Office has all this clothing handy it should be issued forthwith, and they should hurry up the Pimlico Clothing Department and get the clothing sent out. There is a great deal in the men having their uniform. I should like to answer one point raised by an hon. Member opposite, who accused the War Office of not having sufficient equipment for the Territorials. The difficulty arises really from the fact that the enemy are not playing the game by not allowing us that six months which his party always contemplated.
      Mr. HAMILTON: I wish to emphasise the remark of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) as to the great import-
      804
      ance of the War Office utilising local committees for the organisation of our New Army. When we passed the Committee stage of this Bill last week we had a great scheme before us of a Central Committee, and devolution to Territorial Associations, which were to be strengthened for equipping and assisting in recruiting, assisting in finding camps, and generally organising the New Army of one million men which we are now voting. Since that Committee stage further orders have gone forth from the War Office. We have been working in the country helping to organise committees to carry out this work—volunteer civilians who do not ask for any pay, who are prepared to give their whole time, business men who will give up their businesses and go and help in any centre where they are asked, and devote themselves entirely as business men to seeing that this Army is comfortable, properly fed and equipped, and as rapidly as possible training centres, small or large, are found, huts or tents are put up, and public buildings are utilised. These men who have done this—and I am one of them, and have been at it for two or three days—have, suddenly received instructions by telegram from the War Office to say that their further services are not required, and that the War Office is going to undertake the entire duty of equipping the New Army. I have every confidence in the War Office, and I believe they are doing splendid work. I do not want to criticise them in any way, but I want to try, as far as I can, to persuade them that there are volunteer civilians, capable business men, who are prepared to give their time and their energy, not to take the place of the War Office, but merely to assist their representatives in various districts. I know from my own experience that the officers commanding depots, and recruiting officers and others, are absolutely worked to death at present, and the War Office held out under their nose this tempting bait of civilian assistance, and now they have withdrawn it again, and these poor fellows are plunged back into the abyss of overwork.
      As regards the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Samuel), I can assure him that in Lancashire and Cheshire we have gone much further than he went. We have had nothing but civilians in the recruiting

      805
      offices: in many cases magistrates have assisted civilian doctors in examining and passing the medical test, volunteer clerks filling up attestation forms, and perhaps one recruiting officer loafing about in the background and approving them when they were passed. Even they in some cases were volunteer retired officers who came down in uniform and did the work themselves. I want the War Office to reconsider their decision. If they are going to deal with these men decently it must, in my opinion, be done with the help of civilians. I do not want to cast any slur upon soldiers at home, but all their best colleagues and non-commissioned officers are doing other work and are more usefully employed. We civilians who cannot go out and fight can, at any rate, assist in this work for the War Office, and we are only too anxious to do it. I should not have raised my voice on the subject at all at present only that I know that the House of Commons will very soon be prorogued, and then we shall have lost control. It is just as well to put on record the ambition of the civilians to bully their Members of Parliament—in every Division, I am sure, it is the same—and ask, "Why cannot we help in this congestion? Why cannot you get us permission to rig up a committee, and we will give you our time and our service and do everything we can for nothing?"
      Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Would the Financial Secretary deal with the question of recruiting in Essex? Some two weeks ago we were told not to recruit the Essex Regiment because it was full, except for ordinary long-service men. That held good for about a week. Then we were told there might be a 1,000 new men in the Essex Regiment, so we recruited 1,000, and two or three days ago we were told that the Essex Regiment was full again, and we could not any longer recruit in Essex for the Essex Regiment. I put it to the Government that it is very much more easy to recruit for a regiment which bears the county title. It does not very much matter what happens to the regiment afterwards, whether it is sent not to the regular depot, but is attached somewhere else for the purpose of training, but for goodness sake let us be able to tell our men that they can join the county regiment! Would
      806
      the hon. Gentleman say what the policy of the War Office is with regard to that, and whether extra service battalions will be created, and whether it will be publicly notified that they will be created, so that we can continue to recruit for these regiments? There is another point I should like him to deal with. We are in some difficulty by the quick change in the qualifications of recruits. The height and chest measurements have been increased. There is a large number of men who had made up their minds to join, but for various reasons were unable to join last week. They had arrangements to make with their employers, or they had some small job to finish, but they were coming in to-day or to-morrow. These men now find that although they were qualified last week, they are not qualified this week, and if they go and are refused on the ground that they are not up to the standard, they are sent back. Perhaps in some cases they have even abandoned their work at the end of last week. In cases not as bad as that, if they are refused on the ground that they are not up to standard, I think the Government will find that it will be very difficult to get them out again if the standard is subsequently reduced.
      I understand the policy is to recruit another 500,000 men. No doubt the Government has considered whether they are going to get 500,000 on the very severe standard which is now enforced. If the idea is merely to mark time in recruiting would it not be better to take the names of men who would be willing to come in when vacancies occur rather than to increase the standard now and perhaps drop it at a future date, because these men who are cut out by the present high standard will not be willing to come forward later seeing that there is bound to be in their minds some argument of this sort: "When I wanted to go, you would not have me, and now you ask me to go, I will not go"? People will come if they are asked for in a proper way, but they will not come if they think they are being fooled, and it seems to me it would be far better for the Government, rather than alter the standard, frankly to say, "We have as many men as we want for the moment but we should like the names to be taken of others who will come, so

      807
      that we can give them notice when the time comes and we are ready to deal with them." I should also like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can get rid of that duplicate form. There is no doubt the forms are extremely complicated and a great deal of time will be saved if they could be simplified. Between now and the next outburst of recruiting, would it not be possible to simplify the forms, perhaps by dropping the duplicate form?
      Mr. W. PEARCE: Without any desire to criticise the War Office, I think they are really attempting too much. I have come from a district within the last two or three days where there are three or four camps, and nearly 20,000 men are being taken care of, and the impression I got was that it was impossible to do the whole of this work effectively from the War Office in London and that sufficient power was not given to the local authorities. From using my eyes and observation generally, the impression I got was that the work might be done very much more quickly and more effectively if more local power were given to the authorities themselves, and the whole thing was not managed by the War Office.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): A number of valuable suggestions have been made this afternoon, and I can assure hon. Members who have made them that they shall be submitted to the proper authorities at the War Office, and shall receive the fullest consideration. There was a powerful plea put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Hamilton), and also by the last speaker, that we should introduce a larger element of local assistance into our work. I think in principle that is an admirable thing. But this condition, of course, must be observed, that it should be fitted harmoniously and properly into the military machine. So far as that can be done it will be an aid and not a hindrance. The arguments which have been used in favour of that plan will receive the fullest attention. Then there was the suggestion with regard to hospitals which came from the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman), and which has been supported by others. That, too, I will see is properly submitted to the medical authorities
      808
      Some of the suggestions which have been made can hardly be met across the floor of the House by a direct answer at the present moment—some of the points which were raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington Evans), for example—but with regard to the question of local regiments the general policy of the War Office is to make the fullest use of the spirit and the energy which comes from the localities themselves, and although, of course, I cannot say what particular orders may have been given in one particular case, he may be assured that the general idea in the mind of the Secretary of State, which is still being carried out, is to make regiments with local designations, relying on local feeling and a local supply of recruits.
      Then there was one other matter, the question of county associations, which was touched on by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate). I do not think they stated that matter really quite fairly to the War Office. These associations before the War broke out had clothing and equipment not merely for the strength of the battalions in their charge but for the establishment, and they have been able to draw on that to meet the influx of recruits which has come to them since the outbreak of war. Certainly it is not quite fair to say there has been a deficiency of provision by associations owing to any financial stringency at the War Office. You need only turn to that annual Report of their finances which comes to this House every year to see the large number of associations which have handsome surpluses, and it must be admitted that they have been treated with great generosity by the War Office, and have also managed their own affairs with great skill.
      Colonel YATE: The case I brought forward was a case where they had a surplus and proposed to invest it in duplicate sets of clothing, and the War Office refused to allow them to do so.
      Mr. BAKER: That is quite true. The point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that they were not allowed to provide duplicate sets. I think he will see that it is not a good plan to allow varying practice with local associations—some in a position to introduce a duplicate set and

      809
      some not. You must have one uniform rule in this matter if you are to know where you stand. We at the War Office neither hope, nor expect, nor wish to escape criticism. The criticism to which we have been subjected this afternoon has almost all, if not all, been of a helpful kind, but I should like to endorse the plea put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Ward) against criticism by way of anticipation which might fairly be postponed to a later period. We have had very little indeed of that, and I acknowledge most gratefully the way in which the House has dealt with the many matters in their minds which concern the Army.
      Major MORRISON-BELL: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will do his best to expedite the clothing of the Reserves—not the new men?
      Mr. BAKER: I will make a note of that.
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS.

    COMPASSIONATE GRATUITIES TO DEPENDANTS.
    Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts and to make further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the grant of compassionate gratuities to the dependants of persons dying whilst in an employment to which Section four of the Superannuation Act, 1887, applies; for the grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service; and for the increase of the amount of pension, superannuation, and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section two of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and Section seven of the Superannuation Act, 1887, apply."
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to know from the Government something about this Resolution and the Bill which is to be
    810
    founded upon it. I gather from a Notice of Motion on the Paper it is proposed that the several stages of the Superannuation Bill may be taken immediately, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill. Up to the present moment I have not been able to get a copy of the Bill, and therefore I have not the slightest idea what is in it. I think it is a little bit strong, not only to ask the House to agree to this Resolution, but also to pass through its various stages a Bill which nobody has seen. I hope that some explanation will be given at this stage of the Resolution and of the proposals to be made. As regards the Resolution, I would point out that the amount required has not been put down. I dare say there may be exceptional reasons for that, but I would remind the House of the excellent plan which has grown up of putting in some limit to the amount.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: That was done after a representation on the subject which was made by me.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: My hon. Friend says it was done as the result of a representation which he made. If he will excuse me for saying so, it was done on my representation. My real reason for rising now is to ask for some information about the Resolution, and also about the Bill which is to follow.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The subject matter of the Resolution is stated in its terms, but I did not wish to exhaust my right to speak until I knew what were the views of hon. Members in regard to the Resolution on which I shall introduce the Bill. If, after my explanation, the hon. Member (Mr. Rawlinson) would prefer to carefully investigate the provisions of the Bill before we take the several stages, then, of course, the Government would not persist in asking the House to proceed with all the stages this afternoon, but I do hope we will be allowed to get the First and Second Readings to-day, even if the hon. Member does not let us have all the stages. The Bill is not definitely of the class of Emergency Bills, that is to say, it was proposed to introduce a Bill something of this nature before the War broke out. It was then decided not

    811
    to introduce the Bill this Session, because the Session was protracted. Certain parts of the Bill were re-examined after the War broke out, and it was thought that the House would consider it a non-controversial measure. That being so, it was considered that as its provisions would be advantageous in respect of certain persons, the House might be asked to consent to the measure. There are six operative Clauses. The first Clause enables a gratuity earned by a Civil servant to be paid to his representatives after death without waiting for probate, provided that the gratuity is not over £100. That can already be done with regard to pensions, but it cannot be done with regard to gratuities, and it does seem a hard case that a small gratuity payable to relatives in distress should not be paid without delay. Therefore, the first Clause enables the machinery for payments of gratuities to be analogous to that for the payment of pensions.
    The second Clause deals with what the House will agree is a very hard case. A Civil servant who retires is entitled to a certain pension or gratuity. If the Civil servant dies in the service, his relatives are entitled to a certain different gratuity. There is one stage in the life of a Civil servant when the amount of the gratuity which his representatives will receive, if he dies in the service, is less than the amount which they will receive if he has resigned before his death. It is proposed to do away with that anomaly and hardship by making the gratuity no less at any time, whether he dies in the service or resigns previously. The fourth Clause does the same for the unestablished Civil servant as is done for the established Civil servant. Under the Superannuation Acts, as they at present exist, after fifteen years of service an unestablished Civil servant who retires gets a gratuity; if he dies in the Service he gets nothing. It has often been pointed out to the House that this is a very great hardship. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) and the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division (Lord Robert Cecil), and Clause 3 will make the gratuity equal whether the servant dies in the service or dies out
    812
    of it at the end of a particular term of service. Clause 4 deals with another hardship. If a man, having completed a term of service in the Civil Service which would entitle him to a gratuity or pension is lent to a foreign or Colonial Government, and never returns to the Civil Service again he is unable to get the gratuity or pension earned in the Civil Service of this country. I have in my mind a case where a man has been lent to the Egyptian Government. He has reached the age of sixty-two and he cannot get the pension earned in this country before he was lent to the Egyptian Government. Clause 5 deals with the only recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service on the general question of superannuation. It deals with the power which different Departments now have of making appointments, without the control of the Civil Service Commissioners, of what are called professional people who have special qualifications for particular posts. The Royal Commission reported that it had often been alleged that this led to jobs. A majority of the Royal Commission stigmatised the system as undesirable. That was the only general recommendation which was made, and we thought legislation on the subject might be included in this Bill. It does away with the power of heads of Departments to make such appointments without reference to the Civil Service Commissioners, and it also does away with the practice of professional people of this kind, appointed without the consent of the Civil Service Commissioners, having added to their pensions what are called added years. So long ago as 1888 the Ridley Commission reported that if you wish to engage professional people, you ought to give them the certain prospect of a sufficient salary rather than the ultimate and uncertain prospect of an enhanced pension.
    The only other Clause is one which deals with pensions and gratuities of Civil Servants who, after they have received their pensions, become pauper lunatics. I need not bother the House with details of the way in which this anomaly works. Under the law, as it at present stands, a deduction is made of 4s. a week. It was to replace the Parliamentary Grants which were made towards the maintenance of

    813
    pauper lunatics, but it has led to a great number of hardships as regards the dependants of those unfortunate people, and it does not mean any diminution in the contributions to the local authorities in respect of the maintenance of the lunatics. The hon. Member (Mr. Rawlinson) will see how difficult it is to make an exact estimate of the cost, or, at all events, a sufficiently accurate estimate to be put into the Resolution, but if he will allow me to furnish him with a verbal estimate of the cost of these Clauses, I would say that Clauses 1 and 5 mean no charge. Clause 2 which equalises the death gratuities for established servants will cost about £6,000. Clause 3, which equalises the death gratuities for unestablished servants, will cost about £4,000. Clause 4, which deals with servants who are lent to foreign and Colonial Governments, will cost, so far as I can gather, about £1,000 a year, and Clause 6 about £4,000, making a total of about £15,000.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will take the opportunity presented by this Bill to do away with the great injustice of the commutation of pensions having to be calculated on a 5 per cent. basis instead of a 3½ per cent. basis? Will there be a legislative remedy provided for that in the present Bill?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the hon. Gentleman. We are now debating the Financial Resolution, and we are shortly to be asked to suspend the customary Rules which guard the procedure of this House, and to pass the whole of the stages of the Bill founded upon this Resolution. I want to know why we should violate the whole of the principles which are usually followed by the House in order to pass this Bill in the way proposed. I believe I am correct in saying that there has been no action of this sort since 1872, when a Bill was passed in the same way owing to a great national emergency.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the provisions of the Bill in a discussion on the Resolution. His comments on the Bill will be in order later on.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite aware that the hon. Gentleman was out of order during the whole of his speech, because he dealt with the Bill, and you have often ruled that on a Resolution we must not discuss the Bill, but that such discussion must be deferred until the Bill is before us; but as you allowed the hon. Gentleman to go on, and as we are now proceeding in a most extraordinary fashion generally, I presume that, as you have allowed him to make a speech which was out of order, perhaps it would be more convenient if we discussed the Bill at this moment, and I venture most humbly to suggest that as the hon. Gentleman was allowed to make his speech, naturally, according to the custom of the House, I can reply to that speech which was out of order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Baronet that the Bill is founded on the Resolution, and if the Resolution were not passed, the Bill could not be proceeded with, and I would venture to suggest to the hon. Baronet that he should confine himself to the Resolution.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If you think it better for me to make my remarks to the hon. Member on the next Motion, I shall be quite willing to do so.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: With regard to the propriety of dealing with it in the manner proposed by the next Motion, we had better dispose of that when the time comes. We are now on the Resolution, and the hon. Baronet can proceed to deal with that now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My real objection is to taking this Motion, and the following Motion immediately afterwards. This Bill is an ordinary Departmental Bill, and has nothing to do with any emergency of any kind. There is not a single thing in the Bill which has anything to do with the War. It does not even provide that pensions should be paid to people who suffer as the result of the War. The understanding arrived at was that measures of this sort, brought in and passed in this way, should have something to say to the conditions produced by the War.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Bill to amend the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Montagu. Presented accordingly, read the first time, and ordered to be printed. [Bill 405.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the several stages of the Superannuation Bill may be taken immediately, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill."—[The Prime Minister.]
    Mr. MONTAGU: I had hoped that the hon. Baronet would see his way to expedite the discussion of this Bill, as it is one which would assist materially a number of people who will suffer, but after the protest which he has made, I will not persist if he thinks that this Motion should not be proceeded with.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should prefer that this Motion should not be made. We are in this difficulty. We have not got the Bill. I inquired for it in the Vote Office over an hour ago, and the Bill was not in print. We can only form an opinion of what this Bill contains from the very clear explanation of the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing in his statement which shows that the Bill is connected, directly, or indirectly, with the War. That being the case I must raise a protest against the Government attempting to bring forward in this manner Departmental or other Bills, however good they may be. We have given the Government great facility in passing measures, and advantage must not be taken of that facility to pass small Bills, however good they may be, by this procedure, and I therefore must object to this Bill proceeding.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Bill is now available, and I hope that after reading it the hon. Baronet will reconsider his decision. Meantime I will put the Resolution down for to-morrow, when the Second Reading will be taken.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    RATES (PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

    RATES (PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY) BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Time for Taking Proceedings for Recovery of Rates.)
      Section eleven of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, which limits the time within which proceedings may be commenced, shall not apply to any proceedings for the recovery of any rate where it is proved that the institution of the proceedings has been deferred for the purpose of allowing time to persons who by reason of circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the present War are temporarily unable.
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I beg to propose to leave out the words "where it is proved that."
      This Amendment arises out of a discussion which took place on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: After the word "deferred," insert the words "by the rating authority."
      At the end of the Clause, add the words "to pay the rate."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties for Trading with Enemy.)
      (1) Any person who during the present War trades or has, since the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, traded with the enemy within the meaning of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall—

      (a) on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine; or

      817

      (b) on conviction on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven or less than three years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine;

      and the Court may in any case order that any goods or money, in respect of which the offence has been committed, be forfeited.
      (2) For the purposes of this Act a person shall be deemed to have traded with the enemy if he has entered into any transaction or done any act which was at the time of such transaction or act prohibited by or under any Proclamation issued by His Majesty dealing with trading with the enemy for the time being in force, or which at common law or by Statute constitutes an offence of trading with the enemy:
      Provided that any transaction or act permitted by or under any such Proclamation shall not be deemed to be trading with the enemy.
      (3) Where a company has entered into a transaction or has done any act which is an offence under this Section, every director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the transaction or act shall also be deemed guilty of the offence.
      (4) A prosecution for an offence under this Section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General:
      Provided that the person charged with such an offence may be arrested and a warrant for his arrest may be issued and executed, and such person may be remanded in custody or on bail notwithstanding that the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution of the prosecution for the offence has not been obtained, but no further or other proceedings shall be taken until that consent has been obtained.
      (5) Where an act constitutes an offence both under this Act and under any other Act, or both under this Act and at common law, the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either this Act or such other Act, or under this Act or at common law, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move that the Clause be omitted.
      This Bill applies to enemies who are persons trading in Germany, but it does not go to the bottom of the evil of Germans trading in this country. The Proclamation which this Bill is meant to enforce is under paragraph (3). The expression "enemy" in the Proclamation means a person or body of persons, of whatever nationality, resident or carrying on business in the enemy country. That does not include persons of the enemy nationality who are neither resident in, nor carrying on business in the enemy country. There are a great many cases—I have got one specially before me—of companies which are essentially enemy companies, carrying on in this country, whose boards are entirely composed of Germans, and which have been established in this country for the express purpose of undermining British trade. My contention is that companies in that position are exactly in the same position as those which are carrying on business in the enemy country. Why should not this Proclamation be put into operation against the evils of such companies? I have got here the names of all the directors and shareholders of the company which I have in mind. I shall not mention the company at present, but I shall be glad to show this list to the right, hon. Gentleman. The letter which I have got accompanying it, says:—
      "The works of this company were established with the sole object of undermining British trade in this particular manufacture. It has been the practice for this company to endeavour to find out the prices quoted to their British customers by British manufacturers, and then for this company to quote a lower price, and even to continue quoting lower and lower until under cost price was reached. Many British consumers fell into the trap, but others fortunately were wiser. The evident object of this company was to destroy British manufacture, and these manufacturers once destroyed, the trade would have gone over to the German concerns, the immediate effect being that there would have been a general rise of prices in Germany, as against this country, and British consumers would have had to pay abnormally high prices to the German manufacturers."
      I would like to have an answer to the question, how it is that the Proclamation could not be made to apply to cases of this description? It does not appear from the wording of the Proclamation that they are included. I cannot imagine why any Regulation applying to a company in the enemy country should not apply to a company of this sort. I have no objection to

      819
      this Bill, and I do not want to move the omission of this Clause, except to get an answer to my question.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member's objection is to the Proclamation, perhaps he will find another opportunity to put the questions which he desires to have answered.
      Mr. ROBERTS: I should be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if I could have this question answered. To put myself in order, I object to this Clause so long as my point is not included.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member could put that point on the Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. ROBERTS: I think that I am entitled to ask why the Bill does not go further, but I quite agree.
      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Inspect Books and Documents.)
      (1) If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on information laid on behalf of a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been or is about to be committed by any person, firm, or company, he may issue a warrant authorising any person appointed by a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade and named in the warrant to inspect all books or documents belonging to or under the control of that person, firm, or company, and to require any person able to give any information with respect to the business or trade of that person, firm, or company to give that information, and if accompanied by a constable to enter and search any premises used in connection with the business or trade, and to seize any such books or documents as aforesaid:
      Provided that when it appears to a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary, a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade may, by written order, give to a person appointed by him or them the like authority as may
      820
      be given by a warrant of a justice under this Sub-section.
      (2) Where it appears to the Board of Trade—

      (a) in the case of a firm, that one of the partners in the firm was immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the present War a subject of, or resident or carrying on business in, a state for the time being at war with His Majesty; or

      (b) in the case of a company, that one third or more of the issued share capital or of the directorate of the company immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the present War was held by or consisted of persons who were subjects of, or resident or carrying on business in, a state for the time being at war with His Majesty; or

      (c) in the case of a firm or company, that the firm or company were or are acting as agents for any person, firm, or company trading or carrying on business in a state for the time being at war with His Majesty;

      the Board of Trade may, if they think it expedient for the purpose of satisfying themselves that the firm or company are not trading with the enemy, by written order, give to a person appointed by them, without any warrant from a justice, authority to inspect all books and documents belonging to or under the control of the firm or company, and to require any person able to give information with respect to the business or trade of that firm or company, to give that information.
      For the purposes of this Sub-section, any person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade may inspect the register of members of a company at any time, and any shares in a company for which share warrants to bearer have been issued shall not be reckoned as part of the issued share capital of the company.
      (3) If any person having the custody of any book or document which a person is authorised to inspect under this Section refuses or wilfully neglects to produce it for inspection, or if any person who is able to give any information which may be required to be given under this Section refuses or wilfully neglects when required to give that information, that person shall

      821
      on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I beg to move in Sub-section (2) paragraph (b) after the word "by" to insert the words "or on behalf of."
      I will not deal fully now with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but he will be interested to see the change which has been suggested, because Clause 2 and Clause 3 bear a great deal on the matter which he is raising. The object of this Amendment is in order that the powers of the Board of Trade to inspect the accounts of a company which has anything like a predominantly hostile composition may not only extend to cases where the directorate or share capital is predominantly German, but also to cases where the share capital is held on behalf of persons who satisfy that condition. There are many cases, of course, where nominees hold shares, and the control and operation of these companies could be arranged by the transfer of shares to nominees, and the object of this Amendment is to give power to deal with that state of affairs.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Sir J. SIMON: There are two or three other small verbal changes in Clause 2. I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), after the word "a" ["in the case of a"], to insert the word "person."
      5.0 P.M.
      As the Committee passed the Clause, the power which the Board of Trade had conferred upon them was limited to a firm or company. It appears to us that that power ought to be enlarged to cover also the case of an individual person. As the Clause stands it would be limited to a firm or company, and I want to get the consent of the House to the insertion of the word "person," so that the paragraph will run "in the case of a firm or company or person," acting as agents for any person, firm, or company trading or carrying on business in a State for the time being at War with His Majesty. In any of those cases the Board of Trade may exercise the power to inspect the books
      822
      in order to see what is the trade which is being carried on, and to stop it supposing it finds that it is against the law.
      Amendment agreed to; consequential Amendments made.
      Sir J. SIMON: The Amendment which I am now about to move is a substantial one. The House will remember that on Thursday, when we reached Clause 3, the discussion went to show that Clause 3 needed to be a little further considered. I have done my best to give it further consideration, but, since the House did not sit on Friday, it was not possible to circulate with the Votes the suggested changes which appear on the printed paper, copies of which could be obtained at the Vote Office, and I assume that some hon. Members have provided themselves with them. In calling hon. Members attention to Clause 3. I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield will also observe that it really docs, though in a different form, go a very long way to meet the point which he raised just now. The scheme of the Bill is this: In Clause 1 we provide penalties for trading with the enemy, whether that be a common law offence, or whether it be a breach of the Proclamation. Then by Clause 2 we provide for the inspection of the books and documents of persons, firms or companies against whose trade there may be suspicion, with the intervention of a magistrate; in other cases such as the hon. Gentleman referred to, where the firm or company or person gives rise to suspicion, the Board of Trade may find out what are the facts. Of course, if it is found out, as the result of the inspection, that it is a case where there is really trade going on with the enemy, they can then prosecute. Then comes Clause 3, which is now in the form in which I ask the House to accept it. I hope and believe that it will really meet the difficulty which has been raised in regard to the Bill. I propose that the Clause shall run in this way. I put it down as an Amendment because it is so much easier to follow it than if it were moved in a series of scraps and odds and ends. Those hon. Members who have provided themselves with a copy of the Amendment will find that the beginning of the Clause is a little modi-

      823
      fied, and the conditions apply to paragraph (b) only, and, having said that, the Clause which I ask to have accepted runs in this way:—
      "Where it appears to the Board of Trade in reference to any firm or company,

      (a) that an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed in connection with the trade or business thereof; or

      (b) that the control or management thereof has been or is likely to be so affected by the state of war as to prejudice the effective continuance of its trade or "business, and that it is in the public interest that the trade or business should continue to be carried on"—

      if either of those conditions are satisfied—
      "the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court for the appointment of a controller of the firm or company, and the High Court shall have power to appoint such a controller for such time and subject to such conditions and with such powers as the Court thinks fit, and the powers so conferred shall be either those of a receiver and manager, or those powers subject to such modifications, restrictions or extensions as the Court thinks fit (including, if the Court considers it necessary or expedient for enabling the controller to borrow money, power to create charges on the property of the firm or company in priority to existing charges)."

      I hope that the House will think that in the form now suggested we really have done something to meet the case which was raised. Let me point out the fundamental principles of the Clause. It is directed to two classes of cases, and, in either event, the intention is that the Board of Trade shall be able to apply to the Court for the appointment of someone who will keep the business under control. The first case is that where an offence under the Act has been committed, or where it is likely to be committed, in the judgment of the Board of Trade. It is hardly necessary to say that a great deal of correspondence comes to the Board
      824
      of Trade from different quarters calling attention to these enterprises, and, of course, it is the business of the Department to do its utmost to keep an eye on such cases. You cannot legislate, and I venture to say you ought not to legislate, to suppress some enterprises in this country, the composition of which may appear to be preponderantly German or Austrian. It would be a most short sighted policy, and it would throw many people out of employment while gravely embarrassing certain branches of trade. In itself that would be indefensible, and obviously it would have the effect of leading to reprisals. That is not at all the way in which we wish to stand before the world. But that is quite a different thing from those cases in which the enterprises are under some suspicion and which require to be adequately surveyed and controlled. Therefore, wherever an offence has been committed, or wherever the Board of Trade thinks it likely that an offence will be committed, in connection with those enterprises, they are to have power to apply to the Court for a controller. They would never think of exercising that power on the mere information of some possibly biassed or possibly jealous competitors in this country. It would be intolerable. But wherever there is the slightest ground for interference, I think we may be confident that the Board of Trade will discharge their duty.
      The second case is quite different, but just as important. There are certain enterprises which have been carried on in this country in times of peace—in the chemical trade and some other trades—which are mainly important for our own industries. The Lancashire trade, for example, is in danger of stopping because their direction in times of peace has been largely in the hands of those who have now left in order to take part on the side of our enemy in this War. Of course, our object is to preserve such enterprises for our own national benefit, and for our own national purposes, and, therefore, they must be preserved. We provide, in the second place, that in any case "where the control or management of a firm or company has been or is likely to be so affected by the state of war as to prejudice the

      825
      effective continuance of the trade or business, and that it is in the public interest that the trade or business should continue to be carried on," the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court. By that means some of these subsidiary industries, which have been necessary in order to maintain our great staple industries in this country, can be kept going in circumstances where it is to the public interest to keep them going, and where there is some danger of their otherwise languishing. Our object, of course, is not to put a spoke in the wheel of British native industries, but, in so far as the public interest requires, that application may be made by the Board of Trade to the Court for the appointment of a controller.
      We avoid the use of the word "receiver," which is not a very happy word, if I may say so in the presence of the distinguished example I see opposite. We think the word "controller" is preferable. We do not mean to ask the Court to appoint an official for the control of a business which is in financial straits. Our object, indeed, is very much more like management and control than what is ordinarily implied by the use of the word "receiver." We propose that the Court shall be asked to define the powers the controller may exercise, the Court will have the duty of judging what is proper, and we shall be able to ask it to confer such powers as are necessary and proper in the circumstances of the case. The final words of the Clause are ("if the Court considers it necessary or expedient for enabling the controller to borrow money, power to create charges on the property of the firm or company in priority to existing charges"). Those words are inserted merely for the purpose of meeting any exceptional case that may arise where such power is necessary or right. Of course it is perfectly obvious that no Court will ever confer that power unless the very special circumstances of the case make it right to authorise their exercise. I should imagine that the Court would always, in conferring such powers, require a subsequent application to be made before granting them. The words have been put in because cases have been brought to our attention in which it seemed desirable to make that provision. These are the most important features of this Amendment, which involves rather a substantial change
      826
      of the Clause, and now framed in rather clearer terms, and I hope it will meet the difficulty raised and the criticisms which were made on Thursday last. I beg to move.
      Question proposed: To leave out all the words after the first word "Where," and to insert instead thereof the words,
      "it appears to the Board of Trade in reference to any firm or company,

      (a) that an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed in connection with the trade or business thereof; or

      (b) that the control or management thereof has been or is likely to be so affected by the state of war as to prejudice the effective continuance of its trade or business;

      and that it is in the public interest that the trade or business should continue to be carried on, the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court for the appointment of a controller of the firm or company, and the High Court shall have power to appoint such a controller, for such time and subject to such conditions and with such powers as the Court thinks fit, and the powers so conferred shall be either those of a receiver and manager or those powers subject to such modifications, restrictions or extensions, as the Court thinks fit (including, if the Court considers it necessary or expedient for enabling the controller to borrow money, power to create charges on the property of the firm or company in priority to existing charges)."
      Sir F. BANBURY: I do not in any kind of way desire to criticise or object to any part of the Amendment with the exception of the last two lines, which give power to create charges on the property of the firm or company in priority to existing charges. The Attorney-General, I am sure, will agree that a power of that sort is of a very dangerous character. If you are going to interfere with prior charges, you are going to strike a blow at all security and all kinds of credit, and you will enable people and foreign countries to say, where there is a similar case in a foreign country, that money may be borrowed and put in front of the charge which has been given to English credit. The Attorney-General was kind enough to say that he

      827
      agreed that it was a Clause which, I think he said, financial purists would probably very strongly object to. I think myself that a great many more people than financial purists, and I think anybody who has had any experience in finance or been in any kind of way connected with the investment of money or the raising of money for public companies, will agree that words of this sort are very dangerous. The Attorney-General said that he did not think they would probably ever be put into operation, or, at any rate, very rarely. If that is so, why put them in? If they are not going to do any good there is no point in having them in. The mere fact that they are in is certain to be used as a precedent on some other occasion where an attempt is being made to get in front of a prior charge. It is almost certain that it will then be cited that in a certain emergency that has already been done. I do appeal most earnestly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he does not attach very much importance to these words to leave them out. He said he did not think they would ever be acted on, and under those circumstances, and in view of the very great danger which might be created for people who risk money on the fact that they are getting a prior charge. I do hope he will agree to leave those words out. I am afraid I do not see any encouraging sign that he will do so. I would ask, then, will he put in something which would distinguish the power of the Court to do this from the other powers which the Court has got, so that there should be some special indication as to the real seriousness of the application to be brought before the Court, and that it should not be included in the ordinary way with all the other powers of the Court, but that it should only be granted in very exceptional circumstances I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is rather inclined to meet me on that point.
      Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNER: I have in mind the case of importation of cotton from abroad where freight has to be paid, and I think it is absolutely necessary there should be power to enable the controller to borrow money. I quite agree, though, that if there was a mortgage, say, on property, you do not want to have a prior charge to that mortgage
      828
      Subject, however, to some words dealing with that, which I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find, I think it is absolutely necessary to have some provision of this kind in dealing with the big businesses to which this Bill is intended to apply.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I presume that the Court will in some way fix the salary of the controller. Is the country to pay that salary, or will the business in question be charged with the salary? With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, I am rather inclined to think that the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General is sound, for this reason: It will only happen in very exceptional circumstances, where all the directors are enemies and where the controller would not be able to raise any money unless he had the power given under the Amendment. The Court, in adjudicating, would only grant the power in most exceptional cases, and therefore I agree with the Amendment.
      Mr. DENNISS: May I suggest after the words, "power to make charges" to insert the words, "and in exceptional cases in priority to existing charges." I would like to ask as to the first line with regard to firm or company, why it is that there is no mention of person, since in the other Clauses it is person, firm, or company. There is no definition of firm. Does it include a business carried on by a single person? If so, the Clause would be all right, but I do not think the word "firm" would necessarily be construed in law as including the case of a single person. A single person carrying on business is not a firm.
      Mr. SHORTT: Perhaps the difficulty might be met if the power to borrow money and create a charge in priority to existing charges was made the subject of a special application to the Court in each case, so as to secure that it was only done in right and proper cases. I suggest that after the word "power" to insert the words "upon a special application made in each individual case."
      Sir J. SIMON: I really think it is necessary to keep the power in the Court to confer this right to create prior charges, but I am as anxious as anybody to limit it to proper conditions. The suggestion

      829
      made by my hon. Friend seems to me to meet the case fairly, and I hope the hon. Baronet will be, if not content, at any rate acquiescent. I suggest after the word "power" to insert the words "after a special application to the Court for that purpose." Then it would be quite plain that this would not be part of the general discretion, but would be a serious matter which would be brought in terms to the notice of the judicial authority. With regard to the other matter, the Court would have power to direct how the controller's salary was to be provided for, and I think the hon. Member is quite right in thinking that there is no reason why it should fall on public funds. I think if we leave the provision as it is, it is very wide and allows the Court to deal with the matter. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) asks whether it is intended to limit this Clause to firms and companies, and not to include persons. Really, it was done deliberately, and, at any rate, at present I suggest we may leave it at that. There, are other places in the Bill where we do not include persons. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 2, Sub-section 2 (a), that is the case of a firm only, and (b) is the case of a company only, though it is quite true that in (c) the House has inserted a reference to persons. We thought that in this Clause we really had provided for what was substantial by including firm and company. The company is the important thing, and it is the company that is in the minds of hon. Members and of people outside. I do not think since we have power to prosecute individuals that we shall get ourselves into any embarrassment if we keep Clause 3 confined to firms and companies.
      Question. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
      Mr. SHORTT: I beg to propose as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "power" ["power to create charges"], to insert the words "after a special application to the Court for that purpose."
      Amendment, to proposed Amendment, agreed to.
      Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

      CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title and, Construction).
      (1) This Act may be cited as the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1914.
      (2) In this Act the expression "Attorney-General" means the Attorney or Solicitor-General for England, and as respects Scotland means the Lord Advocate, and as respects Ireland means the Attorney or Solicitor-General for Ireland.
      (3) In the application of this Act to Scotland the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for a Secretary of State, and the Court of Session shall be substituted for the High Court; the Court exercising summary jurisdiction shall be the Sheriff Court; references to a justice of the peace shall include references to the sheriff and to a burgh magistrate; and references to a receiver shall be construed as reference to a judicial factor.
      (4) In the application of this Act to Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for a Secretary of State.
      Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "receiver" ["references to a receiver"], insert the words "and manager."
      At the end of the Clause insert the following Sub-section,
      "(5) Anything authorised under this Act to be done by the Board of Trade may be done by the President or a Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Board, or any person authorised in that behalf by the President of the Board."—[Sir J. Simon.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEY(indistinctly heard): I think this is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade to answer a little more fully a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts). It is a case in which a foreign enterprise or agency has been planted on our territory in time of peace for the purpose of undercutting our manufacturers. It is obvious that in time of peace there must always be a large proportion of our workers who look with disfavour upon that kind of foreign enterprise. How much more likely is that to be the case in the wholly artificial state

      831
      of affairs produced by war, when this already artificial extension of foreign enterprise is enabled to enhance and accentuate its injurious operations upon the employment of our own people! In such circumstances our own people are less able to bear the depreciation of the value of their labour, and the foreign enterprise is likely to be more reckless in undercutting than it would be under other circumstances. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that there is a case for consideration.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The case put by the right hon. Gentleman I take to be one that is not dealt with, as he thinks, under this Bill. It is the case of a pure agency—not producing in this country, but simply acting as an agency.
      Mr. S. ROBERTS: And producing.
      Mr. ROBERTSON: In that case I think this Bill does give us power to inspect and, if necessary, to control. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had in view the case of an undercutting agency. Clause 3 deals with a kind of industry where there is no such thing as undercutting—a case in which we need to keep the trade going because our own industries do not cover it. The hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division (Mr. S. Roberts) apparently has in view ordinary trade competition.
      Mr. S. ROBERTS: It may be both. It does not appear from the correspondence.
      Mr. ROBERTSON: There are two categories—production, which is covered by the Bill, and agencies for goods which have been previously imported. Under the law as it stands, and under the Proclamations, such an agency cannot carry on any transactions because foreign capital is held up. If the right hon. Gentleman requires a provision prohibiting the sale of goods from abroad, I do not see how we can undertake to make the necessary requisition. I am unable to see how we can usefully take any further steps than those which have been taken in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman has in view any specific cases in which it is proposed that there should be some-
      832
      thing more than a merely protective interference, I can only say that the matter will be considered, but I do not feel disposed to promise that such an interference shall take place. The goods are here, and merely to stop their sale because they originally came from a foreign source would be to enter upon quite anew line of interference. The law, as we shall now have it, will prevent any remittances being made for those goods, and so long as you prevent such remittances being made, you have surely done all that it concerns the State to do in the particular circumstances.
      Mr. S. ROBERTS: I shall be glad to make further inquiries, and let the hon. Gentleman know how the matter stands.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read the third time, and passed.

    IRISH POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The object of this Bill, as I explained when introducing it, is to place constables in the Royal Irish Constabulary or the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who are Reservists, and who join the Colours or the Navy, in the same position as English constables in like circumstances. Under the existing law officers in either of these forces who, being Reservists, join the Colours, are entitled, when they come back, to resume their position as before in regard to pay and pension, but they are not able to count the time which they were serving with the Colours as time in which they were performing their duty as constables. It is to remedy that omission that this Bill is necessary. Also, the law does not apply to Naval Reservists. There are not, as a rule, many Naval Reservists in Ireland; but, at any rate, one constable belonging to the Naval Reserve and 197 belonging to the Army Reserve have left the force. It is, therefore, thought desirable that a Bill should be introduced for the purpose of securing that the time they are occupied with the Colours in defending their country should count as time in the service of their ordinary force.

    833
    Another Clause gives the Irish Reservists in these two forces the benefit of two Emergency Bills which have been passed in the present Session. That might have been done by Executive act, but, as this Bill was necessary, it was thought desirable to provide, by one of its Clauses, that these constables should have the benefit of those two Acts, so that if they die in the Service there may be secured for their widows certain gratuities or pensions which otherwise they would not have.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Resolved, "That this House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    ARMY TENSIONS BILL.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Mr. TENNANT: I beg to move, "That this House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Before that Motion is agreed to, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what bearing the Bill has on the War, or on any current military difficulty. I have no objection to raise to the Motion if the Bill really relates to the business of the War, but I do not see its precise bearing.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad to be able to assure the Noble Lord that the Bill has a distinct bearing on the War, inasmuch as it is considered desirable that pensions required for the wounded and for the widows of those who are unfortunately killed in the War should be paid at more frequent intervals than would be possible without this Bill. The Bill proposes that they should be payable weekly instead of quarterly in advance.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

    ARMY TENSIONS BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Mode of Payment of Pensions.)
      Notwithstanding anything in any Act, Order, or Royal Warrant to the contrary, pensions payable in respect of military service shall be issued in advance at such intervals (not exceeding three months) as the Army Council may from time to time by order direct:
      Provided that this Section shall not apply in the case of pensions granted before the passing of this Act.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the force of the proviso?
      Mr. TENNANT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proviso, to add the words,
      "and that an Order of the Army Council under this Section may in any case provide, where a soldier who has enlisted before the passing of this Act dies whilst in receipt of a pension, that a sum not exceeding the amount of his pension for three months may be paid to his personal representative"
      I propose to add these words in order that the recipients may remain entitled to advances against the full quarter's pension as they are entitled now. The original words did not give that power to the State. For instance, if a man had been in receipt of his quarter's pension and died within four or five days, under the existing law his relatives would receive the full quarter's pension. But, under the proposal to pay weekly, the relatives would receive only the week's pay instead of the full quarter. Under the words I propose to insert, the relatives will get the full quarter's pay.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: The Amendment seems to be a very decent one, but I do not understand the force of the original proviso. Why should there be any distinction between pensions granted before the passing of this Act and pensions granted after? I agree that the Amendment is an improvement, but the original provision seems strange.
      Mr. TENNANT'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Would this proviso affect the person who may be suffering from disablement during the first six weeks of the War?
      Mr. TENNANTwas understood to reply in the negative.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: What I was apprehensive of was that there would be a distinction made between people wounded or disabled early in the War and those wounded or disabled later in the War.
      Mr. TENNANT: I think the Noble Lord is in error there. I think the intention of the Bill is pretty clear; all persons who receive pensions owing to the present War will be treated alike, while persons who are in receipt of pensions prior to the outbreak of this War will be treated differently.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: May I ask, first, if those who become entitled to pensions in connection with the present War become entitled to them directly they are incapacitated? The second point I would like to put is this: Are the dependants of soldiers entitled to pensions for two or three months after death, or do the pensions terminate at death?
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is that no pensions have yet been created owing to the existence of this War, and none have been granted. As to the second point, let me give an illustration: I have heard of a case of a man who died, and a pension was claimed by the relatives on the ground that he had died one minute after twelve o'clock on a particular day. Inquiry found that to be so, and a full quarter's pension was granted to the relative. That has always been the case. It was thought very undesirable that what the relatives of pensioners considered themselves entitled to should be diminished by any action that we have taken here.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended considered; read the third time, and passed.
      The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  WAR IN EUROPE.

    PREVENTION AND RELIEF OF DISTRESS.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. HOARE: I have given the President of the Local Government Board notice that I desire to raise certain questions connected with the prevention and relief of the distress which is due to the War. I am quite aware that a great mass of work has been thrown upon the shoulders of the Local Government Board owing to the sudden emergency, and the criticisms I shall make shall be made in no captious spirit. They are the result of the experience that I have gained during the last three or four weeks on a Local Distress Committee. I think that my experience has not been peculiar, and that the difficulties which we have felt have been felt in a great many other localities also. It is now five weeks since the Local Distress Committees were formed. I know that is not a very long time in view of the difficulty of some of the problems which are involved. At the same time, I think the time has now come for the President of the Local Government Board to give us some light as to certain difficulties which we have experienced.
    Quite rightly, the relief and prevention of distress is divided into two problems—the problem connected with the families of the soldiers and sailors and the problem connected with civilian distress. As to the soldiers' and sailors' families, that is a comparatively simple problem. Scales of pay can be formed and definite measures can be adopted for dealing with cases which have a certain similarity. Let me only say in passing that it would be a relief to some of us if the President of the Local Government Board could tell us that the first charge upon the National Relief Fund would be soldiers' and sailors' families and dependants.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The National Fund, you mean.
    Mr. HOARE: I said the National Fund. Let me pass to certain difficulties that

    837
    arise with reference to the relief and the prevent of distress amongst the civil population. I think the time has come for the President of the Local Government Board to issue a Blue Book or a White Paper stating on what terms it is proposed to distribute this relief. What are the principles which are to be adopted in allocating the money between one area and another? Further, I would like to make the suggestion that from time to time he should publish in the Press the amount of money which has already been distributed and the objects for which it has been devoted. That is the principle, I would remind him, which has been adopted by such bodies as the Road Board, and it would be of very great interest to all of us if we knew how much money was being distributed and on what lines the distribution was taking place. I would like further to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state either now or in the immediate future, upon what basis the Grants are being made to local authorities and public bodies for carrying out works which would employ large quantities of labour. I know some details have been given with reference to the provision of houses, but I gather it is the intention—at any rate I hope it is the intention—of the Government to stimulate public bodies to undertake useful works of other kinds beside housing. It certainly would be a help if the various Departments under whose supervision such works would naturally come would at once issue circulars to the local authorities stating what will be the conditions of these various Grants.
    As far as I know—to take one single example—the Board of Education has made no statement as to whether it is going to give encouragement to the building of educational buildings in various localities. That is only one instance. Other Departments might very well stimulate local authorities to the undertaking of greater works. It will help local distress committees if we could at once know to what works of public utility, apart from the Development Commissioners and the Road Board—of which we have already heard—Grants will be given. In this connection I desire to bring to the notice of the President of the Local Government Board the fact that local distress committees are already faced with a cer-
    838
    tain number of urgent emergency cases. I fully realise that it would be a very grave mistake to undertake extensive works of relief in any locality until full information is in the hands of the Local Government Board, and the administrators of the National Relief Fund. There are certain urgent cases in my own locality—I am glad to say not many. But I believe that in every locality there are some cases which do demand treatment at once, and which cannot wait until the whole number of statistics—which no doubt will eventually be gathered—are brought together. In the White Paper which the Local Government Board have published there are two lists of questions which the local distress committees have to fill up before they can obtain relief. I would point out to the Local Government Board that those questions cannot be answered until very full and long inquiries have been everywhere undertaken. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to be able to tell us that even before those fuller inquiries are completed some provision will be made for these emergency cases. I do not desire to tie him down to any definite details. All I want to know is that the local distress committees will not be kept waiting indefinitely whilst these statistics are being collected.
    6.0 P.M.
    There is another question which I wish to bring to his notice—the question of the relief of unemployed women. At the present time, so far as one can judge, there is more unemployment—at any rate in London—due to the War amongst women than amongst men. My distress committee have already had brought to their notice certain very hard cases of unemployed women. I am aware that a Central Women's Committee has been formed be advise the Cabinet Committee with reference to the employment and relief of women. They have already published in the Press statements of the lines on which they are going to work. They state that they are going to subsidise factories and workrooms and that they are going to start workrooms of their own. I am told that they are going to restrict their procedure for the employment of women principally to these two means. I hope that is not the case. I have in Chelsea certain women who could very well be employed in

    839
    their own homes, and who could not so well be employed, for various reasons, in workshops or centralised factories. I hope that in the scheme which is to be adopted for the employment of women these women will not be left out, and that it will be possible to employ them in their own homes—at Army clothing or whatever the work may be—just as it is intended to employ them in workrooms and factories. I do not mean by that that they should be paid inadequate wages. They could as well be paid the full rate of wages in their homes as in the workshops and factories.
    There is another point which strikes some of us, and that is that the central committees, upon whom the responsibility for this very important work is going to fall, are not strong enough. I have been very carefully through the names of the four or five committees, details of which are set out in the Government White Paper, and certainly it is my opinion, and I know from what other peoples tell me that it is their opinion as well, that some of these committees might very well be strengthened. I do not want to go into personal matters, and I have no objection to anybody who is on any of these committees. At the same time, I ask the President of the Local Government Board, from time to time, to strengthen some of these committees, and to make them even more representative than they are. To give a single example, I think the London Committee might very well have upon it some representative of business and commerce. I think it might also have upon it representatives of some big philanthropic or religious organisation. The work which these committees are called upon to perform is very responsible and important, and I think that the time has come for strengthening them in some such way as I have suggested. And lastly, I am somewhat afraid from the number of Local Government Board circulars which have already been issued that there is danger of this work being over-centralised. I am quite aware that some kind of centralisation is necessary; at the same time there is danger of its being carried to extremes.
    Let me take two examples. First of all, these local distress committees are not even to be trusted to collect the statistics
    840
    of their own boroughs. In the circular which has been issued, it is stated that the Local Government Board have selected from their Intelligence Department certain officers for the collection of local information and statistics. I should have thought that until it was shown that the localities cannot collect this information, that it was unnecessary to impose upon every locality a special officer of the Local Government Board to collect statistics and facts. I am also afraid that the appointment of Local Government Board inspectors to supervise the work of the local committees, will, if care is not taken, take much of the interest of their work from the local committees, and will make them feel that the work is being done by the Local Government Board officials, and that there is no need or no use for their efforts. In the circular No. 12 which the Local Government Board has issued, it is stated that the position of these inspectors will be first of all to advise a policy, and, secondly, to attend the meetings of the committee. I should have thought it might have been left to the committees to decide whether they wished to have these inspectors present or not. They are to assist the committees in certain work and to report to the Government Committee generally as to the measures adopted throughout the country for the prevention and relief of distress. I should have thought it was not necessary that every application that the local distress committees make for Grants should have to be sent in in duplicate to the Local Government Board inspectors. These are the points which I wish to bring to the notice of the Local Government Board. I do hope particularly that he will be able to say something about the emergency cases, and that he will be able to reassure the local committees that if they manage their own affairs well no uniform procedure will be imposed upon them by the Local Government Board, and that their efforts will not be everywhere controlled by Local Government Board inspectors.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has asked a number of questions raising points of great interest and importance, and I shall

    841
    endeavour, in the brief time which the rules of the House allow, to give specific and definite replies. In the first place, with respect to the allocation of the Grants from the National Relief Fund, on the one hand to the dependants of soldiers and sailors, and on the other hand, to persons belonging to the civil population suffering from distress, I would remind the hon. Member that it has already been publicly announced that there have been arrangements to prevent overlapping and confusion between the Committee of the National Relief Fund and the Government Committee for the prevention and relief of distress of which I have the honour to be Chairman. The first Committee—the Fund Committee—assumes entire responsibility for the distribution of so much of the National Relief Fund as is devoted to the relief of the dependants of soldiers and sailors. I have no concern with that whatever.
    Mr. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the Fund that is?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will come to that. The Committee of the Fund arrange matters with the War Office and the Admiralty and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Royal Patriotic Fund. On the other hand the Committee have been good enough to say they will accept any recommendations of the Government Committee as to the distribution of the Grant in relief of civil distress. They have, in effect, given the control and allocation of these Grants to the Government Committee and reserve to themselves merely the right of review. The Fund, as again publicly announced, is intended for the relief for both classes of the population—both the dependants of soldiers and sailors and members of the civil population in distress. No proportion has been arrived at or laid down as between one claim and the other. The Government Committee and the Committee of the Fund will have to consider the claims on the basis of need, and if it seems probable that this Fund will be exhausted by the demands made upon it, then arrangements must be made for an increase of its amount from one quarter or another, or from some other
    842
    sources of revenue. It has now reached £2,500,000, and if to that is added the most munificent gift of flour from the Government of Canada, the value of which is about £750,000, which will be used for the relief of distress, and the other gifts which have come from the Dominions and Colonies, the figure is brought considerably above £3,000,000. However, it is not likely to be in excess of the needs, but rather the reverse. The hon. Member suggested it was time to issue a White Paper showing what were the conditions on which the Grants would be made to local distress committees. The White Paper already issued, and from which the hon. Member quoted, does lay down a series of suggestions—not rules or conditions, but suggestions to local committees, and the form of applications for Grants for local committees puts a series of questions, which they are requested to answer, and upon their answer the opinion of the Government Committee is formed. I do not think it would be advisable, at all events at this stage, to lay down rigid rules or regulations or conditions for the local committees. We are as fully alive as the hon. Member to the necessity of allowing very considerable latitude to the local committees, and not endeavouring to impose cast-iron rules, and I think it would be an error, certainly at the present time, to define too closely the precise grounds and conditions upon which Grants would be allocated to particular districts.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to building Grants?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; only to Grants of money for the relief of distress. The hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that we should publish, from time to time a list of the Grants made to particular towns and counties. That is a suggestion which certainly shall receive consideration, but I would point out to the hon. Member that its adoption would have this danger: If we were to publish in the Press, week by week, lists of Grants made to particular places, we would be giving a very powerful stimulus to the demand for Grants from other places, and there would be strong pressure from the towns which were not

    843
    included, and which were perhaps not in urgent need of Grants. Nevertheless, there would be considerable pressure put upon local committees, and you would find agitation in such places, stimulated and fostered by those published lists, and you would find certain individuals in certain towns, who would say: "Here is the neighbouring town of so and so, which got a grant last week of £500, and we have asked for nothing. We ought to have as much as the other places considering that we send equal sums with them to the fund." All these considerations would arise, and I should be very chary of inviting unnecessary applications by the publication of these Grants. The hon. Member next asked for the assistance of what works Grants would be made in the way of capital. So far as the works are such as a local authority would undertake in the ordinary way, such as municipal buildings, school buildings, drainage works or road works, the laying out of parks and so forth, which would in the ordinary course be undertaken and which might be expedited, they ought to look for their loans to the ordinary supplies of capital available to local authorities. No announcement has up to the present been made with respect to this matter, because the Treasury were unable to lay down rules as to the rate of interest to be charged, but within the last few days the Treasury have arrived at a decision, and they have, in effect, placed the National credit at the disposal of local authorities, and where there is unemployment which might be relieved by undertaking such municipal work, the Treasury will be prepared to provide money on the same terms as the Treasury can borrow, with the addition of a small sum for the cost of management. We shall shortly be able to announce the terms upon which the Public Loans Commissioners can lend money.
    While local authorities should rapidly prepare schemes which may be put into operation when distress arises, and so give employment where it is lacking, we are not anxious that these schemes should be put into operation where trade is brisk and employment good. The national resources in the way of capital are not inexhaustible, and we have to consider
    844
    the condition of the country, and what it is likely to be after the War, when thousands of soldiers return and will require employment. It would be a mistake, therefore, to use up all our resources of capital upon ordinary works in places where the need is not very great. Therefore, we are not urging local authorities to expend money, where there is already a considerable amount of employment, upon works which may later be needed. Nevertheless, it is essential that schemes should be prepared everywhere, for they take time to elaborate. The hon. Member asked me a question with respect to urgent cases. There may be a number of very urgent cases which need relief, and while there may not be general distress there may be sporadic distress requiring small Grants. We are now recommending to the Committee of the National Relief Fund the making of comparatively small Grants for dealing with these very cases. I sanctioned a considerable number a few days ago, and tomorrow a further list will come before the Allocation Committee.
    With respect to the employment of women I will communicate the hon. Member's suggestion to the committee dealing with that matter and point out to them that he desires that home workers should be employed as well as workers in factories and workshops I am inclined to think that they have already made some arrangement of the kind in London. The hon. Member also urges that the committees need strengthening, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him, and I think the London Committee is a very strong one. If one philanthropic society was represented on the committee a great number of others would feel aggrieved. The local authorities are asked to appoint their own officers to supply us with statistics. We have to check them because the officer appointed might take a particularly gloomy view of the conditions of employment in the locality which was anxious to secure a large Grant. We must check the local reports by the reports of our own officers, and that is the reason why inspectors have been appointed to supervise the work of the local committees. If no inspectors had been appointed the Government would have been greatly blamed, and it would

    845
    have been said, "You are allowing these committees to spend these vast sums of money at their own sweet will with no one to check them." We trust that by the arrangements we have made we shall avoid the confusion, overlapping, and waste which have so frequently characterised the expenditure of National Relief Funds on previous occasions.
    846
    It being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July.
    Adjourned at Twenty minutes after Six o'clock till to-morrow (Tuesday) at a Quarter before Three o'clock.

  GERMAN VESSELS SEIZED.
  GERMAN VESSELS SEIZED.
  GERMAN MINES IN NEUTRAL WATERS.
  GERMAN MINES IN NEUTRAL WATERS.
  MALE POPULATION OF GREAT BRITAIN (MILITARY SERVICE).
  MALE POPULATION OF GREAT BRITAIN (MILITARY SERVICE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (POOR LAW RELIEF).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (POOR LAW RELIEF).
  DISTRESS COMMITTEES.
  DISTRESS COMMITTEES.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  WAR OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
  WAR OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
  SUSTENANCE ALLOWANCE.
  SUSTENANCE ALLOWANCE.
  CAPTURED ENEMIES.
  CAPTURED ENEMIES.
  Estate Duty.
  Estate Duty.
  Lord Gormanstown's Estate (Evicted Tenants).
  Lord Gormanstown's Estate (Evicted Tenants).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
Preamble
The Lord WALSINGHAM—Took the Oath.

THE WAR.
Correspondence—

1. Regarding the Naval and Military Assistance afforded to His Majesty's Government by His Majesty's Over-sea Dominions;

2. Relating to gifts of foodstuffs and other supplies to His Majesty's Government from the Oversea Dominions and Colonies:

Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENT ACT BILLS—THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, before the adjournment on Thursday last I told the House that I would to-day make a statement upon our future proposals on the Government of Ireland Bill and the Welsh Church Bill, and that I would state when it was proposed to put those measures down for Second Reading. Since then the noble Marquess opposite has placed on the Paper a notice for a Bill relating also to those measures with which he will in due course proceed. But I understand that it is regarded by the noble Marquess and the Opposition as more convenient that, in spite of that fact, I should wake my statement before the noble Marquess proceeds to move the first stage of his Bill.
There has been general agreement that so far as possible the events which have occurred throughout August, the declaration of war and its consequences, should not affect either way, to the disadvantage of one Party or the other, the fate of these two Bills which in the ordinary course would have come up for the third time during this session. But it is evident, from the Bill which the noble Marquess is about to introduce, that the two Parties are not agreed as to the method by which this result may be achieved. The noble Marquess, it is clear, favours a complete suspension of all proceedings in relation to
604
these two Bills, involving that we should not now proceed with the Second Reading of either. There is a certain plausibility, I do not mind admitting, in that contention; but it has to be borne in mind that if the conditions are to remain in fact identical, or as nearly as possible identical, with those which exist at this moment that plan of proceeding would involve the indefinite prolongation of this Parliament. It might happen that the general situation demanded an appeal to the country either with reference to the conduct of the war or to some other public event, and, as I shall proceed to show, we on this side of the House therefore dismiss that solution as not being a possible one. It appears to us that the effect of a failure to pass these Bills into law during the present session would be, in fact, a definite triumph for the Opposition achieved over the Government.
I would ask the House for a moment to look at the history of the recent facts affecting these measures. You will remember that in the gracious Speech from the Throne at the opening of this session His Majesty expressed hopes in the direction of unity, and a declaration was made in another place by the Prime Minister that, after the absolutely necessary financial business of the year had been dealt with, proposals would be made which it was hoped would lead to some form of agreement. Meanwhile the Government of Ireland Bill pursued its course. It was read a third time in another place on May 25 by a majority of 77. Before that date—namely, on May 19—the Welsh Church Bill had been read a third time there by, I think, a precisely identical majority. Then on June 23 we introduced in this House an Amending Bill involving the exclusion of some part of Ulster. That Bill was fully discussed here; it was radically altered from top to toe by Amendments in this House, and was then sent down to the House of Commons. A further attempt was made outside Parliament to arrive at some form of agreement. A Conference composed of leading members of both Houses on both sides was held at Buckingham Palace from July 21 to July 24. It did not result in complete agreement, although I venture to think it served its purpose in clearing the air to some extent and in enabling those who took part in it to see what was the actual line of demarcation over which neither Party was able to cross.

605
Then, in the natural course, the Amending Bill would next have been proceeded with in another place. That, as we all know, was interfered with by public events on the Continent of Europe of which we are all aware. It is, I think, clear that the Amending Bill would have passed into law in some form, representing some compromise—it is not easy to say what—between the terms of the Bill as introduced here and those totally different terms which were found in it when it was sent to another place. It appears, therefore, if I am right in believing that it would have passed in some form, that the plan favoured by the noble Marquess in his Bill involves some definite, or at any rate possible, gain to the Opposition point of view over and above what it would have obtained if it had been possible to proceed with that Bill. It may, of course, be said—it has been said—"If such a compromise of views was possible, why should not such a compromise be proceeded with now? Why cannot the Amending Bill be reconsidered, first in another place, with a view to arriving at some kind of solution which, by admission, would be temporary, vet at the same time might enable the Irish question to be put aside for the time being and the Government of Ireland Bill to be placed on the Statute Book with the acquiescence of the Opposition?" There is much to be said for that argument and it has found favour, I believe, with not a few.
But, on the other hand, the arguments against such a course are strong. It is quite evident that if the compromise were to take the form of the exclusion of a part of Ulster—I do not attempt to say what part—such a compromise could only be brought about by the putting of severe pressure by the Irish leaders on one side or the other upon their followers in Ireland, and at this moment that would involve a series of visits by them to that country, a number of speeches, and an agitation which at this time we should all desire to avoid. But there is also this further argument against attempting to arrive even at a solution which might hold good for two, three, or five years, as the case might be, that it is not a desirable course to engage in a great Constitutional change of this kind, even as regards those parts of Ireland upon which noble Lords opposite might be disposed to admit such a change must ultimately fall, at this moment of
606
crisis and when great national issues are at stake. Even where it is possibly conceded that Home Rule might be put into operation at once, most of us would say that this is not the moment to do it.
We then have to consider what would be the effect—I am afraid I am somewhat trespassing on ground that I ought not to cover, but it is not possible to make a statement of our views without saying something about the other views which are clearly indicated by the Bill of the noble Marquess—we have to consider what would be the effect if those views were adopted. If I may be forgiven, I would digress for a moment to say that I understand that the purpose of the noble Marquess's measure is that these Parliament Act Bills, if I may so describe them, would, in a session after the war is over, be placed in precisely the same position as regards the Parliament Act as that in which they stand at this moment. I am advised that, as a matter of fact, the noble Marquess's Bill does not carry out that intention. For this reason, that the next session after the war is over might not be a consecutive session, and in that case the Bills would not obtain the benefit of the Parliament Act; and, unless that was specifically provided for, the work which has already been done upon them would lapse. But I pass that by for a moment. That is more a question of drafting than of anything else.
As regards the proposal for the complete holding up of these measures, I would venture to remind the House of this. We cannot deny that in this matter of Irish Home Rule each side has felt, and has freely expressed, profound mistrust of the intentions of the other. Noble Lords opposite and their Party have credited us with a desire to coerce Ulster, or at any rate to force Ulster into subjection to the Government of Ireland Act, as it would then be. That is the mistrust which has been freely expressed by the Opposition as regards our views and intentions. On this side of politics and also in the Nationalist Party the mistrust of the intentions of the Opposition has been equally profound. It has been the belief, I think, of the great majority of our Party and of the Nationalist Party that the main object of the Opposition, even while Ulster has been on every lip and the coercion of Ulster has been

607
denounced, has been not so much to protect Ulster from Home Rule as, if possible, to destroy Home Rule altogether. There have been a number of speeches which have given not a little colour to that supposition. There was the well-known speech of Sir Edward Carson's at the Albert Hall a year ago, when he said that he was willing to adopt exclusion because he considered that it would destroy Home Rule altogether. But not longer ago than February of this year (February 18) Sir Edward Carson said—
"I frankly state that for two years I and those who trust me have been doing our best to render the Government of Ireland Bill impossible under any conditions."
And a number of other speeches in the same sense could be quoted. I have heard the same thing said by noble Lords in this House—that it is not so much a question of the exclusion of this or the exclusion of that, but of destroying Home Rule altogether.
As to the mistrust that the Opposition feel of us, I have no hesitation in saying that there cannot be the smallest question, and no responsible Government could ever hold the idea, of imposing a political Constitution or a solution of this question upon Ulster by force. We say that quite categorically; and I hope that when our proposals, which I shall shortly describe, come to be considered noble Lords will be so good as to bear that statement in mind. It is not made only on my own account; it is made on behalf of His Majesty's Government—there is no such question. I have explained how it is that the Liberal Party and the Irish Nationalist Party feel mistrust of the intentions of the Opposition, in the sense that it is not safeguards for which they are on the lookout, but the destruction of the system of Home Rule altogether; and, further than that, there is the desire to checkmate the Parliament Act, to which noble Lords, as we all know, and their Party object so strongly, and which they have found interferes so inconveniently with their projects and their beliefs. The fear, therefore, of those who agree with us, of the Liberal Party and of the Nationalist Party, would be simply this, that if before the end of the war or at the end of the war there should come into being a Government differently constituted, possibly owing to complaints in the conduct of the war, possibly owing to
608
differences of opinion as to the ultimate terms of peace which might be exacted, or, if you will, as to the method and incidence of the taxation which will be required to pay for the war—that if, owing to any of those causes, which I merely give as instances, a Government of a different complexion, not necessarily representing the Front Bench opposite but a Government of a different complexion from this one, should come into being, although the General Election might have no reference whatever to the subject of the government of Ireland, the result would be that either the Government of Ireland Bill would be destroyed altogether or that some form of Irish Government, some kind of creation of gas and water provincial councils of a nature which I have heard favoured from the Front Bench opposite, would be brought into being, and that consequently, without any evidence whatever that the mind of the country had changed on the subject, Ireland might altogether lose its chance of Home Rule. That being so, it is not surprising that the Irish Nationalists and the whole body of the Party which we have the honour to represent feel that it is impossible to dispense with the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill into law. We feel that not to do so would simply mean the opening of a fresh credit in favour of the Party opposite for financing the warfare against the whole subject of Home Rule. For that reason we are impelled to proceed, and I propose to place the Government of Ireland Bill on the Notice Paper for consideration to-morrow.
It is only fair to ask, as we are anxious to hold a correct balance between the two Parties—although I know noble Lords opposite do not think we are doing it—what is it that the Opposition would stand to lose by placing the Government of Ireland Bill on the Statute Book? We are proposing a Suspensory Bill of a different kind from that which the noble Marquess is going to present. The Prime Minister had intended to present it in another place to-day, but he was prevented from doing so by a technical objection raised by the Opposition of which I do not, I confess, appreciate the precise purpose; but he will be able, as I understand, to present it to-morrow. That plan of ours is, briefly speaking, as follows. Instead of adopting the noble Marquess's method of postponing all further stages of the Government of Ireland Bill during the continuance of the

609
war and taking it up again precisely at the same point in the first session thereafter, our proposal is that after the Bill has been placed on the Statute Book—and the same thing applies to the Welsh Church Bill no steps whatever shall be taken to bring either Bill into operation for a period of twelve months from the date of their passing, and if, at the expiration of those twelve months, the war has not ended, then by Order in Council the date of their coming into operation will be further postponed until such later date as may be fixed upon, that date not being later than the end of the present war—that is to say, that so far as the war is concerned there is no practical difference between the noble Marquess and ourselves; there can be no question of the Bills coining into operation until the war is concluded. It is true that the noble Marquess's Bill might, if Parliament should not be called together immediately after the completion of peace, having adjourned just before the end of the war, involve a somewhat longer delay; but I will not attempt to labour that point. What is at the back of both proposals is that during the continuance of the war no real steps whatever should be taken in connection with either Bill.
As regards our proposal, the House will see that its effect is either to suspend the operation of the Bills altogether right up to the next General Election—that is to say, to the time when a General Election is absolutely bound to take place by the Constitution—or quite possibly over and beyond the General Election. The Opposition have frequently said that if a General Election could take place they would then be content to accept the 'verdict of the country on this question, and it is clear that, so far as the practical operation of both of these Bills is concerned, they will be in the main at the mercy of a General Election. But apart from that we make a definite pledge that we will bring in a Bill to amend the Government of Ireland Bill which will have to be dealt with, and which we should see is dealt with, before the expiration of the term of twelve months. I ask the House to remember what I said just now with regard to the impossibility of our having any idea of patting coercion upon that part of Ireland which does not agree to a particular political Constitution; and that being so, I think noble Lords will see further that, although it seems a paradox, the inclusion for the
610
time being, by the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill, of the whole of Ireland without any exception in the provisions of that Bill offers in fact, in the absence of any possibility of coercion, the surest guarantee that an Amending Bill must be passed before the Bill as a whole can come into operation. I think that is an argument of which noble Lords will not wish to dispute the weight.
But I do say this, that when the time Comes for the Government of Ireland Bill as a whole to be amended I do not think we ought to regard it as a certainty that that amendment will necessarily take the form of the exclusion of Ulster or of a part of Ulster. I do not think that, as matters now stand, we need take it as a settled fact that that is so. It is impossible now to foretell the form which such an Amending Bill will take—whether the form of exclusion or some different form of safeguard to the Protestant minority which they may be disposed to regard as sufficient. We have to remember that the whole temper of Ireland, both in the North and the South, has been greatly changed, and changed, as we are glad to believe, greatly for the better by the war and by the immediate consequences of the war. I am quite confident—I speak only on my own responsibility, but I speak with full certainty—that when the Government of Ireland Bill has been placed upon the Statute Book there will be a rush to enlist in His Majesty's Army on the part of the whole of Ireland. Some noble Lords express a certain incredulity, but we shall see. I cannot forget in this connection that it is not so many years ago since in this House and in the other we were told in accents of profound conviction, most honest conviction, by Members of Parliament and by noble Lords that we were committing a folly in giving self-government to South Africa. Noble Lords have only to look at their newspapers now to see what South Africa is doing for the Empire; she is undertaking a great and dangerous part in warlike operations, headed by the Dutch element there. Noble Lords will, perhaps, admit that they were not right then, and it is possible—I will not put it higher than that—that they may think that we are in error now in believing that the spirit of the Nationalist part of Ireland will be greatly changed by this evidence of trust and friendship on cur part; but when noble Lords look back to the speech which

611
Mr. Redmond made in another place I think they may at any rate be disposed to drop some of their scepticism on that subject.
What I do hope, my Lords, is that when these proposals of ours come before the House—I have done my best to explain what the difference between the noble Marquess's proposals and ours is; it is not a very wide difference though it is a deep one—the Opposition will not attempt to pile up a fictitious grievance on the ground that we are taking any advantage of the existing situation. We maintain that we are taking no advantage whatever of the existing situation. The situation abroad has in some degree told against the more extreme views of both Parties in Ireland. I do not deny that for a moment. Nor do I regret it. Nor can we regret the postponement which is involved by either the noble Marquess's proposals or ours if that postponement leads to a better understanding between the different sets of opinion in Ireland and to a closer approximation between them. At any rate, I do not believe that an attitude of mere resistance to placing the Irish Bill among the laws of the country added to the proposals which I have sketched out to your Lordships will win the sympathy of a great number of your Lordships' supporters in the country. I believe that moderate men will see that the course which we are proposing to take is not an unreasonable, still less an unfair, course. There are some members, no doubt, of the Party opposite who have learned nothing and have forgotten nothing. But I cannot believe that the average members of the Unionist Party will be led away by the sentiments, however loudly expressed, of the more extreme members of the Party. I should like also to think, my Lords, and I hope I am not wrong in thinking, that even among those more extreme members of the Party represented opposite, whatever indignation they may feel at the course we are taking, the expression of their annoyance or regret will not lead them to depart in any way from the united attitude which as a country we have taken in face of the troubles abroad, and that, in spite of differences at home on the merits of which either one Party or the other may remain unconvinced, in the face of the enemy we shall remain a united country.

CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION (SUSPENSION DURING WAR) BILL. [H.L.]
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, who had given notice "to move to introduce a Bill to suspend proceedings upon certain controversial legislation during the continuance of war," said: My Lords, the noble Marquess has offered to the House a statement for which we have waited for a considerable time and with a good deal of impatience. I do not think we should any of us have complained of the delay if, when the statement came, it had been less unsatisfactory than that to which we have just listened. We have lately got rather into the habit of acquiescing without demur in any proposal made to us from the Front Bench opposite, but I do not think the noble Marquess can expect that the remarkable announcement which he has just made will be allowed to pass without some words of criticism from this side of the House. The noble Marquess's announcement, in effect, comes to this. His Majesty's Government intend to prorogue Parliament this week, and to place upon the Statute Book two Bills of capital importance—two Bills the passing of which will provoke feelings in some quarters of great exultation and in other quarters of deep and bitter resentment; and they choose for doing this a moment when Parliament is certainly not in the mood, amidst the whirl of events through which we are now passing, to interest itself in questions of domestic controversy, and at a moment when Parliament is not only not in the mood for such discussions but is to a considerable extent incapacitated from dealing adequately with public business. I venture to say that this is not the treatment that we had a right to expect, and I say further that it is not the treatment which we were led to expect, from His Majesty's Government.
I do not wish to weary the House with long extracts, but I am bound, in order to make my case, to remind your Lordships of one or two statements which have lately been made by the Prime Minister on this subject. On July 30 when, as your Lordships recollect, the Amending Bill was to have been discussed in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said that it was "of vital importance" at that moment "in the interests of the whole world that this country should present a united front and be able to I speak and act with the authority of an

613
undivided nation." He stated that if the House of Commons went on to discuss the Bill which was on the Order Paper it would be—
"involved in acute controversy in regard to domestic differences whose importance to ourselves no one in any quarter of the House is disposed to disparage or to belittle."
And he went on to say—
"I need not say more than that such a use of our time at such a moment might have injurious, and lastingly- injurious, effects on the international situation."
That, my Lords, was before the actual outbreak of war. But a few days later, on August 10, when war bad broken out, Mr. Asquith said—
"I am sure that every one of us is anxious, so far as it can be done without any sacrifice of principle or position, that we should continue as a House and as a country to speak and act without discord in the face of the great risk and responsibility which confront us."
And finally, on August 31, Mr. Asquith used these words—
"Here we are, all sections of Its, happily united, as the people of these islands have never been before, in the common determination each to play his own part and all to play the part of the whole, and that at such a moment we should be indulging in acrimonious discussions on a matter of domestic politics, however important, is, I think, of the worst possible omen."
Those words were, I undertake to say, almost universally regarded as intended by the Statesman who used them to suggest that, in view of the extraordinary gravity of the position upon the Continent of Europe, he and his colleagues desired that there should be a truce between the two Parties, a truce during which the "acrimonious discussion of domestic questions" should be laid aside, during which this country might present an unbroken front to the world, and during which we should all of us, without distinction of Party, be inspired only by a sense of the duty we owe to the State and our respect for those who are fighting for us and dying for us in the field. What we thought those words pointed to was a kind of breathing space during which we might lay on one side that feeling to which the noble Marquess referred just now—that feeling of mutual mistrust which I dare say he is right in saying has at times existed between the two Parties, and which most of us would be more than ready to lay aside at such a moment as this.
But, my Lords, let me be perfectly fair in what I say of the Prime Minister's
614
intervention. I do not want to forget that to those statements he attached the condition—I think the perfectly reasonable condition—that the result of the truce ought not to be to place either of the Parties to these political disputes in a worse position after the war than they stood in when the war commenced. We accepted that condition, and were ready to act loyally up to that principle.
The response made to the Prime Minister's appeal was triumphant. In the sphere of politics the autumn campaign which people were beginning to organise was cancelled, at any rate as far as our side was concerned. Instead of Members of Parliament passing from platform to platform in order to denounce one another, you had them, as it were, hunting in couples and endeavouring to do what they could by combined effort for the interests of the State. You had the great meeting here in the heart of the City, at which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the other House stood side by side upon the same platform. In all the organisations for the distribution of relief you had the same happy indications of a desire to forget old differences and to work together for the common interest. It even came to this, that you sent to the War Office as Secretary of State a gallant Field-Marshal, who came here the other evening and told us that he at any rate had nothing to do with Party and intended to do his work regardless of Party connections and ties. In Parliament we entirely desisted from criticism of your legislation. We have sat here night after night passing, without comment or delay, one Government measure after another. I think almost the only note of complaint that I heard was raised from the Benches opposite, by Lord Bryce with regard to a Bill in which he took an interest. And, most remarkable of all, in Ireland itself a change came over the spirit of the scene. The men of Ulster who were organising to fight for their province set to work to see what they could do, not only for their province, but for the country and for the Empire; the Nationalist Volunteer forces which were being organised in the three Provinces were joined in many parts of Ireland by conspicuous Unionists; and it is really not too much to say that, as a consequence of these appeals made by His Majesty's Government, there suddenly seemed to open for us in Ireland a new horizon with almost boundless possibilities for good beyond it.
Then came that remarkable speech delivered by Mr. Redmond, the speech to which the noble Marquess referred just now. Mr. Redmond was following the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had passed in review the circumstances which led to the present war. What did Mr. Redmond say? He said—
"To-day I honestly believe that the democracy of Ireland will turn with the utmost anxiety and sympathy to this country in every trial and every danger that may overtake it."
And he continued—
"Armed Nationalist Catholics in the South will be only too glad to join arms with the armed Protestant Ulstermen in the North. Is it too much to hope that out of this situation there may spring a result which will be good not merely for the Empire but good for the future welfare and integrity of the Irish Nation?"
My Lords, those were brave and inspiring words, and they made a deep impression upon those who heard them. But I venture to think the reception given to that speech would have been very different if Mr. Redmond had gone on to say that the sympathy which he promised was conditional upon the payment of the price which lie had been promised, and that the Volunteers for whom he spoke would appear as comrades in arms with the men of Ulster only upon the condition that a signal humiliation should first be inflicted on the men of Ulster. Let me say, in passing, that I have heard no account of any such conditions having been asked for by the Ulster Volunteers when they came forward to support their country. They do not ask us to sidetrack Home Rule because they would like to see it sidetracked. With them, at any rate, there is no haggling as to the consideration which they are to receive as their reward.
I am afraid that I must tell the noble Marquess frankly that the decision at which His Majesty's Government have arrived cannot fail to strike a shattering blow at the kind of confidence which we had begun to feel in the possibility of a different state of things arising between the two great political Parties. I ant not going to use, if I can help it, any embittering words. I am not going to tell noble Lords opposite that we Unionists are going to sulk and cease from doing what we can to help in the public interest. I am certainly not going to suggest that we shall, because of what has happened, try to put spokes in the wheel of His Majesty's Government.
616
They stand for the country, and as they are the Government of the country we shall support them and support them loyally. But to that I cannot help adding that there will survive, and I am afraid I must say rankle, in our minds a deep sense of the injustice with which we have been treated on this occasion. I will tell the noble Marquess why I use those words. We resent the action of His Majesty's Government because we think they are taking advantage of our helplessness at the present time. Ulster at this moment is too patriotic to press the claims which she was ready to press a short time ago, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet. Here in Parliament we are in no mood, in days when we are alternately depressed by bad news, elated by good news, harrowed perhaps by the perusal of these sad casualty lists which appear from time to time in the newspapers—we are in no mood at such a time to begin arguing as to whether mid-Tyrone ought to be within or without the excluded area.
And not only are we in no mood for such discussions, but, as I ventured to say a moment ago, neither House of Parliament is at this moment so constituted that it can really be regarded as in its normal condition. I am told that of the House of Commons 100 members are absent, some serving with their units at the front, many more busily occupied throughout the country in doing public work. And what of this House? I think the first name that appeared on the published casualty lists was the name of a promising young Peer badly wounded in the opening operations of the war—Lord Leven. Another Peer—Lord Hawarden—will never return to his place in this House. And what of that which is happening at home? I could give your Lordships within the part of England which I know best numerous cases of noble Lords who usually take an interest in our business and who are at this moment serving with the Territorial Forces, working on recruiting committees or in connection with Territorial Associations. My Lords, what a moment for taking a step which cannot fail to rekindle the embers of controversy! What a moment for dragooning the two Houses of Parliament into submission to legislation of this kind!
May I say now one or two words as to the mitigation which the Government propose to attempt by means of the Bill which is, we learn, to be introduced into the

617
House of Commons to-morrow. I understand from the noble Marquess that the effect of that Bill will be to retard for a time the operation both of the Home Rule Bill and of the Welsh Church Bill. In regard to the first of those Bills, we are, I understand, promised, if the Bill goes on to the Statute Book now, that no steps will be taken to bring it into operation until the end of a fixed period or until after the termination of the war; and the noble Marquess endeavours to comfort us by saying that in the interval His Majesty's Govern-Merit have made up their minds to bring forward, and hope to carry, an Amending Bill. What security can the noble Marquess feel that he will be able to fulfil this pledge? He made a very remarkable announcement—I think I caught it—that he was not able to say at this moment what kind of an Amending Bill the Government were likely to bring forward, but he thought it quite possible that the Amending Bill might not be based upon exclusion at all. How can we found any confident hopes and anticipations upon such an extremely hazy undertaking as that? For the noble Marquess certainly did not go so far as to say that he and his colleagues would give its an undertaking that the Government of Ireland Bill should not conic into operation until an agreement had been reached with regard to the new Amending Bill.
I pass for a moment to the other Bill, the Welsh Church Bill. I venture to think that the case for not proceeding with the Welsh Church Bill is, if possible, stronger than the case for not proceeding with the Government of Ireland Bill. The position of the Welsh Church Bill in this House is remarkable. With the full knowledge and consent of His Majesty's Government that Bill was referred to a strong Select Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, and not only did His Majesty's Government offer no objection to the appointment of the Committee but they appointed two Peers from the Benches opposite to serve upon it. We are perfectly well aware that that Committee collected a great body of most important evidence, evidence which your Lordships have certainly had no time to examine or to investigate. Now the noble Marquess offers a moratorium in respect of the Welsh Church Bill. Has he considered how that will operate in regard to the disendowment clauses of that Bill? Does he believe that if the disendowment clauses are postponed
618
until after the expiration of the war the friends of the Welsh Church will have the slightest chance of going to the public, as they otherwise would have gone if this war had not taken place, and endeavouring to build up a fund for the purpose of replacing the resources of which the Welsh Church is to be robbed under the Bill of the Government? I will Venture to say that in the year after the termination of the war there will be a depletion of private and public resources which will render it extremely doubtful whether the right rev. Prelates whom I see on the Episcopal Bench will stand much chance of a successful appeal to the public on behalf of the institution which is so dear to them.
Let me examine for a moment the pretext upon which it is sought to place these two Bills upon the Statute Book at this moment and in spite of the desire of His Majesty's Government to lay aside controversial questions. His Majesty's Government desire that, as they put it, no one should be prejudiced by the outbreak of the war and the consequent interruption of legislation. The way in which it is put is something of this kind. We are told that these two Bills were already virtually within the grasp of those who were promoting them, and that in those circumstances the enemies of the Welsh Church on the one hand and the supporters of Home Rule on the other have a right to ask us to pay them their pound of flesh. I own that the "pound of flesh" argument is one which rather grates upon one's cars at the present moment. I put that on one side. I am quite ready to accept the principle laid down by the noble Marquess. I do not think either side ought, in consequence of the war, to steal an advantage upon time other. We do not desire to steal an advantage upon you. But are you quite sure that you are not stealing an advantage upon us? I suggest that you do steal an advantage upon us when you profit, as you are going to profit, by the weariness of public opinion, by the disorganisation of Parliament, and by the manner in which Ulster is desisting from her resistance, in order to accomplish now without a struggle something which, in the month of July, you could not only not have accomplished without a struggle but which you could not have accomplished without a struggle in which it might have gone very hard with His Majesty's Government.
The argument which the noble Marquess laid before us in regard to the position of the Nationalist Party when the war broke out seemed to me to be based upon a complete fallacy as to the position in which the Home Rule question really stood in the month of July. The noble Marquess drew a kind of picture of the state of things that then existed. From his statement one would imagine that the Prorogation would have come, that the Bills would then have gone automatically and peaceably on to the Statute Book, and that the troubles of His Majesty's Government would have been completely over. That is an entirely fanciful picture. May I draw what I conceive to be a picture rather nearer to the truth? In the summer of this year the Home Rule Bill had at any rate been discredited to this extent, that you had discovered that it was impossible for you to enforce it without excluding from its provisions a very important part of Ireland. You had therefore to devise an Amending Bill based upon the policy of exclusion, and we all know what a protracted controversy has arisen upon that point. That controversy has established two propositions. The first proposition is that the policy of exclusion is hateful to a great many people, and hateful to a great many sound Home Rulers; the other proposition is this, that the problem of exclusion has, in spite of all our efforts, proved to be up to the present insoluble. And it was remarkable—I refer to it again—that the noble Marquess himself let fall words just now which showed that he at any rate realised the truth of my statement. At any rate it came to this, that from March 9 up to the date of the Buckingham Palace Conference we had debates in Parliament and negotiations outside Parliament which failed altogether to demonstrate the existence of any common ground with regard to this question of exclusion. And, my Lords, the climax was reached when as a last resort the Government advised His Majesty to call us together under his own roof to that memorable Conference which His Majesty himself was pleased to address in moving and encouraging words, which was presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons, which was attended not only by members of both the great British political Parties but by the leaders of the two Irish Parties, and at which, nevertheless, it became evident before we had held more than one or two sittings that there was no possi-
620
bility of agreement on the question of exclusion. No wonder that the noble Marquess is Only able to hint at what he called "sonic form of compromise," adding "it is not, however, easy to say what."
That was the political position here. But what was the position in Ireland? Were the troubles of the Government in Ireland over or likely to be over? Not at all. In Ulster the situation was acute. The Provisional Government was on the point of being set up. Your clumsy attempt at intimidating the people of Ulster had failed ignominiously, and was followed by an announcement that, we need not look for a renewal of attempts at the coercion of Ulster. That statement has been repeated to-night with extraordinary emphasis and precision by the noble Marquess. He has virtually to-night given an unconditional pledge that in no circumstances is the coercion of Ulster ever again to be attempted. He has travelled some way beyond the "immediately" of the noble and learned Viscount, on the Woolsack. I should like to ask a question upon that point. I hope we may interpret that, assurance of the noble Marquess as literally as he seemed to make it. Because I call to mind a statement, which attracted a good deal of attention at the time when it was made, a statement by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, who very distinctly intimated that the Government were prepared to take action against a Provisional Government which made any attempt to assume authority in the Province of Ulster.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to explain, in reply to the noble Marquess's challenge. What I said was that in no case would coercion be used—in no case ought coercion to be used or would it be used—to impose a political system upon any part of Ireland that was opposed to that system. The noble Marquess will see that that does not involve a statement that, whatever action some part of the United Kingdom may choose to take, of however violent a sort, no attempt would be made by either the police or the military to put down any such action. It is impossible to give any pledge of that kind. But that is a totally different thing from imposing political conditions upon any part of the United Kingdom which shows in an orderly manner that it is opposed to those conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am sorry that I challenged the noble Marquess. I ought to have allowed his statement to hold the field, because the gloss which he has put upon it, to our minds, deprives it of a great deal of its significance. The noble Marquess is not quite sure whether what he means is that coercion will not be applied or ought not to be applied.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It certainly will not.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: At any rate the noble Marquess reserves the right of using coercion for the purpose of putting down a political movement in that province. I confess I do not feel very much comforted by what we have gathered from the noble Marquess on that point. But to go back to my argument. What I desire to press on the House is this, that it is quite incorrect to say that before the war broke out there was anything like a satisfactory settlement of the Irish problem within the grasp of His Majesty's Government, and therefore, by putting these two Bills on the Statute Book, they are by no means restoring the position as it existed before the war; they are creating a new position different from that which existed before the war and very much more to the advantage of them and their friends.
I have said that I entirely accept the principle of the noble Marquess—namely, that we ought to endeavour so to arrange matters that neither of the parties to this dispute should be put in a worse position or a better position after the war than that which they occupied before the war began. The Prime Minister's words were these, that "no party in any quarter of the House should gain advantage or suffer prejudice owing to the suspension of domestic controversies." We are ready to co-operate with the noble Marquess in applying that principle with absolute fairness to both sides, and it is with that object that we have put upon the Table the short Bill which the noble Marquess has seen and with which we propose to proceed this evening. The noble Marquess took some exception, I think, to the drafting, but that is a point which I am quite ready to consider, and I will not enter into it now. The effect of our Bill will be that in the first session after the
622
war these Parliament Act Bills will be resumed exactly at the point where they were left in the present session of Parliament. The noble Marquess admitted that there was a certain plausibility about that proposal, and the only argument which he used against it with any kind of force was the argument that the effect of the postponement might be to bring us to a moment when we should be face to face with a General Election the result of which might be unfavourable to the Nationalist Party. He thought that a change of Government might lead to the substitution for the present Bill of what he called a measure of "gas and water Home Rule," and his suggestion was that it would be a real hardship to the Home Rule Party if they found themselves deprived of the tactical advantage which they would secure by getting their Bill upon the Statute Book.
I am tempted to remind the noble Marquess, in this connection, of an argument which was often used by him and his friends during the Home Rule debates. We constantly urged that His Majesty's Government had no mandate from the people of this country for their Bill, and we were always met with this answer, "Suppose it is true that we have no mandate for our Bill, it is not likely to come into operation until after another General Election, and if the result of that election should be to change the political complexion of the Government the new Government will be able to deal freely with the Bill." It appears that the argument now used is quite a different one. The noble Marquess wants to get this Bill on to the Statute Book in order that the new Government may not be free to deal with it. I ask the House to note that very important change of front. Let me, however, say that if that is your apprehension, if you think that is a substantial danger, we are ready to meet you upon that point as we are upon the others. The remedy seems to us to be a simple one. If you desire it, bring in a short Bill to amend the Parliament Act and to substitute, in the case of this Parliament, a time limit of six years for the five years which is now in the Act. That would completely get rid of the noble Marquess's objection. I venture to think that to plain people the plan which we have proposed will appear to be not only plausible but absolutely just and fair as between the parties. I venture to think it is a more statesmanlike

623
plan, and it is certainly a plan much more in accordance with the principles and the pledges of His Majesty's Government. I venture also to think that it is a much more defensible plan than your plan for over-riding the minority, for imposing upon the people of Ulster a measure which they detest, for asking the King's assent for Bills which are hateful to a great body of his subjects, which are indefensible in their present state, and which Parliament is at this moment incompetent to discuss.
The noble Marquess suggested that some of us were suspected of a desire to wreck Home Rule. I have no desire to take advantage of the war in order to wreck Home Rule. I believe that if your Irish policy is a sound policy it ought to be able to survive the delay which the postponement of the Home Rule Bill until after the war would involve. I have always believed that the Bill as we know it is a badly thought out Bill, a Bill which you have had to mitigate by an extremely awkward system of exception, and that it would not be at all a bad thing even from the Home Rule point of view that there should be a breathing space in which to consider whether some better solution of the Irish problem cannot be achieved. There is another reason that induces me to believe that there would be no unfairness in the kind of postponement which we advocate. I believe that after this war is over, after the strain and stress to which the country has been subjected, it will be in no mood for a renewal of bitter controversies. I believe the people of this country will, when the time comes, demand a settlement of the Irish question, and if in the meantime Unionists and Home Rulers had worked and fought side by side I believe the conditions would be more favourable after the war for a settlement than they are at the present time. Nor, my Lords, do we desire, as has been suggested, to take advantage of this crisis in order to wreck the Parliament Act. The procedure which we recommend to the House is strictly in accordance with the Parliament Act. It is framed upon the machinery of that Act and is in accordance with its spirit. But we desire to apply the Act with some reference to the wholly exceptional conditions which confront us at the present time. We believe that the suspension for which we ask will be fair to both Parties, and I say once more that there is no length to which we are not prepared to
624
go in order to see that it is fair to both Parties. If it is not too late, I earnestly entreat the noble Marquess to consider whether fair play and common sense alike do not demand some such course as that which I venture to recommend to the House. I now move that this Bill he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.— (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I wish with your Lordships' permission to intervene in this debate for one moment, because I think the argument of the noble Marquess opposite has been to some extent based upon a misapprehension of the facts. The noble Marquess imputed to the Prime Minister the statement that it was necessary to postpone the consideration of both the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Bill in such a way that neither Party would be in a worse position after the war than it was at the time. The noble Marquess, I respectfully submit, imported unconsciously the words "after the war" into the statement which the Prime Minister made. I happened to be in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister spoke, and I have no remembrance that he said anything about postponing the controversy till the war was over. Undoubtedly it was the opinion of persons interested in Home Rule in Ireland—it certainly was the opinion of all members of the Liberal Party with whom I am acquainted—that it was the intention of the Government to dispose of the Home Rule Bill before the Prorogation of Parliament. There was no expectation whatever that the Bills would be carried over, whether by such a measure as the noble Marquess opposite has proposed or by any measure affecting the Parliament Act.
All we ask is that the laws of the country should be allowed to operate. Under the operation of the Parliament Act the Home Rule Bill would naturally be placed upon the Statute Book. It has been over and over again declared by the Prime Minister and by members of the Government that the Home Rule Bill was a good Bill and should be placed upon the Statute Book, but in order to mitigate the opposition with which it was met the Amending Bill was introduced. It is known to your Lordships that I, in my humble way, have

625
always thought that the main Bill ought to be amended. I was always of the opinion that its financial provisions were not good, and I was also of the opinion that the representation of the minority in Ireland was not sufficiently provided for. But all these are matters of detail. The main question is that the policy of the Government in regard to Home Rule for Ireland should be affirmed by the Government of Ireland Bill being placed upon the Statute Book. Subsequently an Amending Bill can easily be carried into effect.
From personal knowledge I am able to say that there is great apprehension among people in the West and South of Ireland that if the Home Rule Bill is not placed on the Statute Book now it may not be placed there at all. In that fear I do not myself participate; I believe that the Bill will reach the Statute Book this year, and that its doing so will have a marvellously good effect in consolidating the good feeling which now exists between both parties in Ireland and the people of Great Britain. I feel that: the carrying into law of any such measure as that which the noble Marquess opposite has to-day introduced would bring to naught all the good effect which has been created by the movement of feeling which we have witnessed during the last month and a-half. Therefore I sincerely trust that the policy of His Majesty's Government will be carried into effect; that the Home Rule Bill will he put upon the Statute Book; that, as soon as political conditions allow, the matter will again be taken up and fully discussed by all persons having influence in Ireland; and that at long last we may come to a conclusion which will be accepted by all people in that country.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I wish to say a few words, not as regards the Home Rule Bill, but in reference to a Bill which I consider of equal importance—namely, the Welsh Church Bill. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House brought forward no argument to show why that Bill should not be suspended in accordance with the proposal of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. What was said as regards that Bill by Mr. Asquith and also by Mr. Bonar Law? Mr. Asquith said that "neither Party should gain advantage or suffer prejudice," and
626
Mr. Bonar Law made this observation, to show how he understood what was said by the Prime Minister, that "Party controversial matters would not be taken." It is clear that the Welsh Church Bill is a Party controversial matter of a very extreme form.
I desire to say, on behalf of Churchmen, that however we may be persecuted we should continuo to show unswerving and unquestioning loyalty to our country at the present moment, but I think that that unswerving and unquestioning loyalty ought not to be taken advantage of in order to put upon t he Statute Book a Bill to which Churchmen are deeply and conscientiously opposed upon religious and moral grounds. Is this, I ask, a proper moment at which to attempt the confiscation of religious trust funds which are being used for religious purposes? It is desired, so we understand, to avoid controversy. I ask the noble Marquess, Can you mole directly create controversy than by proposing to put on the Statute Book a Bill which recognises the right to confiscate religious funds and to use them in the future for merely secular purposes? One of the matters dealt with by the Committee appointed by your Lordships' House was, as we know from the publication of the evidence, the question of the dismemberment of what is undoubtedly the greatest Christian community in this country—the English Church. I ask the noble Marquess, if he wants to avoid controversy, if he wants to concentrate loyalty on great matters of national crisis, ought he not to refrain from the attempt by political coercise action to dismember a great religious community; ought he not to refrain from putting upon the Statute Book at the present moment a Bill which countenances what all Churchmen feel is an outrage as regards religious thought and an outrage as regards the religious community to which they belong?
What objection is there to the proposal to suspend the Welsh Church Bill in accordance with the terms of the measure brought forward to-day by Lord Lansdowne? I venture to say that there is no other way in which to deal with the matter if, to use the words of the noble Marquess opposite, the position is not to be affected one way or the other. It is impossible to say that you do not prejudice

627
the position if you put upon the Statute Book a Bill to which Churchmen are unanimously opposed. I followed very closely the statement of the noble Marquess who leads the House. The main part of his speech was directed to the question of Home Rule. I did not hear one single argument as regards the position of the Welsh Church Bill. What reason is there for pushing that Bill forward at the present moment?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite see the noble and learned Lord's point. He says that in my statement I dropped out all mention of the Welsh Church Bill and devoted myself entirely to the Irish Bill. That is true. We are waiting to deal with the question of the Welsh Church Bill until the Bill which I foreshadowed was coming up from another place arrives in this House. We shall then be prepared to meet as best we can the arguments which the noble and learned Lord has put for-ward.
LORD PARMOOR: I was not dealing with the merits of the Welsh Church Bill; that would be quite out of place at the present moment. I was alluding to the difference between what the Government propose and the proposal in Lord Lansdowne's Bill, and it is to that point that argument ought to he addressed at the present moment. I heard no argument in the course of the noble Marquess's speech to show that the Suspensory Bill proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would not meet the case of the Welsh Church Bill. Supposing you put a Bill of this kind upon the Statute Book, what is the position of those who are opposed to the Bill? As Lord Lansdowne pointed out, even if the disendowment clauses are postponed until after the war what possibility will there then be of the friends of the Welsh Church going to the public and raising a fund for the purpose of replacing the resources of which the Welsh Church is to be deprived under the Government's Bill?
Again, what reason is there for bringing forward this controversy at the present time? It cannot be said that the Established Church (Wales) Bill is a matter of great urgency, or that it is enthusiastically demanded by the Welsh people. It is well known that there has hardly been a single meeting held in Wales in support of the
628
Bill. And I wonder whether the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has read the evidence which was given before the Select Committee. It is there shown conclusively that as soon as the terms of the Bill were realised in Wales a considerable number of Nonconformists joined in the protest from Churchmen against the dismemberment and disendowment of the Welsh Church under present conditions. Therefore I earnestly hope that, so far as the Welsh Church Bill is concerned, the process of suspension will be allowed. That is the only method in which matters can be left unaffected one way or the other, and bitter controversy avoided.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I assume that the noble Marquess opposite really thought that the case stood as he put it. He seemed to think that his Party were suffering under a serious grievance because, in effect, they were not getting a "square deal" in this matter. On that point I should like to submit one or two considerations to your Lordships. This discussion is being carried on as if the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Bill were measures which had to be considered, discussed, and dealt with in the regular order. But the position of these two Bills is that they are ready to go upon the Statute Book automatically upon the Prorogation of Parliament irrespective of anything that this House may do; and that fact I am bound to say, in view of the action of the noble Marquess opposite, is a considerable consolation to those who are interested in them.
The noble Marquess says that to place these Bills upon the Statute Book now would be taking an unfair advantage of the situation created by the war. Is it not the fact that were it not for the war these Bills would have been automatically placed on the Statute Book a few weeks ago? It is only after superhuman efforts that the Liberal Party have managed to get anything like a square deal for any of their legislation, and even then the square deal consists of having to pass a Bill three times during three separate sessions. The Government have gone through all the laborious procedure prescribed by the Parliament Act, and these Bills are now in the position of automatically going upon the Statute Book. The noble Marquess says that it is unfair to put them there since war has broken out. It seems to me

629
that the noble Marquess is trying to secure a triumph for his Party in a complete breakdown of the Parliament Act and the withholding of these Bills simply because of the outbreak of the war.
I am sorry that a discussion should be raised to-night which might appear to be of a Party character, but I think we have all done what we could to make it as little acrimonious as possible. The noble Marquess opposite said, with regard to the Bill which he has introduced—I do not know whether he is seriously going to press it—that he is prepared to go any length to secure that the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Bill shall be kept in the same position in which they were before the war broke out. The offer that he makes is, I understand, that the Bills shall be considered in the same position as they are now at the end of the next session after the conclusion of peace. But that is not retaining them in the same position. They are now ready to go on the Statute Book, and to retain for them that position the noble Marquess ought to propose in his Bill that they should be automatically presented for Royal Assent immediately after the conclusion of peace. I cannot help feeling, with considerable regret, that this is the last kick of those entrenchments of privilege represented by noble Lords opposite, and that to bring forward the Bill which has been produced by the noble Marquess this evening is an attempt to take an unfair advantage of the position created by the war. I hope that in the interests of all parties the noble Marquess will not press his Bill, particularly as I understand, from the announcement made on behalf of the Government, that it would be futile.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the statement which has just been made by the noble Earl opposite, to the effect that the Government of Ireland Bill would have automatically gone on to the Statute Book had there been no war, is absolutely contrary to the fact. What was the position? It was that, so far from being satisfied that the Bill should automatically go on to the Statute Book as it is, His Majesty's Government had themselves proposed, and must have carried but for the war, some vital amendments in that Bill to meet the position of Ulster—
EARL RUSSELL: That was the Amending Bill, not the Home Rule Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: But it is part of the same Bill, part of the whole settlement of the Irish question; and such amendment was absolutely necessary if, as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has told us to-night, His Majesty's Government had determined that in no circumstances would they coerce Ulster into the acceptance of a Parliament in Dublin.
Then what is the position in regard to the Welsh Church Bill? Circumstances have entirely changed by the outbreak of the war. It is obvious, as my noble friend who leads the Opposition and Lord Parmoor have pointed out, that it would be impossible during the war or for some period after the war for funds to be raised to recoup the Church in Wales for the endowments of which it will be deprived by the Bill. Yet His Majesty's Government and their supporters have always argued that their Bill would not injuriously affect the Church in Wales because voluntary contributions would be obtained to make up for what was taken away.
I rose mainly to put a question to the noble Marquess who leads the House. What does he mean by the postponement which he suggests with regard to the Welsh Church Bill? As the Bill now stands, it is to come into force six months, or not more than twelve months—to be fixed by Order in Council—after its passing. Is the year's grace, the grace during the war which the noble Marquess has informed us will be proposed by the Government with regard to this Bill, to be in addition to or in substitution for the six or twelve months now provided in the Bill? If it is in addition it is a concession, though I think an insufficient concession having regard to the impossibility of raising funds which the war and its consequences will result in; but if it is merely in substitution for the period proposed in the Bill, I think even the noble Marquess himself will admit that it is entirely inadequate to meet the circumstances of the case.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The proposition simply is that instead of six months delay, as provided in the original form of the Welsh Church Bill, the delay should be twelve months plus any such further time as in the circumstances may be provided by Order in Council. We have been fully impressed by the force of

631
the argument which has been used by more than one noble Lord to-night—namely, that the power of making up to the Welsh Church the stun of which she would be deprived in the form of tithes and otherwise by the Bill is gravely diminished by the fact of the war having started since the Bill first came up to this House. We recognise the force of that argument, and so far as disendowment is concerned we quite agree that a moratorium period before it takes place ought, in fairness, to be allowed—a longer period than the mere six months provided for in the original Bill. My noble friend who is in charge of the Welsh Church Bill will be able to develop that point further when the Bill is put down for Second Reading.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, it is with reluctance that I take part in this debate, but I feel bound to repeat in your Lordships' House what I have said across the Channel in a letter to the Dublin Press. I deeply regret that His Majesty's Government should have arrived at the decision which has been announced to us to-night by the noble Marquess who leads the House. As a Southern Unionist, I should not object to the Home Rule Bill being placed on the Statute Book before the Amending Bill had been disposed of, subject to the condition which has been announced—that the operation of the Home Rule Bill is to be postponed. But Ulster was promised that before the Home Rule Bill was put on the Statute Book the Amending Bill should be thoroughly discussed and disposed of, and it is not fair to Ulster that that promise should be gone back upon. I therefore entirely agree with the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition that the Royal Assent to the Home Rule Bill should be postponed in order to give an opportunity for the Amending Bill to be discussed.
On the other hand, I am well aware of the existence on the part of Nationalists of the fear to which Lord MacDonnell has alluded—the fear that if the Home Rule Bill is not now put on the Statute Book it may be defeated altogether. I am aware that that fear is largely held in Ireland; and it seems to me that it would be impossible in the circumstances for the Nationalist Party to assent to a moratorium without having some guarantee that the Bill would not be absolutely wrecked. Therefore I welcomed the statement, which
632
I fully expected to hear from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, that he had no intention of taking advantage of the war to wreck the Bill, and I was glad to hear him add that he was willing to go any length to make it a certainty that the Home Rule Bill should not be wrecked on account of the war. But the suggestion which Lord Lansdowne made—that the duration of this Parliament should be extended for another year—would not I am afraid entirely meet the apprehensions, the reasonable apprehensions, of the Nationalist Party; because what they fear is not only a General Election but a possible change of Government. Surely that might be met in some way. Might it not be met by the course suggested by Lord Russell—namely, that the Royal Assent should be automatically given at the end of the moratorium? It seems to me that that would be fair to all parties in that it would put them in the same position as they now occupy.
On Question, Bill read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª To-morrow. (No. 283.)

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
To be read 2— To-morrow.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Debate on the Second Reading to be resumed To-morrow.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª Tomorrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 284.)
NATIONAL INSURANCE (NAVY AND ARMY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord President (E. Beauchamp)). (No. 285.)
POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª To-morrow (The Viscount Allendale). (No. 286.)

PRIZE COURTS (EGYPT, ZANZIBAR, AND CYPRUS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª Tomorrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 287.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.