Sitting of 29 April 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Oakham Gas, Staveley Gas, Thirsk Gas, and Thirsk District Water." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 28th April; Mr. Acland]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, &c.
Copy presented of Accounts showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Criminal Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
LAND REGISTRY.
Account presented of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 218.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of Durham (Whickham urban district, Dunston ward);
Borough of Haslingden;
Borough of Blackburn
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

AUSTRALIA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Report of the Royal Commission on the Meat Export Trade of the Commonwealth of Australia, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHIPBUILDING, MUNITIONS, AND TRANSPORT AREAS.
Copy ordered "of Report and Statistics of Bad Time kept in Shipbuilding, Munitions, and Transport Areas."—[Mr. Chancellar of the Exchequer.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 220.]

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered, "showing, for each financial year commencing the 1st day of April, from 1875 to 1915, inclusive:—

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1914–15, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and Miscellaneous Receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the met increase or decrease of Debt in the year;

(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities; and

(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State."—[Mr. Acland.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH WHITE PAPER (GERMAN TRANSLATION).
    Mr. THOMAS-STANFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the White Paper combining correspondence previous to the outbreak of War has been translated into German; and, if so, whether copies have been distributed among German prisoners in this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    TURKISH EMPIRE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has obtained any information regarding the treatment of prisoners taken by the Turks or interned in the Turkish Empire?
    Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the treatment of the crew of submarine E 15, and on 23rd April requested the United States Ambassador to make inquiries as to the names of those taken prisoners, but have not yet received a reply. A certain number of merchant seamen are interned at Magnesia, near Smyrna. The United States Consul-General and the British Chaplain at that port are in touch with them, and the latter, once a week, visits the prisoners, who have received assistance from the American Red Cross Society.

    GERMAN SUBMARINES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what are the special conditions to which prisoners from German submarines are subject?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am informed that pending the fitting up of a fort which is intended to be their separate place of internment, the German submarine prisoners
    806
    taken since 18th February are at Chatham and Devenport Detention Barracks. They are not kept in solitary confinement, but are allowed to exercise in company between breakfast and dinner, and between dinner and supper. Smoking is also allowed at certain hours. The officers are allowed to use the gymnasium, and a room has been provided as a smoking room. Their dietary is equivalent to the Government rations supplied to the ordinary prisoners of war, and they are permitted within limits to supplement this dietary by purchase out of money sent them by their friends. The officers will receive pay at 2s. 6d. a day. They are permitted to write letters and to receive letters and parcels within the usual limits. Facilities for obtaining German or English books are accorded to them. They are not forced to undertake any labour, but it is open to them to do so if they wish. The men are allowed to wait on the officers and clean their rooms.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In what respect does their treatment differ from that accorded to ordinary prisoners of war?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They are kept separate.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is that the only difference?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking offhand, yes.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why an announcement was made bearing an entirely different interpretation as to how they were to be treated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know to what my right hon. Friend refers. He should read this statement with the statement made the day before yesterday.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: If it is the case that these officers are so well treated as the right hon. Gentleman has now explained, why was an announcement made which indicated to the public that they were to be treated very severely indeed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I know, the policy laid down was that after 18th February they were to be separated and kept by themselves.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the case that the answer says that they are not separated, but that they are allowed to exercise along with other prisoners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Let there be no misunderstanding about that. The answer is that they are not in solitary confinement. They are allowed to exercise in company. The point I am trying to make is that they are kept separate from other prisoners of war.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman have that important answer communicated to the American Embassy in order that it may be made public in Germany?
    Dr. MACNAMARAwas understood to assent.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Have any arrangements been made since yesterday to allow an independent American representative to see these prisoners and how they are treated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member will remember that on Tuesday the First Lord said that he was quite ready to have an impartial examination of that sort in return for a similar examination in Germany. Whether anything has been done in the meantime I cannot say offhand.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an opportunity offers at the present moment to have that examination made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will consider that, yes.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the report in to-day's papers that the American Embassy in Germany has inspected the conditions of detention of the thirty-nine British officers is correct, and, if so, whether that complies with the condition laid down by the First Lord?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand.

    ATTEMPTS TO ESCAPE.
    Mr. KINGasked by what statutory authority a court-martial can try prisoners of war escaping or attempting to escape without breach of parole; to what punishment such prisoners so escaping or attempting to escape are liable; whether there are any means by which the point of law raised by prisoners of war tried by court-martial at Chester can be referred for decision to the High Court; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for War will direct it to be so referred?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The prisoners of war referred to are not tried by court-martial under the Army Act but by a Military Court assembled under the Regulations issued by Royal Warrant of the 3rd August last. Such Military Courts have power to award death, penal servitude, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, not exceeding two years. There is no procedure by which the points of law raised by these prisoners can be referred for decision to the High Court. All such points are, however carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Crown.

  NYASALAND.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has any knowledge of Mr. Booth, a Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, whose influence among the natives of Nyasaland is believed to have played a large part in the recent rising; and whether any means can be adopted of preventing this person and his American negro supporters from propagating their doctrines in this British Protectorate?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The matter has come under notice, and attention is being paid to it.

  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (REBELLION).
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the advisability of publishing as a Parliamentary Paper the Report on the outbreak of the rebellion and the policy of the Government with reference to its suppression issued by the Government of the Union of South Africa?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Report has already been presented as Command Paper 7874.

  UNION CABLE COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if a contract has recently been

  809
  given to the Union Cable Company, Limited; and, if so, will he state what are the names of the directors and who is the principal shareholder?
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): Yes, Sir. The principal holding is in German hands. The managing director is an Englishman, the other four directors are German. The action of the Office of Works in this matter is in accordance with the policy laid down for them, in common with other Departments, by His Majesty's Government in the Trading with the Enemy Act.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend aware that the directors are Bernard Hirsch-man, Siegfried Hirschman, Julius Hirschman, and Moritz Kreemar, and that the Deutsche Kabelwerke Allgemeine Gessellschaft of Berlin holds 48,218 shares out of a total of 50,000?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking for a number of details.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that in my question I asked for the names of the directors, but the hon. Member has declined to give them because they are German?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to know them.
  Mr. BOOTH: I made a search in Somerset House and I want to know if the Office of Works are aware of this, and I think I am entitled to ask that?
  Mr. BECK: In my reply I distinctly stated that the managing director is an Englishman, Mr. Blackwood, and the other four directors are Germans. I should have been very much surprised if they had English names, being Germans. The works are in Essex, a number of English people are employed, and not a penny of any kind goes to Germany.

  TITHE.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that for every year of war during which the price of the grains, upon which the value of tithe rent-charge depends, exceeds the normal by only 35 per cent. the Church of England will secure a profit, spread over a series of years, exceeding £1,000,000 in the aggregate; and whether he will introduce legislation which, while giving reasonable
  810
  satisfaction to the expectations of the Church, will relieve her from the odium I of having a direct financial interest in the continuance of the War or in the sinking of grain vessels by pirates?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on this subject last week. The information necessary to enable me to verify his estimate is not available. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on the subject.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask, as a disinterested person, what the loss has been to the Church of England since tithe rent-charge was first established on its present basis?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no means of answering that question either.

  POLICE CONSTABLES (ENLISTMENT).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of police constables, not being naval or military Reservists, have enlisted in His Majesty's naval or military forces as ordinary recruits; that the unmarried constables in the City of London police and other forces are being specially urged to enlist, and that many are willing to do so provided they are granted the rights accorded to other constables under the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, and the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, and will he take steps to extend the provisions of these Acts to all constables who enlist with the approval of their respective police authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to all the questions is in the affirmative. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Bill to extend the privileges conferred by the two Acts mentioned was given a Second Reading last Tuesday.

  TAXI-CAB LICENCES (WOMEN DRIVERS).
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Home Secretary whether a licence to drive a taxi-cab in London will be issued to a

  811
  woman who passes the usual police examination; and, if not, will he state whether the refusal to issue such licence is based upon the statutory disqualification of a woman or upon a decision of the Home Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Haggerston on the 1st of March.

  FOOD PRICES.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Home Secretary whether the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply or the agents thereof have ceased purchasing sugar; and whether he will state the total quantity of sugar at present in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that it would be in the public interest to answer this question at the present time.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when sugar is really going to be made cheaper?
  Mr. McKENNA: The price of sugar in this country is no greater than in any other country in the world, but I should have been extremely glad if the general prices of sugar dropped.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he will furnish the Report which he has so often promised to the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am entirely in the hands of the House as to when a Debate takes place on the subject.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that steamers carrying sugar, purchased by the Royal Commission or the agents thereof, experienced delay in discharging their cargoes in ports of the United Kingdom; and will he state whether the owners of steamers have in any instances been paid demurrage either by the Royal Commission or the consignees for the detention their steamers experienced in discharging their cargoes of sugar?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative. Claims for demurrage have in certain cases been made on the Commission; but in no case has a claim been admitted,
  812
  unless the delay in discharge was attributable in a material and direct degree to the action of the Commission in respect of the particular cargo concerned.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the House to understand that the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to give particulars and to make reports arises from a desire to shield the mistakes and blunders made by the Sugar Commission?
  Mr. McKENNA: I answered the question entirely.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I am referring to the previous question.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, simultaneously with an advance in the price of bread in Cardiff, Messrs. Spillers and Bakers, the Cardiff milling firm, have issued a balance sheet showing a profit of £367,865, as against £89,352 for the previous year; whether he is aware that food prices are still rising; and whether, in the light of what is happening, the Government propose taking action in regard to food and coal prices?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which will be given later to Question No. 60 addressed to the President of the Board of Trade by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  Mr. SUTTONasked, having regard to the cost of living at the present time, and especially the price of bread charged to the poor people of this country, whether he can introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House on short weight?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question on this subject asked on the 25th November last by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. SUTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of local authorities in this country are most anxious that greater powers should be given to prosecute the exploiters of the poor on this question?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: There is a considerable difference among local authorities on this point, as I pointed out in a recent answer.
  Mr. SUTTON: Is it not a fact that the Board have had a large number of requisitions from local authorities on this matter, asking that something should be done?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of an answer recently given to a similar question.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the Secretary to the Board of Trade realise that the 5th of November is five months ago?
  Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the high price of meat, he will consider the advisability of prohibiting the slaughter of calves and lambs?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I cannot at present say more than that the Board have for some time past been giving this question their close attention in consultation with the Scottish and Irish Departments.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the public statement made by the Board that purchases of wheat on behalf of the Government ceased some time ago, he will now state whether the individuals or firms employed by the Government as their agents or brokers to effect purchases of wheat either bought or sold wheat on their own account during the period that they were acting for the Government; whether he will state the scale of commissions and the total amount of commissions paid to these Government agents; and whether these Government agents also chartered tonnage for the conveyance of such Government purchases?
  Sir H. VERNEY: I can add nothing to recent reply which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman refusing to give particulars that the same objectionable features appertain to the purchase of wheat which characterised the purchase of timber?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No, certainly not.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the price of household bread in Liverpool on 22nd April was not 8d. for 4 lbs. but 9d., or a small fraction either under or over 9d.; and whether, in view of the fact that ocean freights from the Argentine to France are from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per ton higher than to this country, he can now explain why bread is cheaper in Paris, which is an inland city, than in Liverpool, which is a seaport?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The price quoted for bread in Liverpool is the predominant price, and this price on 22nd April was correctly stated as 8d. per 4 lbs. On the same date the predominant price in Paris was 7¾d. per 4 lbs. I cannot say how far—if at all—this difference corresponds to a difference of quality, or how far it is due to other causes, but I may point out that the cost of production of bread is affected by a variety of factors other than the price of Hour.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the hon. Gentleman state why the price of bread in Dublin is 8d. while the people in London are charged 10d.?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I shall have to make inquiry, and the hon. and learned Member had better put down a question.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Owing to the mystery surrounding Government purchase, and the uncertainty of their action, is it not a fact that merchants are ceasing to procure importations into this country, and that as a consequence there is a diminution in the supply and there is an increase in price; and can he say what action will be taken by the Government to reduce prices?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: All those questions are under special consideration by the Board.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: How long will they remain under special consideration?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that I the prices of corn and flour continue to rise, and that leading dealers in these commodities are declaring that prices will rise higher still; if he is aware that a firm of millers has just declared a profit of £367,865 for last year, compared with a profit of but £89,352 for the previous year; and, in view of the hardship inflicted on

  815
  the poor by these profits, made by exploiting the necessities of the people, will he take immediate steps to deal with the problem?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have seen the figures to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not think that the high price of flour is really attributable to extravagant profits made by the firm in question. As my hon. Friend is aware, favourable forward contracts for the purchase of grain during a period of rising prices may yield large profits to a particular firm, even though the price at which they sell their flour is determined by the competition of other firms who meet their current requirements by purchases of wheat at current rates. The question of the best means of restraining the prices of necessaries without endangering their supply is receiving constant and anxious attention.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: What we want to know is—this is a serious matter—how long this gang is to be allowed to sweat the faces of the poor, while the common people are giving their blood for the country. Why are the Government not taking any action in this matter?
  Mr. CROOKS: When are the Government Departments going to cease apologising for this robbery?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to pressure brought to bear by wholesale milk dealers upon retail dealers in London, by which an attempt is being made to compel all retail dealers to sell milk at 4½d. per quart, even when they desire to sell it at 4d.; and whether he has taken any steps to prevent such an agreement amongst wholesale firms to force up prices from being imposed upon retailers?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware that retailers generally have been subjected to pressure of the character stated in the question, and I understand that the price of milk has not been raised to 4½d. per quart in all parts of London. Careful consideration is, however, being given to the matter, and the Board of Trade are in communication with representatives of the milk distributing trade.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has not the hon. Gentleman received documents proving the statement I make?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The document to which the hon. Member refers, I presume, is one that indicates that a rise has taken place in some parts. As I have stated, the Board are in communication with the representatives of the milk distributing trade at this moment.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the Government consider, if these charges are true, whether they cannot take proceedings either under the Defence of the Realm Act or under the old Statutes?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the Noble Lord will give me notice of that.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FUND (WAR ALLOWANCE).
  Mr. HAYES FISHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in the present state of the law and in the absence of any additional grant from the Exchequer, the additional charge on the Metropolitan Police Fund necessitated by the War allowance of 3s. a week to the Metropolitan police will be borne wholly by the ratepayers in the Metropolitan police district, and thus alter to the advantage of the Exchequer and the disadvantage of the Metropolitan ratepayers the proportion of the cost of the police hitherto raised from those two sources?
  Mr. McKENNA: In the case of police officers employed by the Government the Exchequer will pay the whole. The rest of the charge will fall on the Metropolitan Police Fund, but I am unable at present to say whether it will involve any additional charge on the Metropolitan ratepayer, as the expenditure will be balanced to a large extent by the savings on account of constables who have joined the military forces or have been lent to the War Office and Admiralty.

  LICENSING RESTRICTIONS.
  Mr. BOYTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that municipal town halls, such as Caxton Hall, belonging to the Westminster City Council, are able to let their buildings for such functions as Jewish wedding dinners and dances to hosts who issue private invitations and provide food and drink, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, as they think fit, for their guests, whilst other halls and places of entertainment, simply because they have an Excise

  817
  licence, cannot be used for strictly private functions after 11 p.m. if alcoholic drinks are desired; and whether he can see his way to either remove the restrictions for private parties from all responsible licensees of halls or withdraw the privilege from municipalities.
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the facts are as stated. At the request of the military authorities no extensions of time to licensed premises involving the sale or consumption of alcoholic drink are permitted after 11 p.m. For the convenience of guests at Jewish wedding parties held on licensed premises, however, the Commissioner of Police grants extensions of time till the hour by custom established, on an undertaking being given that intoxicants will not be sold or consumed after 11 p.m. Obviously no such restrictions can apply to parties held in private houses or on premises which do not come under the restriction of the Licensing Acts.
  Mr. BOYTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers a municipal hall is a private residence?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I consider the premises are under the heading of premises which do not come under the restrictions of the Licensing Acts.

  ANTI-TYPHOID INOCULATION.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the circulation by some person or persons unknown of a leaflet suggesting that a Territorial died last November, at Lytham, as the result of anti-typhoid inoculation, and that the death certificate falsely alleged a different cause of death; and whether he will take steps, to prevent the dissemination of incitements to soldiers to endanger their own and their comrades' lives by refusing to undergo inoculation?
  Mr. TENNANT: Reports have been received that this leaflet has been distributed both with and without the statement that the death was ascribed to a different cause on the death certificate. Such steps as were considered necessary have been taken.
  Mr. McNEILL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman deal with this matter under the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am advised that proceedings could not be taken in this case: therefore I am afraid that the answer to the hon. Member is in the negative. But if he likes to repeat the question, I will give him a more definite reply.

  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board what progress is being made with further provision for Belgian refugees; and what is the total number to date in this country?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Registrar-General estimates that the number of Belgian Refugees (excluding soldiers) now in this country is about 180,000. Of these it may be roughly estimated that the number of employable men is about 29,000, of whom about 17,000 have already been placed in employment, and efforts are continually being made to find occupation for the others. Of 17,000 employable women about 3,000 are employed. Several thousands of refugees, not included in the figures of employment, have enlisted in the Belgian Army. The number of refugees awaiting hospitality has so far diminished as to allow of my being able to close the Alexandra Palace as a refuge and to arrange for the transfer of the buildings to the War Office. About 2,400 refugees remain in other refuges, and further offers of hospitality would be gladly received by the War Refugees' Committee at Aldwych.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there are other refugees who could be brought over here if hospitality were arranged for?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No doubt, when traffic is resumed with Holland, it would be possible to bring over other refugees if hospitality were available; but of late the offers of hospitality have not been large.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it proposed to give employment to these, people in the manufacture of munitions of war?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are a large number employed in armament factories.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to cases where the award of separation allowances on account of a son's enlistment appears to jeopardise the issue of old age pensions; and what is the intention of the Board with regard to such cases?
  Mr. ACLAND: It has been decided that no steps are to be taken to reduce existing old age pensions in respect of increases of income due to the receipt of separation allowances.
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board when provision will be made for the expenses incurred by local pension committees, and the salaries of their officials, in performing the additional duties laid upon them by the Government of investigating claims to the new allowances granted to the dependants of those who fall in the War; and, if necessary, seeing that the matter has been before the Treasury for at least five months, will he urge the Treasury to expedite their decision?
  Mr. HAYES FISHERasked when and how it is proposed to provide for the expenditure of local pension committees which has necessarily been incurred on behalf of the Government since 27th October last in dealing with claims for separation allowance (Navy and Army); and whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused to such committees by the delay in issuing the necessary scheme for the provision of funds?
  Mr. ACLAND: It has been decided as a provisional arrangement that the remuneration of the clerks of pension committees and sub-committees in connection with claims to Navy and Army separation allowances shall be by a fee for each claim dealt with. Charges for the hire of rooms for meetings of committees and sub-committees will also be payable within certain limits. The necessary financial instructions have been issued to pension committees.
  Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the widows of Territorial officers killed in action have the same pension rights as those of Regular officers?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. WINGasked if a dependant's allowance should be paid from the date on which the soldier makes an allotment of 6d. per day from his Army pay?
  Mr. BAKER: Dependant's allowance is payable from date of application, or from date of the soldier's enlistment if the application is received within ten days.
  Mr. BENTHAM: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say when the Government will introduce a Bill which will carry out the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Pensions and Allowances to Widows and Dependants, and especially as the twenty-six weeks' limit they were originally granted has now expired?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  NAVAL AIR SECTION (MOTOR CAR DRIVERS).
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether motor-car drivers are wanted for the Royal Naval Air Section; whether he is aware that experienced drivers of excellent character are being rejected because they may have lost one or two fingers, which has never interfered with their efficiency; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Motor mechanics and transport drivers are required for the Royal Naval Air Service; but in view of the fact that such men, although chiefly employed on transport work, may at any time be required for other duties in connection with aircraft and are also required to handle a rifle when necessary, no exception as regards the requisite standard of medical fitness laid down can be made in their favour.

  INSTITUTIONS FOR BLIND (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
  Mr. HAYES FISHERasked whether the Government are placing contracts for the supply of such articles as mattresses and mats with the institutions for the blind, which are capable of producing those articles; and, if not, whether the Government will consider the desirability of so doing and thereby releasing the labour of sighted workers, who are needed for, and are capable of the production of other war material?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Institutions for the blind already receive a considerable share of Admiralty orders for brushware and baskets and the question of extension of orders is, and will be, carefully borne in mind. I may say that orders for seamen's bedding are principally executed by women.

  BRITISH VESSELS SUNK BY GERMAN SUBMARINES.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many British vessels have been sunk by German submarines in waters outside the North Sea during the month of February, March, and April, respectively?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of British vessels sunk by German submarines in waters outside the North Sea is:—

  Eight during February,

  Seventeen during March, and

  Six during April, up to the 27th.

  Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the last date in April on which a vessel was sunk?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot without notice.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that civilian pensioners employed at the Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport, and "Indus," unlike other dockyard employés called up for service, are not participating in the 2s. bonus?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member refers to pensioners in receipt of civilian rates of pay, they will receive the emergency increase announced in the award of the Committee on Production. The award is not applicable to the cases of men called up but retained in the establishments referred to on naval work at naval rates of pay.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether yard-craft men are required, under Clause 35 of Answers to Petitions (page 12), to surrender any special privileges; and, if so, will he explain what those privileges are and the cause of their sur-
  822
  render; and (2) whether he can say when the yard-craft men will receive payment in respect to the concessions recently granted therein; and will he explain the cause of the delay that has occurred?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The improvements in wages and conditions of employment of yard-craft men set out in the answers to petitions were conditional upon the surrender of special privileges in certain cases. The privileges in question are certain advantages which were enjoyed by some of the yard-craft men in respect of sick leave with pay and medical attendance. I imagine that any delay which may have occurred in some cases is owing to the hesitation of some of the men to accept the conditions regarding the surrender of special privileges previously enjoyed by them. Payment of the increased rates has already been made to those men who have accepted the conditions.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand, unless they agree to this, that that bonus of 2s. will be stopped?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know what the hon. Member is thinking about in the matter of bonuses. It is not a question of bonus. We set out new conditions, and the receipt of the new conditions were contingent upon giving up certain privileges.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Is it not the fact that the advance of wages was given to these men because of the increase in the cost of living, and now, instead of giving them an advance, the advantages that they have been in receipt of are to be taken away from them; therefore, it will be no advance at all?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend, if I may respectfully say so, quite misunderstands. These are the replies of the officials; what he refers to is quite a different matter.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

    SCOTTISH MANUFACTURES.
    Mr. WATTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether samples of the goods wanted by his Department are systematically sent to Scottish centres to faciliate Scottish manufacturers tendering for contracts; and will he say to how many town in Scotland such samples are sent?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In addition to sending small samples to each firm invited to tender, larger samples of the undermentioned goods are systematically sent to the chambers of commerce at the Scottish centres named, to facilitate other Scottish manufacturers tendering for the contracts. The samples are sent annually, and sometimes oftener, but are not always sent when purchases recur at short intervals. The centres and goods referred to are as follows:—

    Dundee.—Canvas sailcloth, coal bag and sack cloth, twines, jute goods, canvas for hammocks, scene painting canvas, linen duck cloth, and sundry linen goods.

    Dunfermline.—Damask table linen, linen goods.

    Glasgow.—Canvas sailcloth, coal bag and sack cloth, threads, twines, waterproof packing paper and worsted, comforters and woollen drawers.

    Galashiels.—Blue serge, blue cloth.

    Hawick.—Comforters, jerseys and woollen drawers.

    Mr. WATT: Is not a substantial trade done with Scotland by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. BRADY: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether similar arrangements will be made with Irish centres to enable Irish contractors to tender for goods of this sort?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Off-hand, I should say yes; but perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.
    Mr. BRADY: In the meantime, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to make some inquiries?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending the number of goods of which samples are sent, such as timber goods and manufactured articles?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We send many samples. In many cases there is no need to send a sample.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what facilities were given to Scottish manufacturers in the way of showing them in Scotland samples of the goods required by his Department, as compared with facilities given to English manufacturers?
    Mr. BAKER: It has been the practice for a long time to send for exhibition at certain chambers of commerce, patterns of specified articles for which tenders are invited. Negotiations are now in progress to arrange for exhibition at a larger number of chambers and to extend the list of articles, as many Scotch contractors are coming into competition for goods which they hitherto did not supply.
    Mr. WATTasked what proportion of the clothing contract for the Army which was recently placed went to contractors in Scotland?
    Mr. BAKER: The total number of garments ordered from Scotch firms was 168,950, or about 4¼ per cent. of the total ordered in the United Kingdom. I may add that the total number tendered for by Scotch firms was only 403,390, so that the orders placed covered over 40 per cent. of the numbers offered, while English firms secured orders for less than 25 per cent. of the numbers offered.
    Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 4¼ per cent. is only half of that to which we are entitled?
    Mr. WATTasked why the contract recently placed for clothing for the Army introduced the new condition of forbidding sub-contracting, especially so far as Scotland is concerned, in view of the fact that the smaller makers there pay higher wages to their workpeople than the larger makers?
    Mr. BAKER: The prohibition of subcontracting is not a new condition, but one which had been in force in regard to clothing contracts for many years before the War. It was temporarily suspended in the early part of the War to meet the emergency, but, in view of the abuses which are liable to occur under a system of general sub-contracting, it was reintroduced as soon as circumstances permitted. All contractors are bound to pay rates of wages which fulfil the requirements of the Fair-Wages Clause.

    PROFITS TO CONTRACTORS.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Government is placing contracts with a guaranteed profit; whether this has been done on his advice; and what check he can suggest upon the costs of production or construction in such cases?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have not, so far as I am aware, placed any contracts on the basis mentioned. As regards contracts placed by any other Department, my hon. Friend should address his question to the Department concerned, which is solely responsible in the matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: Am I to understand this new principle has been introduced without any consultation with the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No, Sir; the hon. Member must not understand anything of the kind.

  SCOTTISH ESTUARIES (YACHTING).
  Mr. WATTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of his Department to close the Clyde and other estuaries of Scotland against yachting during the approaching summer; and, if so, whether he will publish the decision speedily in view of the number of interests involved?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have decided that definite limits should be drawn at each harbour or estuary outside of which no cruising of yachts or pleasure boats can be allowed. Before a regatta is held within the limits of the authorised port or waters, the permission of the senior naval officer should be obtained. Excursion steamer traffic can be permitted only so far as it serves for conveyance of necessaries to places off the mainland. All such sailings must be made under licence from the local naval authorities. These authorities are authorised to publish the limits within which pleasure cruising, etc., is allowed, and requests for information as regards particular areas should be addressed to them. In the case of Scottish waters, the authority concerned is the Admiral Commanding, Coast of Scotland, Rosyth.

  NAVAL LOSSES (OFFICERS AND MEN).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve killed from the commencement of the War to the 31st March, 1915, in view of the statement in
  826
  the Navy List for April of officers and men killed in action up to the 18th March, 1915, giving names which amount to a total of 6,606–379 officers and 6,227 men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of officers killed down to 31st March is 417. The total number of men killed down to 31st March is 6,313.

  GIBRALTAR (WAGES).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has yet come to a decision re wages at Gibraltar; if not, when such decision may be expected and if it will be made retrospective?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is receiving very careful attention, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has told me that about three times within the last six months?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I cannot say how many times; but what I have told the hon. Gentleman is perfectly true.
  Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last paragraph?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend must know that the men, having set out their grievance, have received, or will receive, dating 28th September, such rises as are applicable to their case. The other aspects of the question are receiving very careful consideration.

  NAVAL RESERVE (ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that since August last some 400 persons have been entered as assistant paymasters in the Naval Reserve, gentlemen without any previous service in the Navy, without knowledge of naval accounts or official duties, and who have to be instructed in their duties by the chief writers, who have their own responsible duties to perform, and that these gentlemen are receiving rewards and the best positions and passing over the heads of the chief writers; also that some of these latter have recently been officially recommended to the Admiralty for promotion to assistant paymaster

  827
  Royal Naval Reserve, but have not been so promoted; and if he will look into the matter and remedy this state of affairs?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the replies which I gave yesterday to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on this subject. I may observe that Chief Writers of the Royal Navy are not eligible for appointment as Assistant Paymasters in the Royal Naval Reserve.

  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether candidates for the Civil Service examinations who offer themselves for military service will be entitled to deduct the period of military service from their age, if they return safely, for the purposes of the examination; whether they will be granted a further twelve months for preparation; and whether it is intended to fill vacancies in the Civil Service according to the lists of those who passed at the last examination?
  Mr. ACLAND: As regards the first and second parts of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 4th February last to the Member for East Edinburgh. As regards the third part, some vacancies which it is indispensably necessary to fill are being filled by candidates from the last examination, but places will be reserved for successful candidates at open competitive examinations who are unable to take up their civil situations owing to absence on military duties.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether no intermediate Civil Service examinations for junior appointments are to be held this year; if so, whether he will give the reasons for this short notice, seeing that it was only given within ten weeks of the usual date of the examination, and that boys leaving public schools train for two years in order to sit for this examination; and whether the Civil Service Commissioners can see their way to hold the examination as usual in July, but to announce that no candidates passing it would be allowed to enter the service until the end of the War?
  Mr. ACLAND: No examination for junior appointments (intermediate class) will be held this summer. The necessity of consulting Departments recruited from these examinations and the uncertain conditions caused by the War made it impracticable to give longer notice of the decision. The Civil Service Commissioners see no reason to advocate an alteration of this decision, and I am not prepared to modify it.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Civil Service Commissioners have announced that no further examinations for junior appointments (intermediate class) will be held; whether such appointments will now cease to be made; and, if this class of appointments be not abolished, how vacancies arising will be filled?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Civil Service Commissioners have announced that no examination for junior appointments (intermediate class) will be held this summer. The period in which vacancies may be filled from the competition held in January last has not yet expired. The question of holding competitions of this class while the War continues will be considered as occasion may arise.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of candidates have been preparing for two years for this examination and now, a few weeks before it is to be held, they are told that no examination is to be held at all?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is not considered desirable to hold examinations when there are no vacancies to be filled.
  Mr. KING: Then will fees that have been paid be returned?

  INCREASING RENTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether any emergency legislation is contemplated to deal with the question of increasing rents or whether the powers of the Emergency Courts are considered to be sufficient protection?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this and following questions. The information at the disposal of the Government leads them to the opinion that there would seem to be, at present, no case for further special

  829
  legislation, as any hard cases could be dealt with under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act of 1914.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries from such places, for instance, as Glasgow, where several charitable funds are now being raised to pay rents?
  Mr. McKENNA: Does my hon. Friend mean under new contracts or old ones?
  Mr. HOGGE: Under the old contracts?
  Mr. McKENNA: Then hard cases can be dealt with under the existing law.

  PRIZE CLAIMS COMMITTEE.
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Prize Claims Committee have made any awards in respect of claims against ships or cargo condemned in the Prize Court; and, if so, whether such awards will be made public?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The right hon. Gentleman will permit me to reply to this question. The Prize Claims Committee has investigated a number of claims and arrived at a provisional decision upon them, but no awards can be made until certain, outstanding questions connected with the Prize Funds have been settled.
  Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question. Will the awards be made public? May I also ask him: will those sums which are paid as awards be taken out of the money otherwise given as prize money to the Navy?
  Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman puts two further questions. I understood the last part of his question to be governed by the words "if so"—if any awards have been made, whether they will be made public? My answer was: No awards have been made. As to whether the awards will be made public, there is no doubt that they will have to be made public as soon as they are finally determined upon. The second question as to the fund out of which the money would come is one of the matters which are now under consideration both in respect of the funds in this country and the corresponding funds throughout the Empire.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: What is the position of the Prize Claims Committee? Is it a Committee of Appeal from the Prize Court?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, it is not a Court of Appeal from the Prize Court. It is a Committee appointed in order to ascertain what charges British subjects may have over goods which may come into the Prize Court otherwise many British subjects would find themselves deprived of what is, in effect, their property, because that property is condemned in the Prize Court.
  Mr. McNEILL: Those are the facts the Prize Court itself ascertains?
  Sir J. SIMON: From a very long course of practice the Prize Court itself pays no attention to that, so that if a German ship worth £60,000 is mortgaged for £50,000 to an Englishman, the German ship is condemned, the Englishman would lose his £50,000, unless special provision is made.
  Sir E. CARSON: Are there any rules laid down upon which this Committee is to adjudicate, or is it left entirely at large to do entirely what the members think proper?
  Sir J. SIMON: The Committee is instructed to report to the Treasury, and when that report is made it has got to be considered from the financial point of view by the Treasury.
  Sir E. CARSON: Are there any rules governing the ultimate destination of the money which otherwise would be prize money for the Navy?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that that is one of the matters which is under consideration. It is not possible, of course, for the Prize Claims Committee to lay down what shall go to the Navy or not; that must be a matter of general policy. All the Committee has to do is to investigate the value of the claims made by British subjects and neutrals who have charges over cargoes and ships which come before the Prize Courts. They merely have to report upon the amounts.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is that confined to British ships?

  BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average increase in the price of

  831
  aniline dyes sold by Messrs. Read, Holliday, and Company since the War commenced; and what is the maximum increase in any one of their products, stated in percentages?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not in a position to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: Is it not a fact that the Government are providing three-parts of the capital for this concern? Cannot the public know?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Dyes Company is not being run by the Board of Trade or by a Government Department. Special inquiry will be made by the original company.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: Is it not a fact that the government are finding three-fourths of the capital for this concern?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman is in a position to know all the facts.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state, on the authority of Messrs. Read, Holliday, and Company, that, in the selling of their business to the Government Dyes Company, no commission has been or will be paid to any member of the Committee which advocated the scheme or any other intermediary?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir. No commission has been or will be paid.
  Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that that statement is made on the authority of Messrs. Holliday?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Certainly; this is the second time the hon. Member has asked this question.
  Mr. BOOTH: The first time it was evaded.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The first time it was implicit, and the next time it was explicit.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total amount subscribed to British Dyes, Limited; what, on the basis of such subscription, are the unpaid liabilities of the Government in connection with that company; what amounts have the Government paid already in that connection; whether British Dyes, Limited, have
  832
  yet decided to exercise either of the options on the concern of Read, Holliday, and Sons, Limited, mentioned in the prospectus; if so, which option; whether the services of either Mr. Holliday or Mr. Joseph Turner have been secured; and, if so, on what terms?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of shares allotted up to yesterday was, I am informed, 641,509. The consequent liability of His Majesty's Government is to advance £641,509 on debentures, together with a loan of £200,000 to Read, Holliday, and Sons, Limited, which will be treated as an advance to the new company on its acquisition of that undertaking. The only amount so far paid by His Majesty's Government is £56,011 15s. 1d. in respect of that loan. The Government have also undertaken to make a Grant to the new company not exceeding £100,000 altogether in respect of expenditure incurred by them on research within the next ten years. I understand that the directors of British Dyes, Limited, have decided to acquire Read, Holliday, and Sons, Limited, exercising for that purpose option (a) set out in the prospectus. I have seen it stated in the Press that Mr. Joseph Turner will continue to manage that business, but I have no information as to the terms made with him.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask whether the Board of Trade could not make inquiries through the two Government directors of the company as to these terms and other matters, and inform the House?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It must be a matter as between the company and Mr. Turner. I will see if the information can be got, but if each transaction which takes place in connection with the company is to be made the subject of an inquiry in this House, it will involve a great deal of labour.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I point out that this is a very important matter, involving a large sum of money?

  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Prime Minister whether Sir John French has expressed to the Government his disapproval of the policy of secrecy enforced on the Press by the Censor?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government will make no relaxation in the censorship except at the suggestion of Sir John French and Lord Kitchener?
  Mr. McKENNA: I had better have notice of that question.

  OPERATIONS IN TURKEY.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the operations by land of His Majesty's Forces now being conducted in Turkey are controlled by the Secretary of State for War or by the First Lord or the Board of Admiralty; and by whom or by which Department is their equipment, supply and transport provided; and (2) in view of the fact that we have eight wars on hand—in Flanders, in Egypt, in the Cameroons, in East Africa, in South-West Africa, in Central Africa, in Persia, and on the North-West Frontier of India—will he state generally the reasons for withdrawing troops and ships from these eight wars in order to commence a ninth war in European Turkey; and have the admirals commanding our Fleets at sea and the generals commanding our troops on land been consulted before such withdrawals were made and expressed agreement therewith?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 22nd April to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth.

  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the need for legislation relating to illegitimacy; and whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the intention of the Government with respect to the initiation of such legislation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the interest my hon. Friend has taken in this subject, in regard to which he has introduced Bills. As my hon. Friend is aware, the matter is extremely controversial. I fear that it is impossible for me to initiate legislation at the present time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not much more important in order to deal properly with those writers on the subject in newspapers
  834
  who are suffering from erotic hysteria to amend the law of lunacy?

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister if he will have a record of the Members of Parliament engaged in active service in the Army and Navy prepared, with the names of the ships and regiments in which they are serving; and will he cause such list to be entered on the records of the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: After consultation with Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that steps will be taken to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion. I feel sure that I can rely on the co-operation of Members in making the record complete.

  WAR SERVICE FOR WOMEN.
  Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to appoint a Standing Advisory Committee to advise and help in the organisation of special war service for women?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Officers of the Board of Trade are in constant communication with representatives of various women's organisations, which are co-operating in this matter. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend is disposed to think that this method of informal consultation has some advantages over a standing Advisory Committee, but the matter referred to by my hon. Friend is not being lost sight of.

  MUNITIONS (WORKMEN'S TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  Mr. HODGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of there being no cheap travelling facilities at present, he will approach the railway executive with a request that workmen who have been transferred from their homes to work in connection with the supply of munitions of war shall be provided with cheap facilities to and from their homes, especially at holiday times?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any particular cases in which such facilities are desired I shall be glad to consider the matter.

  EXCURSION TRAINS (SUSPENSION).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is with the approval of the Government that the railway companies have suspended all weekend and excursion trains and fares, thus depriving the poorer part of the population of the means of getting into the country, while the companies still find it possible and profitable to run race specials at cheap fares; and whether he will see that, so long as the railways are under Government control, the needs and convenience of the poor should have preference over those of the racing public?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Railway Executive Committee have been obliged to withdraw most of the cheap booking facilities on the various railways owing to the abnormal conditions of transport due to the War. As was explained on 22nd February, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the East Division of Edinburgh, cheap bookings for race meetings have also been discontinued and tickets are only issued at ordinary fares or at special fares in excess of the ordinary fares. I am aware of no deviation from this practice.

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether the circular of the Somerset County Council Education Committee, permitting the withdrawal of children of at least eleven years of age from attendance at school, has the consent and sanction of his Board?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I have seen a copy of a circular, dated October, 1914, to which the hon. Member probably refers, but it was not submitted to the Board before issue, and it has not received the Board's sanction. I am not aware whether the circular or the practice of the authority has been modified in the result of the discussion which took place in the House on the 4th March last. I am asking for a further Return from all county authorities, and will communicate the results to the House. I need hardly say that I deplore the employment of children of such tender years.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will, in
  836
  due course, publish various regulations made by education authorities in regard to the exemption of children from school attendance since the date the War began?
  Mr. PEASE: I shall be glad to look into the matter and give the hon. Member a reply. I have already circulated a White Paper which contains a good deal of this information.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he could supplement the table given on page 4 of the Report on School Attendance and Employment in Agriculture [Cd. 7881], so as to show the number of children excused from school attendance owing to circumstances connected with the War up to the 31st March?
  Mr. PEASE: I propose shortly to issue a circular with a view to obtaining the figures for agricultural employment for the three months ending 30th April.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Dolly Hammett, aged nine years, is engaged to shave soldiers at Budbroke Barracks, Warwickshire; and whether it is with the sanction of the board and in accordance with the conditions laid down for child labour that the Warwickshire local education authority has sanctioned this girl's withdrawal from school?
  Mr. PEASE: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  WELSH MILLERS (PROFITS).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a firm of Welsh millers have declared a profit for the past year of £367,865, which is over 300 per cent. more than the profits of the previous year; and, seeing that this profit is declared to be in the main due to the market opportunities created by the War, will he bear this instance in mind in framing the proposals of his Budget and take such steps as will secure in this and in other similar cases the unearned increment for the national Exchequer?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow University in connection with the firm referred to.

  RECRUITING.
  Mr. RADFORDasked whether, in view of the fact that the Government has made urgent appeals to employers to let their men join the Army and keep their places open for them, and in view of Lord Kitchener's appeal to the heads of Government Departments to let their men go, the Government is now willing to give permission to join the Army to those men in the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue who have previously applied for permission but been refused?
  Mr. ACLAND: I may refer my hon. Friend to the full explanation of the facts contained in my right hon. Friend's reply of the 20th instant to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that all lieutenants, Royal Army Medical Corps, have recently been promoted to the rank and pay of captains, and if a medical officer, however long his service, attached to a unit other than a medical unit cannot attain higher rank than that of major, while a-la-suite medical officers, who were not attached to Territorial or other units before the War, start now as lieutenant-colonels, majors, and captains, and draw the pay of those ranks; that officers a la suite are, for the most part, able to remain in their own town and carry on their private practice without passing any examination for rank; if he can see his way to grant all majors and captains of, say, five years' standing, attached before the War to Territorial or other units, the rank of lieutenant-colonel or major and the pay of those ranks; and will he remove the disadvantages as to promotion and pay now attaching to the medical officer who has served for years before the War attached to a Territorial or other unit?
  Mr. TENNANT: As was explained by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on the 22nd instant, in reply to the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Warwick and Leamington, the position of Territorial Force Royal Army Medical Corps officers in regard to promotion and pay is now under consideration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War
  838
  whether the concession recently given to lieutenants in the Royal Army Medical Corps, whereby all lieutenants became captains, applies to lieutenants of the Royal Army Medical Corps in the Special Reserve; and, if not, will he say whether lieutenants of the Special Reserve come in the same category as Territorial lieutenants and so entitled to any concession that may be made to that branch of the service?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork on the 27th April.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not seen the answer which he gave?
  Mr. TENNANT: That is obvious. I am referring the hon. Member to that answer.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Where shall I find the answer?

  OBSOLETE RIFLES.
  Mr. PERKINSasked whether the Government have in stock any discarded or obsolete rifles; and, if so, whether they will place them at the disposal of the various Volunteer Training Corps for the purposes of drill?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, we have no stores of rifles which are available for this purpose.

  PURCHASE OF HORSES AND FODDER.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked whether the purchase of horses and forage for the War Office is still being made through county committees of farmers; whether these committees fix maximum prices for the commodities required; whether this method in practice has tended to avoid the excessive prices paid for horses and forage in the early days of the War; and whether he will consider the possibility of increasing the value and vigilance of the committee by a widening of the personnel, seeing that the farmers are at once the buyers and sellers?
  Mr. BAKER: Forage for the Army is bought by district purchasing officers, who are advised on the question of prices by county committees of farmers. Produce has been obtained at its fair market

  839
  value, and excessive prices have been avoided. No horses have been purchased through county committees.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Has the hon. Member any objection to telling us what prices they are paying for horses?
  Mr. BAKER: I must have notice of that question.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    HOME DEFENCE.
    Mr. HODGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men who have joined the Territorials for Home defence only are experiencing considerable difficulty in getting leave to visit their homes and families; whether he is aware that some of these men have not seen their wives and families for eight months; and will he take steps to ensure that the regulation leave is granted to these men, as is done in the case of men who have joined for foreign service?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on the 8th ultimo. There is no regulation leave that I am aware of. The matter is one to be dealt with by the local military authorities according to the circumstances of the case.
    Mr. PETOasked what allowance was made to officers in Territorial battalions serving in India; and whether, in settling the amount, consideration was had to the fact that in most cases they had to provide hot-climate kit after they had already purchased kit suitable to this country and the Continent?
    Mr. BAKER: A special outfit allowance of £20 was made for the purpose.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can say, in the case of second Territorial regiments whose first regiments have gone abroad, whether Home service non-commissioned officers and men will continue to serve with these regiments; and, if so, how are these regiments to be filled up when ordered abroad?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Home service noncommissioned officers and men will be organised separately from the Imperial service men. The places of any such men withdrawn from the second line units will be made up from available Imperial service
    840
    men. The ordering of second line units abroad will, of course, depend on the extent to which they are complete in numbers.

    EFFICIENCY PAY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Government are paying efficiency pay to Territorials who re-enlisted and not to members of the old Volunteers who have similarly re-enlisted up to the age of forty-five; and, if this is so, why this difference should be made?
    Mr. BAKER: The concession granted to the Territorial Force has not been extended to Volunteers, as service in the Volunteers is not considered by the Military authorities as sufficient qualification for proficiency pay.

  MEDICAL ATTENDANCE AND HOSPITAL CHARGES.
  Mr. WINGasked if the weekly charge for insurance covers all medical attendance and hospital charges without further deductions?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir. Medical attendance is free, but for hospital treatment a stoppage up to but not exceeding 7d. a day may be made if the officer commanding so decides.

  SOLDIERS ON SICK FURLOUGH (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  Mr. WINGasked if soldiers sent home on sick leave are entitled to free railway pass, or the return of railway fare when such has been paid by the soldier?
  Mr. BAKER: Soldiers sent home on authorised sick furlough are given free railway warrants; if in any exceptional cases they have paid their own fares, a refund would be allowed on the facts being represented.

  ROMSEY REMOUNT CAMP.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if a concentration camp for horses is being constructed at Ridge, near Southampton; if any time was fixed in the contract for completion; what are the terms of the contract as to limitation or guarantee of profits to the contractor; and whether several boys have refused to work at this camp on the ground that they were used as observers to warn the workmen of the approach of visitors,

  841
  and on the ground that cards and gambling games were daily indulged in and the work thereby delayed?
  Mr. BAKER: A remount camp is being constructed near Romsey. No time was fixed for its completion, but it is now nearly ready. The camp is being constructed by War Department agents who are paid 4 per cent. on the outlay. A complaint of the nature referred to in the latter part of the hon. Member's question has been received and has been sent to the command for investigation and report.

  WAR OFFICE TIMBER PURCHASES.
  Mr. BOOTHasked whether War Office contractors for huts, etc., are buying timber in competition with Mr. Meyer, of the Office of Works; and whether any efforts were made to induce Sir John Jackson to purchase timber for Army work through the Office of Works, and if he refused?
  Mr. BAKER: The arrangements for purchase of timber through Mr. Meyer were subsequent to the arrangement for works made by Sir J. Jackson and other agents, many of whom had already made contracts or taken other steps for supplies. As these could only be set aside at the cost of delay to work, it was considered advisable to let the agents in question have the option of procuring timber through Messrs. Meyer or not.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether it is not a fact that Sir John Jackson was asked to make his purchases by means of this Meyer contract and flatly refused?
  Mr. BAKER: No, as I have said, an option was allowed?

  TROOPS IN INDIA (MOSQUITO NETS).
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can recommend his Department to supply to the troops in India mosquito nets to prevent the sickness amongst the new troops going out and to ensure economy to the country in extra efficiency?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The provision of mosquito curtains has been sanctioned for all men of the Territorial Force who may have to serve on the plains in India in the coming summer.

  United Kingdom and United States (International Commission).
  Mr. DENMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the names of the members of the International Commission to which disputes are to be referred under last year's treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States?
  Sir E. GREY: Lord Bryce has been selected to represent Great Britain, but the other members of the Commission have not yet been appointed.

  Lake Nyasa Railway Extension.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the contemplated extension of railway communication northwards to Lake Nyasa?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Provision for the railway extension to Lake Nyasa has been made under the East African Protectorates (Loans) Act, 1914, but no substantial advances of loan money can be expected at present. It is hoped to undertake the survey of the route in the latter part of the year.

  Fiji.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any change is at the present time contemplated in the position of Fiji in regard to its relations with the Imperial Government and Commonwealth Governments?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.

  Houses of Parliament (Wood Pavement).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the contract for wood pavement in front of the Houses of Parliament was placed with a condition that the work should be completed during the Easter Recess; and whether competitive tenders were withdrawn because, in the opinion of the firms concerned, it was impossible to finish the work in the specified time?
  Mr. BECK: Tenders were invited from five firms, of whom four sent in an offer; the lowest was accepted There was no condition that the work should be completed during the Easter Recess, and therefore the point raised in the latter part of the question did not arise.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a test case with regard to the payment of old age pensions to an old couple of the name of Robinson, whose son has enlisted, was submitted to the Board on 12th February last by the deputy town clerk of Sheffield on behalf of the Sheffield Pension Committee, but that no decision on this appeal has been received; and whether he will see that no further delay occurs?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The general question involved in this case has been under consideration. I hope it will be practicable to give a decision at an early date.
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether in any of the forms used in connection with old age pensions the term pauper is applied to the applicant or recipient; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that any such term must not be used in future?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir J. SPEARasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of old age pensioners residing in Poor Law institutions in England and Wales in the month of January, 1914 and 1915?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the 1st January, 1914, there were 3,069 old age pensioners in workhouses and other poor Law institutions in England and Wales who were receiving relief which did not disqualfy for an old age pension, namely, medical or surgical assistance only. The Returns for the 1st January, 1915, are not yet quite complete, but it would appear that the figure for that date will probably be slightly over 3,400.

  Lincoln Corporation Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to Clauses 15, 42, and 44 of the Lincoln Corporation Bill, whereby it is proposed to authorise the erection on the disused churchyard of St. Benedict's Church, in Lincoln, of a tramway shelter, contrary to the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884; whether he is aware that this proposal has aroused
  844
  indignation among many of the inhabitants of Lincoln; and whether, in view of the policy of the Government with regard to contentious business during the current Session, the Government will prevent the further prosecution of this proposal?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention had not previously been called to the private Bill referred to by the Noble Lord. I suggest that he should confer with the Chairman of Ways and Means about the proposal to which he takes objection.

  British Museum Commissionaires.
  Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked if the Director of the British Museum has received a petition from the commission aires employed there asking for a revision of their scale of pay and conditions of employment; and whether any action has been taken in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 27th instant to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth.

  House Rents (Scotland).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that from 170 to 200 eviction petitions are dealt with every day in the Glasgow Sheriff Court, and that many of these have reference to soldiers' families who are being rendered homeless through inability to pay enhanced house rents; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have made inquiry and find my hon. Friend is mistaken in the figures he has given as cases being dealt with in the Glasgow Sheriff Court every day. In stead of 170 to 200 petitions per day, the average for the past three months has been less than one-tenth of this figure. Taking together the cases in the Sheriff Court and the Burgh Court during that period the number of petitions is 742 less than for the corresponding period of last year. I am inquiring in how many cases the petitions have been granted and in how many cases a stay of execution of the ejectment order has been allowed under the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act which was passed in August, 1914. I am also inquiring if it is possible to find out how many of the petitions affect the families of soldiers and sailors.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has made any inquiry into the complaints that house rents in Scotland are being unjustifiably increased; and whether he proposes to take any action to protect poor tenants from imposition at the present time?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: With the exception of two or three individual cases the complaints have come from Glasgow. I have been in communication with the Glasgow Town Council with reference to the resolution on this subject which that body submitted to me recently, in order to ascertain upon what evidence or investigation the resolution was based, and have been informed that the council made no investigation into the facts, but had before them resolutions from various bodies. They do not give me any information as to whether the increases were justifiable or not. I have also received information from other quarters representing landlords and tenants, but I am not able to say that a case has been made out for fresh legislative action.

  Board of Education Inspectors (Maximum Age).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education why the maximum age for appointments to the inspectorate was fixed at fifty for England and forty-five for Wales in the case of candidates selected during the present year?
  Mr. PEASE: The age limit for the first selection of assistant inspectors for England was forty-five, and I found that with this limit a sufficient number of suitable candidates was available for the posts then vacant. I, therefore, adopted the same age limit for the first selection for Wales, which was made this year. For the subsequent selections for England I found it advisable to extend the age limit to fifty, and I will consider in due course whether any similar extension is advisable for Wales.

  Tuberculosis.
  Sir J. SPEARasked how many bullocks suffering from tuberculosis were destroyed during the last complete year, and the amount of compensation paid to the owners of the animals?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: The number of bovine animals in respect of which notices of intended slaughter under the Tuberculosis Order, 1013, were received during the
  846
  year ended 30th June, 1911, was 6,651, but the actual number of animals slaughtered was probably less. Compensation is paid by the local authorities, and only in part refunded by the Board.

  Inland Revenue (Overtime).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked whether the rules for the conduct of the business in the public service are other than those laid down in the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910; if so, will he state the nature of these rules; and whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to adhere to the practice of paying for overtime in that Department in accordance with his reply of 18th September last?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise; the answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative.

PRIVATE BILLS.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Sir William Howell Davies reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Weardale and Consett Water Bill had stated that the evidence of Ernest Prescott Hill was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Ernest Prescott Hill do attend the said Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Ernest Prescott Hill do attend the Committee on Group A of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.

  BEAMISH'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  DENNY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  BEAMISH'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords] AND DENNY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Beamish's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Denny's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in each case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what business it is proposed to take next week?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On Tuesday I shall introduce the Budget; on Wednesday we shall take Supply—the Board of Agriculture Vote; and as to Thursday's business the Prime Minister will make a statement on Tuesday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Welsh Church Postponement Bill is to be introduced?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is under consideration; the time has not yet been settled.

  COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask a question of Order? I gather, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that this is not Budget night, but the first Order of the Day is, A 1. Ways and Means,—Committee." Looking for what "A" is, I find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to move Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. I wish to ask whether this is normal procedure or whether it is war procedure, and I wish to know whether, when you put the Question that "I do now leave the Chair" it will be debatable, because I think we are entitled to know what are the Resolutions before your leave the Chair. We have heard so many rumours what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do. It is said that he is going to nationalise the breweries.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There will be no Question put that "I do now leave the Chair." I shall leave the Chair as a matter of course. This is not the first time this Session that I have left the Chair in order that the House may go into Committee of Ways and Means; indeed, there is never any Question put that "I do now leave the Chair" when it is Committee of Ways and Means. I do not know what are the Resolutions. I have not seen them, and I do not know that any unofficial Member has seen them yet. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will refer to them in his speech in introducing his Bill.
  Mr. HEALY: I understand you to say that this is not the first time this Session that this has been done. I would remind you that in this Session we have conceded everything to the Government. We have not questioned any of their procedure, and we have allowed them to do just as they liked in every respect. For instance, there have been two Committees

  863
  on one day. If this is only this Session's procedure, which is war procedure, and if the matter to be referred to by the Government be contentious matter in the minds of some, there is a pledge of the Government that nothing which is contentious should be dealt with, and I think we are entitled to know from the Chair whether to treat this Motion as a War Motion or not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, I shall not treat it as a War Motion; it is a perfectly normal Motion. The Committee of Ways and Means stands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice that when that stage is reached he proposes to move certain Resolutions. That is all perfectly normal. By saying "this is not the first time this Session" I meant that on several previous occasions the Committee of Ways and Means has stood as the Order of the Day, and I have left the Chair without any Question whether I should leave the Chair or not being put. No such Question that "I do now leave the Chair," in fact, is put in order that the House may go into Committee of Ways and Means. It is only when it is going into Committee of Supply that I put the Question.
  Mr. HEALY: It used to be put. May I remind you of the famous case when Mr. Arthur O'Connor put down a Motion against Mr. Gladstone's Budget.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Standing Order 51 reads:—
  "Whenever an Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee (not being a Committee to consider a message from the Crown or the Committee of Supply or the Committee on the East India Revenue Accounts) Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such Committee unless notice of an Instruction thereto has been given, when such Instruction shall be first disposed of."
  Mr. HEALY: Does that apply to Committee of Ways and Means? Surely it was never intended to do that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is never now put that I leave the Chair on Committee of Ways and Means. It is only put on Committee of Supply.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, "That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT—No. 3) BILL.
  SALE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Of all the perplexing and disagreeable tasks that has fallen to the lot of any Minister, I think the attempt to provide a solution of the drink difficulty is about the worst, and I would, therefore, beg the indulgence of the House, not merely for the speech, but for the effort which we are making to submit a solution of this trouble. To agree upon the facts is bad enough, but to agree about a remedy is almost impossible. One cannot hope to satisfy everybody, because it is a problem that will always provoke very intense feeling, and, unfortunately, it is a question where everybody has what I call "previous convictions." But after the experience of weeks in trying to get a solution that will not provoke controversy I feel at the end of it I am prepared to take, politically, a pledge never to touch drink again. I can assure the House that I certainly should not have touched this question if we had not been driven by a very serious sense of responsibility to do our best to meet the difficulty. Nothing but real necessity has driven us to submit our proposals to the House. Every Government that has ever touched alcohol has burnt its fingers in its lurid flames. Whenever you try to approach it, there are barbed wire entanglements on every road, with passions and prejudices and principles, all of the most explosive character, behind them. Therefore, I can assure the House that unless it were for a very strong sense of responsibility in the matter, a sense of responsibility which, if neglected, would have been a betrayal of our duty, I should not have been here on behalf of the Government to submit any proposal.
    It has been suggested that we have attached undue importance to the part which drink plays in the output of munitions of war, and that we have treated

    865
    it as if it were the sole cause of the delays which have been experienced. That is exactly the reverse of the facts. I think I was one of the first to call attention to this matter, and that was in a speech in which I put first, the importance of mobilising the whole of the engineering resources of the country. The second difficulty I pointed out was the effect of restrictions on labour, restrictions upon the produce of munitions and armaments of war, and, in the third place, I referred to drink. That is the way in which the Government has treated the matter in the House of Commons. The first step we took in order to increase the output of munitions of war was to introduce the Defence of the Realm Act, a very strong measure—I rather think the Leader of the Opposition referred to it as a "revolutionary" proposal, and it certainly is a very strong measure. It is a measure which gave us power to commandeer all the works of the country, and not only that, but to take away plant and machinery from any workshop where it was thought necessary, in order to increase the output of munitions of war. That was the first step we took. What was the second step? It was the summoning of all the leaders of the unions concerned in the output of munitions and war material to discuss the best method of suspending the operation of restrictions and regulations which had been set up for generations, but which would have the effect perhaps of diminishing the possible output of armaments. The third step we are taking is the removal of another obstacle in the way of the increase of the output of munitions and armaments, and that is the excessive drinking among a section of those who are engaged in these works.
    4.0 P.M.
    I need hardly tell the House how all-important it is that we should be able to utilise every available resource in this country to its fullest measure for the purpose of increasing war material and ammunition. Early in the War I can say I was convinced that this was a war of munitions and material, even more than of men. A very distinguished Frenchman said to me, "The weight of munitions in
    866
    this War will count more than the weight of men." That does not mean that the man at the front counts less, but it does mean that the man at home counts more than ever. The Allies have a great supply of men of the finest quality and sufficient reserves to overwhelm any enemy. But behind all that is the question of supplies and equipment. Although in six months you may raise and train a million of men equal to the best men Germany can put into the field, it takes much longer than that to equip them and to supply them with ammunition. On sea there are new developments which require new expedients to counter them. Therefore the problem of victory on sea and land for the Allies is largely a question of material. In this country our resources for the purpose of making our materials are capable of almost unlimited expansion, but those resources have to be mobilised, and our problem is that of the mobilisation of all our latent energies with the least delay and the greatest possible efficiency. Last week I ventured to point out in the House that whatever the adequacy of our munitions for the present developments of the campaign, the time is coming—it is not for me to say how soon—when the attack must be on a greater scale, and necessarily of a more sustained character, than anything that we have yet witnessed. The enemy is still in Flanders and a large part of France. He has to be driven out. When the time comes for the great attack which is to accomplish this vital purpose, the expenditure of munitions and material must be on a scale hitherto unprecedented in any war in history. It is to enable our gallant Army at the front to carry through that enterprise without flagging, and, above all, without any avoidable loss, that we are straining every nerve to increase by every means in our power, far beyond even our present production, guns, rifles, shells, ammunition, and material of all kind, without which they cannot hope, with all their gallantry, for complete victory. In this time counts, Time is essential. Time is vital. Time lost means opportunities lost, battles

    867
    lost, strength—financial and economic—lost, and precious life lost. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I say the nation ought to put forth the whole of its strength, and to subordinate everything to the accomplishment of this purpose—wealth, comforts, conveniences, certainly indulgences.
    The engineering firms allowed that Bill to pass through which allowed us to take over their works and their machinery, and possibly disarrange businesses which it had taken a lifetime to build up and custom which it had taken perhaps two generations to accumulate. Yet there was never a protest. It was a fine thing in the history of the commercial community of this country. The trade unions had regulations, for which they had fought for generations, for the protection of their own labour against over-greedy employers. Those regulations were their safeguard. They were prepared to give them up. They were prepared to suspend the work of a lifetime and of two generations to help their country. I think we are entitled to ask anybody anything that can help, and to ask anybody who can clear an obstacle out of the way to do so in order to win victory in this great War, I can assure the House that in approaching this question I have but one consideration in my mind—that is to clear the road in order to enable us to increase the output, which means life to this Empire. If the proposals which I make do not do that, they stand condemned by that very fact.
    All classes in the community are agreed that no wise Government ever asks a nation for an unnecessary sacrifice. Every unnecessary sacrifice means a waste of moral material, the most valuable of all contributions, whether in peace or war. Therefore, when I submit these proposals, I shall submit them with that test and for that criticism, that they are necessary to enable us now to win victory—not only to give ultimate victory, but victory without unnecessary loss of time, and without the unnecessary loss of brave men who are fighting for us. We all owe that to them. What is the case for interference—inter-
    868
    ference, I admit, with the habits of the people—I do not disguise it, I do not minimise it in the slightest degree—and interference with interests? I do not minimise that. What is the case? As what I have said has been so much misrepresented, perhaps the House will forgive me if I put the case in my own words and then quote the facts which I think justify them. This is what I said upon this subject:—
    "Most of our workmen are putting every ounce of strength into this urgent work for their country, loyally and patriotically. But that is not true of all. There are some, I am sorry to say, who shirk their duty in this great emergency. I hear of workmen in armaments Works who refuse to do a full week's work for the nation's need. What is the reason? They are a minority. The vast majority belong to a class we can depend upon. The others are a minority. But you must remember a small minority of workmen can throw a whole works out of gear. What is the reason? Sometimes it is one thing, sometimes it is another; but let us be perfectly candid. It is mostly the lure of drink. They refuse to work full time, and when they return their strength and efficiency are impaired by the way in which they have spent their leisure. Drink is doing us more damage in the War than all the German submarines put together."
    On the facts which I shall give to the House, I invite them to say that every word I stated there is justified by the facts and the figures. What happened? At first, when attention was called to the drinking, there was a great deal of alarm. There was a demand for drastic action. Everybody agreed about the facts until they had heard about the remedies. Afterwards they referred back to the facts, and fitted them to their opinion about the remedies. There was undoubtedly exaggeration. Exaggeration always follows when you have any evil. There are some who will exaggerate, and by that means undoubtedly do a great deal of harm whenever you are trying to set the matter right. That produces the inevitable reaction. What happened was that persons said that the statements which were made were very exaggerated, and, because they were exaggerated, they said, "The whole story is untrue." They said, "All workmen are as sober as judges, and there is no slacking—at least none that matters." Then somebody discovered that things were not worse than they were in peace time. What has that got to do with it? This is not peace time.

    869
    Undoubtedly there is always, even in peace, a good deal of lost time in consequence of excessive drinking. But we can afford it then. We cannot afford it now. It would be no use for the men at the front to say, "Why, you are asking me to do something that you never expected of me in time of peace" Of course we are. The result is that there have been many statements of late, not that the evil has been exaggerated, but that it did not exist. Well, people are always ready to believe smooth things that please them. That is the trouble in every country and in every war. I am all for taking a hopeful view of the War. I have always stated that. But it is all the better to look all the facts in the face—to look them straight in the face. That is the difference between the true and the false optimism. True optimism is the horizon of courage; false optimism is really the veil of cowardice. Let us look the facts in the face. That is how we shall win in the end. I say the same thing about this evil and the means by which to remove it. I want to give the facts upon which I base my case, and the reason why I think the facts show that the evil is so serious that nothing but strong action can possibly enable us to cope with it. If the House is not convinced of that, then I have made no case.
    The first thing I want to tell the House of Commons is that the consideration of this question was not forced upon us by teetotalers. I cannot recall a single resolution—I am not referring to what has happened during the last few weeks or days, which has not been very helpful—[An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful!"] I am not referring to that, of which I am the worst victim, because I have not seen ray letters for about six weeks, although perhaps that is not a great infliction. What has happened? The consideration of this question was forced upon us by officials responsible for the output of war material and transport. Their letters and their reports came in. Constant reports came in from some, but not all, of the chief centres of armament activities. That is where some confusion has occurred. There are some hon. Members here who live in
    870
    districts from which we have had no complaint at all. If I began mentioning them, those I did not mention will say, "What about us?" I can see hon. Members here who represent districts from which we have had no complaint at all, but they must not assume from that that there are no districts which cannot possibly claim the same perfection as the constituency they represent. The reports came from the chief centres of armament activities that failure of anticipated war material and dangerous delays in transport were due largely to avoidable loss of time on the part of a section of the men engaged, and that that loss of time was mainly attributable to excessive drinking. We have a right to expect in this time, which is a very grave and serious time to our country, that every man shall strain every muscle, and work to the extreme length of his endurance. Some men in all ranks are putting three years into one.
    What about those who are engaged in turning out the equipment and material of war? First of all, let us take those who are engaged on the work of the Navy. I have heard men dismiss the case for dealing with drink by saying, "After all, it is only the men engaged in the shipyards," as if that settled it. Have they any notion what the shipyards mean to us at this moment? Shipyards mean supplying deficiencies. Shipyards mean the production of new developments and expedients rendered necessary by new methods of warfare. Shipyards mean repairing damaged ships and machinery breaking down and wearing out, as it constantly does under pressure, and the pressure is enormous; and it is essential that it should be attended to speedily in order to keep the Navy up to its strength. Shipyards, in fact, mean the safety of our shores. I want the House and the country to remember this. One has to remind them of these facts. The wear and tear of the enemy's Fleet is nothing that can be compared with ours. We have to keep the seas. We have to patrol the seas. They take prolonged periods of "rest cure," so that their shipbuilding energies can be devoted to building and constructing. Therefore, the safety of this country depends largely

    871
    upon the work of the shipyards, and the slackness of work in many of them is causing serious anxiety to those who are in command of the Fleet on the high seas, and they have communicated their anxiety.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: For the private yards?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am coming to that. It is perfectly true that there are yards where the men are putting forth the whole of their strength. That is true of the Royal Arsenals. The Prime Minister referred to them the other day when he said they were working at the very high average figure of from sixty-seven to sixty-nine hours per week per man. Let me give Portsmouth Dockyard, and I think it is a pretty fair sample of the rest. Its importance is to show what men can do when they are doing their best, because we have heard that the men in the other yards are too tired, and cannot put forth more exertion. It is very difficult for a man who is not a riveter or a plater to be able to say whether that is so or not, and there is only one way to do it. That is by showing that there are other riveters and other platers engaged in exactly the same work who put forth infinitely more exertion and with sustained regularity. Take the men engaged in the Dockyard at Portsmouth. The normal hours there are forty-eight per week. Seventy-eight per cent. of them were working for the week ending last Saturday, the 24th inst., sixty hours or over. There were 6 per cent. who worked eighty-five hours in that week; there were 18 per cent., including those I have quoted, who worked over seventy-five hours, and there were 37 per cent., including those I have quoted, who worked over seventy hours. All honour to these men. They are doing their best for their country, and no one can do more. I could go on quoting other yards. I give that as a sample, because I have the figures. That is why I asked the hon. Member to be a little patient. Let us now come to the other yards, which are more important than the Royal dockyards, because you have, I think, four times the number of men engaged in
    872
    them. What is the case there? It is summarised by the Sea Lord who is responsible for practically the whole of the material for the Navy:—
    "Reports which have been received from the Clyde, Tyne and Barrow districts are in agreement that, at the present time—that is about the end of March—thr amount of work put in by the men is much leas than might reasonably be expected. Put briefly, the position is that now, while the country is at war, the men are doing less work than would be regarded as an ordinary week's work under ordinary peace conditions."
    We really must face these facts, however unpleasant they may be, because we have to deal with them. Compare that with what I have given from Portsmouth. I think the normal hours here are higher than Portsmouth; they are 53 or 54; but let us take the Portsmouth figures again. Take the normal hours on the Clyde and the Tyne, fifty-three. At Portsmouth Dockyard 82 per cent. of the men work more than fifty-three or fifty-four hours in a week. Let us look at the others. I still quote from Admiral Tudor's report.
    "The problem is not how to get the workmen to increase their normal peace output, but how to get them to do an ordinary week's work of fifty-one or fifty-three hours as the case may be The reasons for the loss of time are no doubt various, but it is abundantly clear that the most potent is in the facilities which exist for men to obtain beer and spirits, combined with high rates of wages and abundance of employment. Opinion on these points is practically unanimous."
    He goes on to say that in the large armament firms the output is also adversely affected by the drink question, not quite to the same extent, but it is adversely affected. The following is also given by Admiral Tudor. It is the week's work of 135 fitters in a particular yard. They are turning out submarines. I need hardly say how very important that is to us at this moment. On Monday only 60 of these 135 worked a full day. Out of 1,282½ hours that they ought to have worked, the time lost was 336½ hours. On Tuesday 90 of them worked a full day, on Wednesday only 86, on Thursday only 77, on Friday 91, and on Saturday 103.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Sunday?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am quoting a case where there is no Sunday work. Let us take the loss in that week. The number of hours they ought to have worked, not on a basis of overtime, but on the

    873
    basis of an ordinary week's work in time of peace, would have been 7,155 hours. The actual hours they worked were 5,664½. They lost 1,510½ hours, a loss of 30 per cent. of the week's work upon the basis of average normal peace work. I have here, also supplied by Admiral Tudor, a statement of lost time in works of first-class importance to us. The employers in these works do not care very much to give the name unless they are bound to, because it produces difficulties and friction, although they are perfectly prepared to do so if necessary. Here you have seven weeks' work for riveters. It is on the basis of the possible Dumber of hours a week. Fifty-one is the highest. It is nothing like the Royal dockyard hours. This is on the basis of 51 for one week; 50 for the next; 51 for the next; and 54 for the last week. They all range from 50 hours a week to 54. Let the House see how these workmen stand that test. In the first week the percentage of time lost was 32 per cent.; next, week 32 per cent.; next week 35 per cent.; next week 37 per cent.; next week 35 per cent.; next week 37 per cent.; and the next week 35 per cent.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the wages earned?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will call attention to that later. The Report will be circulated to the House.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: What about the number of total abstainers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only give the evidence of admirals and captains and employers, and not merely employers, but independent investigators. We have really taken every trouble to sift the evidence. Of course, my hon. Friends may say they cannot accept the evidence.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not a fact that the case mentioned by Admiral Tudor of the 135 men was knocked into a cocked hat at the conference between trade union officials and the Government and the admirals and generals at the Treasury? That particular case was mentioned, and when we came to go into it, there was scarcely anything in it at all.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend may state that later on. I shall be very glad if there is an explanation which is satisfactory. I am giving facts now which deal not with the 135 men, but with another firm. It is almost impossible to conduct a controversy about each individual case whilst I am developing it. My case does not depend merely upon one particular instance. Unless the cumulative effect of the evidence is sufficient, this House is not justified in interfering. Take the case of the platers. The platers are better, but there, again, the loss of time ranges from 22 per cent. to 30 per cent. That is the loss of time in that particular works for seven weeks upon that basis. There are other cases. Take this case, which is also mentioned by Admiral Tudor. A ship came in to be repaired; I think it was damaged in action. It was most urgent work. The workmen knew it was urgent work, the Admiralty pressed that the ship should be repaired with the least possible delay. What happened there? Constant absences. Absences from the first quarter ranged from 23 per cent. up to 39 per cent. That was before the breakfast lime—from 6 to 9. The absences afterwards in the second quarter ranged from 13 per cent up to 26 per cent. The second quarter was not so, bad, but still bad when the work was urgent.
    Then there was an increase in wages. What was the result? The percentage of absentees went up. The Admiralty had to resort to every means in order to try and get the work through. There was an increase in wages, and the only result was that the men had more money, and they lost more time. An hon. Gentleman asked me whether there is any division of the amount of time which they are putting in. Let me repeat it, because it is necessary to repeat it, that this is not a charge against the whole of the men. It is necessary to repeat it, because this is the kind of accusation which is always distorted. There are some men working who are not merely beyond reproach, but who deserve every commendation which the State can give to them. Let me take the figures. There has been an analysis of the figures of the hours worked by the men in, I think,

    875
    forty or fifty firms. Twenty-four per cent. of them are working more than a normal week; that compares with, I think, 80 per cent. in the Royal dockyards. Of the remaining 76 per cent., 40 per cent. are working between forty hours a week and the normal fifty-three hours. Thirty-six per cent. are working under forty hours a week. Four hundred and ninety-three men out of every thousand are, in time of war, working less than forty-five hours a week. I can analyse this between the Clyde and the North-East coast; but there are the deplorable facts.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are those only the figures for the Clyde and the North-East coast?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For the Clyde and the North-East coast, and Barrow and Birkenhead as well. I am speaking now purely of shipyards. I will come to the others by-and-by. I know it is said that these men have been working so hard that they cannot possibly put in more than forty hours a week. Let us examine that. I will take a firm where there is practically no Sunday labour. Monday is usually the worst day, and that is after a day and a half rest. This firm gave three days' holiday during Easter for rest. On the Tuesday after Easter, after three days' rest, out of 8,000 men 1,800 failed to turn up, and 1,431 in the engine and boiler-shop, and 666 in the repair department. The first 1,800 are in the shipyard department; the 1,431 are out of 4,500 in the engine and boiler departments, and the 666 are out of 1,000 in the repair department. On the following day 3,000 men—I am giving round figures, it is precisely 2,916—were out from work in the first quarter of the day. That is after a holiday, and of this number 1,670 remained out all the day. The following day 2,500 were out the first quarter, and 1,500 were out all day. That is after three days for recruitment and restoration of strength. I can give no end of cases of this kind, but the figures will be supplied to the House. In every one of these cases the men who are responsible ascribe it in the main to
    876
    exactly the same cause. It is worse after a holiday, it is worse after Sunday where the men are not working and after they have had a half-day on Saturday.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: How do they get the drink in Scotland on Sundays?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can let the hon. Baronet know that. In fact, one of the remedies which I propose bears on the answer to that very question. But the hon. Baronet knows. I have two observations I would like to make upon these figures. There is no doubt about the slacking. There is absolutely no doubt about the lost time. I have tested cases where the weather was perfect the whole week, tested them by the amount of time which could have been put in, and I have found exactly the same percentage of slacking in those cases, and with no Sunday labour. There are two explanations. Had it not been for these men who are working perhaps above their strength, the average would be deplorably low. It is very low now. One can hardly imagine what it would have been but for the 26 per cent. who are working far above normal times. What possible explanation can there be for that? You might say that the physique of these men is so enfeebled that half of them can only work less than forty-five hours a week, and one-third of them less than forty hours a week, even in time of great pressure, when the safety of the nation depends upon them, while men in the Royal arsenals are working fifty-three, sixty, seventy, and even eighty hours a week. Anybody who knows the fine physique of the men in the North knows very well that that explanation is thoroughly absurd.
    What is the other possible explanation? It is that although they know their country is engaged in a great War, the greatest War that this or any other country has ever beèn engaged in, although they must know that it is straining our resources to the utmost, they refuse, in spite of every appeal, to put forth the whole of their strength to help their country. If that were true, it would be less creditable than the explanation which is given. But it is

    877
    not. The explanation which is given in every report we have received—official reports, reports from the works, and reports from men we have sent down to specially investigate the circumstances—is that it is attributable merely to excessive drinking amongst a section of workmen who are receiving very high wages, and who spend them in this way. I will give some of the reports we have been receiving from the directors of naval equipment. Here is one, and it comes from the Clyde:—
    "From close observation the amount drunk by a section of the men in much greater than it was before the War and it is on the increase. Those principally concerned are iron workers and shipwrights, and on their efficiency the output entirely depends. The sole reason for this heavy drinking is that the men earn more money than they know what to do with."
    He gives the case of a ship which was sent in for repairs, and the work was so badly Carried out as to suggest at once on inspection that it, could not have been done by men who were sober. It was dangerous, and had to be condemned. That is another side of the question. A loss in time does not represent the whole loss in these works. There is loss in efficiency as well. The report goes on:—
    "All this—and the serious point is that it is growing worse each day—has a much greater effect on delay than shortage of labour. I cannot state too forcibly my own opinion that the total prohibition of the sale of spirits will be the most effective act that could at present be taken to win this War."
    This is an official report from the Director of Naval Equipment in that particular neighbourhood—the Clyde. He goes on to say:—
    "Any measure less drastic will not be a cure. It will keep alive the craving which has been growing up during six months' indulgence, and some men will endeavour to satisfy it by keeping away from work."
    Then the report says:—
    "The districts in which restrictions should be enforced cannot be too wide"
    A similar report comes from the Tyne from the official in charge there. He says:—
    "The money earned is sufficient to satisfy the men's standard of living, and anything extra beyond ordinary wages encourages abstention to enable loafing in public houses, instead of doing their honest day's work."
    Both of them explain that they are referring to sections of men who do drink. I do not want to detain the House by quoting a great many of these cases, because they will be circulated, and the House can judge
    878
    for itself. Unfortunately, there is some truth in the suggestion that it is fatigue. I ventured to consult a very eminent physician who is not a teetotaler, and does not believe altogether in teetotalism. I thought if I consulted one whose views were very strong against alcohol, his opinion would be of very little use. This physician gave me an opinion which explains really why it is perfectly consistent with the story given by these men that it is duo to fatigue. He said that the human frame can digest a certain amount of alcohol. He told me how much. I am not sure that I should be justified in saying how much. I might be held responsible afterwards for those who took considerably more than the number of ounces of alcohol which this gentleman said they could digest, but there is no doubt it is a fairly liberal allowance as things go. I just mention that to show that this gentleman is not the kind of doctor who says alcohol is absolute poison. Therefore, his opinion is more valuable from this point of view. He says that anything in excess of that is really a consumption of strength, and that the men feel still weaker when this has evaporated. Then they take another dose, and the result is that they get weaker, and weaker. There is a consumption of strength by excessive alcohol; and there is no doubt, therefore, that they are suffering from fatigue. We mean to do our best to save them from that kind of fatigue.
    Another thing which he told me is that the method of drinking the spirits without dilution is very fatal. He said, that when the human frame digests alcohol it must be very well diluted. Taken raw or in its concentrated form, it destroys the mucous membrane, and he gives the most terrible description of what it really does. But the men drink it sometimes without diluting it at all. They just toss it off raw in very considerable quantities. Another thing which he told me—and this bears upon what I am coming to later on—is that the very worst way of taking alcohol is to take it on an empty stomach. But this is what they do. They take it in great quantities. The result is that they lose the first quarter, and by the time the second

    879
    quarter arrives very often they are not fit to take up their job. Then they take alcohol on the way home to their dinner; it is consumed in the very worst form, and at the very worst time. All that explains a good deal, though not all. I wish it were possible to report that the state of affairs existing at the end of March was no longer true, but I am sorry to say that the reports received indicate no perceptible improvement. This is the sort of thing that is done. Here is a report from a great shipbuilding firm engaged on submarines, monitors, and destroyers—all of them of great importance:—
    "We regret that it should be our duty to report to you that out of the 114 platers employed, fifty-six were off all day yesterday and forty-five to-day"—
    that is within the last few days. I think I had better not indicate where it comes from—
    "As all our Workmen are engaged on urgent Admiralty work, the immediate effect"—
    this is rather important, as indicating how the absence of men throws the works out of order—
    "of the absence of these men is to stop the platers work until they return, while the days which are lost by the trade are lost later on by the riveters and by other trades which follow them, owing to platers' work being behind, In fact, it resolves itself into a dead loss of construction. We regret to report that this state of affair is almost entirely due to excessive drinking on the part of the men."
    That is the position of affairs as far as the shipbuilders are concerned. I really must apologise to the House for taking so much time, but it is important that whatever action is taken should be taken on sufficient warrant and on sufficient evidence. In the case of the armament works, the loss is not so great, but it is sufficiently serious. Here again I am not referring to the Royal Arsenal.
    Mr. CROOKS: They are all right.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is looking after these men very well. I am referring to other works, and it is not true of all the armament works. There are districts as to which I do not say that there is no drinking, and there is no loss of time. All I say is that if the loss of time were no greater than it is in those areas, we certainly should not be sub-
    880
    mitting proposals to the House to-day. But it is not true of some of the most important works in this country. Take some very important works where they are turning out shells. The loss of time in a given week by the fitters represents 22 per cent.; the loss of time in the other branches of the work represents 15 per cent. Both are very serious losses when every shell that is short is a real danger to the life of some man. Here, again, I come to the work done by the men. It is remarkable how some men can work. Those who are working over eighty hours a week are 100 out of 1,000. Those working over seventy-five and up to eighty hours a week are eighty-six out of 1,000. Those working from seventy to seventy-five hours are 177 out of 1,000. That is, those who are working in this shell factory over seventy hours a week number 358 out of 1,000. No words can convey what we really owe to men like these. Then, those who work over sixty-five hours are very nearly 500, and those who work over sixty hours are 656.
    Then I come to the others, and I must say that the figures are perfectly deplorable. When you talk of averages, it means that from 300 to 400 are working in such a way that it is almost inconceivable that human strength can bear it, but they are doing it. It means also that you have got a percentage of 10, 15, 20, sometimes 30 per cent. who are not putting forth anything like the exertion that they ought to put forward for their country just at this moment, and you have got men working only twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five, and forty and forty-five hours, and I am sorry to say that they represent quite a substantial percentage. I have got reports from another firm. They come from important munition works, and say:—
    "Some drastic restrictions are absolutely necessary if the largest possible output of certain war munitions is to be obtained. Amongst smite shell workers there is a considerable amount of lost time due to their drinking habits. With the better class of mechanics the time lost due to drinking is comparatively small, but in the case of labourers and semi-skilled trades it is a very serious item."
    Here is the report from another factory which is turning out an all-important thing—that is explosives. We have not merely got to supply ourselves, but it is

    881
    essential that we should turn out as much as we can to help our Allies. We have in this country means of doing it which they have not. This report says:—
    "We also take this opportunity of expressing in the strongest possible manner our opinion, that something should be done in this district to curtail the sale of drink. We fear that, unless drastic steps are taken to lessen the sale of alcohol, before long we shall find it impossible to deliver anything like the quantity of trinitrotoluol, which we have undertaken to supply to your Department. Even at the present lime we are not turning out as much as we could otherwise owing to various causes, and this is due to the fact that the men have been making good money and unfortunately wasting most of it on drinking. Consequently, they are in such a condition that it is impossible for them to attend to their duties in a proper manner, even when they do come to the works."
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can you give the name of the district?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather not unless I get their consent. I think that it would be putting them in a very invidious position with regard to their men. I am perfectly certain that no one would believe that they are merely slandering their men. They are simply doing this from a deep sense of duty; and besides that, the Government are pressing them to turn out more and more ammunition and explosives. But we have also been making an independent investigation. This was after the facts were challenged, and we thought that it was very desirable that we should not depend on the opinion of the officials, or of employers, or managers. So the Home Department have conducted an independent investigation. They sent some of their most trained investigators, and also consulted the local factory inspectors. These men went not merely to the employers of labour, managers and foremen; they also saw the men in all these districts. They had conversations with them; they actually visited the public houses. I will just read the experience of one of them who said that he had experience of workers in Government establishments. He states that he has never seen so much drinking at all times of the day as he had witnessed in one of the most important districts for shipyards and ammunition works in the whole country. The conclusion he came to was
    882
    summarised from the document itself—that while many of the men are working regularly, and at any rate beyond the normal hours, there is a considerable number, especially among the "black squad" in the shipbuilding yards, who are not working up to their maximum capacity. Among these are the riveters, and some distinction is drawn between them and mechanics employed in engineering. The reason given for the irregularities of attendance are mainly that they are due to long hours over extended periods, and that the high wages lead to idleness and habits of drinking; and it is not altogether possible to isolate these causes, as they are more or less closely connected with one another. But the reports are unanimous in the conclusion that drink is by far the most important factor. That is the summary given of the matter. They say of these men—and in Scotland especially—that there is a considerable proportion of them teetotalers. To those who are heavy drinkers the facilities for drinking are, unfortunately, very great, and an instance is given where in one street there are no fewer than thirty public-houses in a distance of half a mile. The yards and works are surrounded by public-houses and drinking-bars, where every possible facility is offered for obtaining drink for consumption both on and off the promises. I come to the question put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs. There is also a prevalent practice in Scotland of taking whisky in bottles home in the evening, especially on Saturday nights, for consumption on Sunday, when public houses are closed. I give that as an answer. But I am not arguing this from any point of theory; I am just giving the facts now, without reference to any particular theories held on each side, however destructive they may be of any theories. That is not my intention.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend again gave me a case in which one of his officers noticed that in a big bar on

    883
    a Saturday night one hundred bottles of whisky were filled, which it was expected would be sold between half-past nine and closing time. Here we have a case where the time lost is now three times as much as it was before the War. The margin allowed is three times as much as it was before the War for lost time. A factory inspector states that in some districts, it is true, there is not the same amount of drinking; but I will come to what the factory inspector says about the time. I take the report, and this is a very fair indication of the evidence it contains. The inspector says:—
    "I beg to report that I have taken deep interest in the subject of lost time here since the commencement of the War, and on every possible occasion I made it a point to discuss the subject with the employers and managers, the foremen, and the workers themselves."
    Following comes the general conclusion:
    "I have to report that so far as the shipyard workers are concerned there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the drinking habit is more responsible than any other cause for the great loss of time among the workmen. It is common knowledge among the shipyard workers in this district that in normal times they indulge very heavily at the week end, and Monday is a very bad day in regard to the work. In the present time of continuous employment these week-end habits have broken out into indulgence at irregular intervals during the week, and the effect of the men having double pay on Sunday is that they have so much more than usual, that this no doubt tends to foster the habit of indulging in drink. … I do not place a great deal of reliance on fatigue as a cause of a great deal of the lost time. I think the financial aspect, combined with the indulgence in drink, is solely responsible."
    But in the case of the engineers he does say that the drinking habit undoubtedly plays a most important part, although not to the same extent, in regard to lost time. There are two or three things in the report with relation to the remedies proposed to which it is important to call attention. The investigators almost all agree that the lost time is due in the main to excessive drinking; they also agree that a good deal of mischief is done owing to the inadequate provision of food for the men in and around the works. This rather agrees with the medical testimony which I quoted. I will not say there is no provision, but practically no provision, for not merely food but for ordinary healthy stimulants. Instead of the fiery raw spirit which is sold in some parts, the
    884
    heavy, very heavy, stupifying beer, there is no provision even for stimulants of the best, and there is practically no provision, in the public-houses around the yards, for the supply of food. There is a good deal of evidence that the men do not get sufficient food. They live a good way from the works, and, when they are tired and needing food to restore their strength, feeling that they want something to strengthen them and pick them up, some stimulating food would do it. If they got alcohol with their food—there are doctors who say it would do them harm, but there are doctors who say it would do them no harm—I am perfectly certain that for the purpose I have got to consider now, the question of excessive drinking from the point of view of munitions of war, it would do away with a vast amount of the evils in these cases. The only other question to which I wish to call attention is that of transport. This is the kind of report we are getting from the Director of Transport. I need hardly tell the House how very important it is that when we are waging war across the sea, reinforcements of men and material should be sent without any delay. Delay may mean very often the loss of a position. Time is vital when we are sending reinforcements of men or material. The Director of Transports says:—
    "I wish to call attention to the fact that transport work is now being conducted under serious difficulties. … It is already taking three times as long to get ships fitted and ready to sail as it did when War broke out. Expedition is a thing of the past, and it is obvious that this may at any moment have a disastrous effect on naval and military operations."
    Let the House listen to this:—
    "The root-cause of the serious congestion at some of the dock is not a shortage of labour, but the fact that the men can earn in two or three days what will keep them in drink for the rest of the week."
    The Director of Transport reports:—
    "I can only reiterate that the time now taken to prepare ships for service is a grave danger to the success of military operations, which depend so largely on efficient sea transport. To-day I find a transport required for urgent military service, to prepare for which would normally occupy seven days, will take twenty-two days to complete, in spite of every effort to accelerate the work."
    I will quote extracts from the reports of officers in various portions of the United Kingdom. It is stated that sometimes because of the crew ships cannot get out

    885
    to sea, or sometimes because of dock labourers—sometimes one reason, and sometimes another. In another report it is stated that some of the workers work only three days, and the other three days they spend in drinking, and it is impossible for them to do their work efficiently. The suggestion is made that the men should come under military control—this view is taken by the Director of Transport—that all licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor throughout the country should be withdrawn. This is not from a teetotal advocate; this is from a man who is simply dismayed at the delay in the matter of sending troops and material abroad owing to the habits of a certain number of the men. I have another important document of the same kind, but it all comes to the same thing. One of the officials of the Admiralty says:—
    "I am confident that the root of all the trouble is drink and the high scale of wages now ruling. Instead of acting as an inducement to increased efforts, they tend to produce the opposite effect, inasmuch as it enables the men to earn in a shorter time the amount of money they require for their needs, and they are able to work fewer hours, and spend more time in drinking."
    Here is a later document, but I really do not wish to pile up the evidence; it is all of the same character. Here you have not merely a loss of time. The percentage of time lost does not represent the whole loss; there is a percentage of efficiency which is lost. There is a loss of 25 per cent. in time. On what basis? Where the loss of time is given at 25 per cent. of loss, in a period of grave war, of efficiency you cannot count the loss. There are 900,000 men now engaged in the shipyards, building yards, steel and copper works, all engaged on Government work. There are 130,000 men in the shipbuilding yards, which are not Royal yards, and 730,000 in other works. It would mean one-third added on to the number—or 15 per cent., or 10 per cent. if you like, added on. We are short of men. The Board of Trade is scraping everywhere, in its Labour Exchanges, feeling, searching, advertising everywhere, recruiting for labour. We get 4,000 in one month, 3,000 in another, and 700 another, for the work. Here they are. You add what is the equivalent of 150,000
    886
    men to your yards, to your armament works, without spending a day in additional structure, without finding a single additional machine, or machinery plant, which takes months to obtain, without adding to supervision, practically lessening it, and all by one act of sacrifice on the part of the nation in order to strengthen the race, and win through to the victory for our country.
    I have here a most remarkable letter from a man who read a speech made by an hon. Friend of mine, I will not say who he is, in which it was said that the workers were not drinking. This is a very remarkable document. It was so remarkable that I said it could not be true, and that a man who was really doing these things would not write at all about them, and so I made special investigation. I think it is really worth reading. This is a man from the Clyde who says he is one of the workers. He says he was amazed at that speech of the hon. Member, and that the hon. Member knew nothing about it. In order to commend himself to me, he says he is an ex-Baptist—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is he now?]—and he goes on to say that owing to family trouble he had to give it up.
    "As late as Friday the 2nd April I got my pay, as thousands of others. I, as the rest, got pretty well full up—went to work next day at 7.30, the 3rd. I did not do my work, nor way able to do so, owing to my condition, nor even able to clean my machine either. At 12 we stop work. I went again, got pretty well royal. At 6.30, I went on purpose for a country walk, met a friend, got his company, went for a three-mile walk. But three miles from home we got helplessly drunk, never knew where we parted, but on Sunday I had a skinned cheek bone and eyebrow. My friend had his bottle of whisky broke, and a dislocated nose. None of us knew how we came by it, owing to our intoxicated state. On Sunday, I could not leave my bed. I was so bad under its influence, and my sore which I got on Saturday night. On the Monday, the 5th, I was so bad I could not do my work at all."
    If anybody will look at the time-sheet, he will see blue marks and little red marks against the men coming in after the first quarter. But I will tell you something that is not on the sheets, and that is the kind of work they do when they are in that condition. The letter continues:—
    "I tried to get my mates to stop at 12 noon, but they did not. At 12, I had two glasses of whisky and one pint of beer, went back to work not caring how things went. At 5–30, I had three glasses of whisky, one pint of beer before going

    887
    home—after that a good deal. Tuesday was so bad after effects, did not go to work at all, drinking all the time. Wednesday, the 7th, was so weak and helpless was an agony to put in nine hours. Thursday, the 8th, had a few drinks to soothe the others; but Friday, the only day for twelve, I was not myself, or able to do my bit."
    I am not going to say that the man is a type of many men, but there are too many of that type of man, as anyone will see who will look at the time sheet. These are not the men of whom we are 35 per cent. short, but they are the men who throw a squad out of work because they are absent. I think the House will realise, after what I have said, that, however unpleasant the task, however difficult, and whatever trouble it may brew or distil, we should be betraying our trust to the country if we did not propose something. We have sought for a long time the best method of doing it, and not merely the best method of doing it, but the best method of doing it without controversy, which is in itself not the best method in time of war. I cannot pretend that we have succeeded, but we have done our best. Whatever you propose there will be some persons to say, "Try the other thing," and they are very often the persons who, if you had tried the other thing, would have said exactly the same thing. Whatever you propose, it involves a measure of surrender and of abnegation by those who are not to blame. Wars are now waged, not by armies but by nations, and nations therefore must be under discipline like armies. I am not proposing anything to-day as a solution of temperance, as a promotion of sobriety, as an advancement of any social reform. Whatever I propose I propose as an act of discipline during the War, and for the purpose of making war efficiently. All discipline involves a surrender of liberty. There are two millions of men in this country who voluntarily surrendered their liberty to serve their country—cherished liberties, liberties of the most elementary kind that no one would dream of interfering with—but they have done so because their country needs it, and if it had not needed it such discipline would be irksome and humiliating.
    Why is it necessary to impose restraints? Is it because these men would not do their
    888
    duty? No. It is because you always get in every body, in every rank of life, in every class and race, a body of men who cannot, through some inherent or acquired weakness, do without these restraints. The majority have got to endure the same restraints, because if these men fail the whole Army fails. But that is equally true of a nation in case of war. We invite the House of Commons to consider remedies which may affect everybody, and may affect communities against which there is no complaint. There are armament districts against which we have no complaint. We invite it for the sake of the nation. I never saw any proposal yet to deal with anything that you could not find reasons against. It always strikes me that there are many more reasons against doing a thing than for doing it, and that all of them are good, but I think they are not good enough. That is the test which I hope the House will apply, that we have simply done our best, and, taking into account everything, to propose the best remedies which would enable us, at any rate, to cope in some degree with the evil.
    Let us take the various remedies that have been proposed—restriction of hours; very useful, especially the hours before breakfast; but the reports we have had show that the restriction of hours is by no means adequate, for this reason: It very often defeats the very purpose you have in view. Men when they get so completely out of control by a habit of this kind almost mechanically and unconsciously subordinate everything to it, and the time of work is fitted in to suit the hours the houses are open. They go long distances in order to get drink where the facilities are greatest, and very often the mere restriction of hours not only does not answer the purpose, but defeats the purpose. We received not from temperance advocates, but from the most unlikely quarters, proposals for complete prohibition, and there is always the grand example of Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is not prohibition there!"] If we could get prohibition as complete in this country I think it would startle the hon. Baronet very much. Take Russia. Un-

    889
    doubtedly it has improved the productivity of labour there by over 40 per cent. That is the report. Still I think, before we do that, we are bound to try everything short of it. It is such a very serious interference with the habits of the people that I do not think we would be justified in attempting it until, at any rate, we have approached it and tried every other method, and it has failed. The other is total prohibition of spirits. That has been advocated, and by officials and by men who are ordinarily opposed to every proposal which has ever emanated from this side about the liquor traffic. If we hesitate to accept that until we are driven to it, I should like to give the reasons. It is a beverage of particular localities, and we wish to avoid the appearances of being unfair to local tastes if possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ireland."] Not merely Ireland, but Scotland. There is no doubt at all that the mischief from spirits, the drinking of spirits, is incalculable, especially drunk in its absolutely undiluted form, as it is too often.
    We have come to the conclusion that at any rate we ought to make an effort to restrain, as much as possible, the sale of spirits and of the most alcoholic of beer, and for that purpose we propose a very heavy surtax on spirits, and also a very heavy surtax on all the beers containing more than 7 per cent. of proof spirit.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is well to be quite sure about this.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know the point, not 7 per cent. of alcohol—Oh, no! There are very few beers have quite got that. There are some, I know. It is 7 per cent. proof spirit.
    There is another point which I will put about spirits. There is a maximum of dilution for spirits. At the present moment you are not allowed to sell spirits without notice which is lower than 25 per cent. under proof. That is for brandy, whisky or rum. We propose that the limit of dilution should be extended. It is in itself a good thing from the point of view of selling less alcohol for what is apparently the same quantity of whisky; but in addition to that, it is a method which
    890
    enables the publican to recoup himself while charging the same price to his customer. It serves the State and it serves the vendor of spirits at the same time. There has been a good deal of anticipation of coming events, and a vast amount of spirits has already been withdrawn out of bond. That makes it very difficult to know exactly what the revenue will be in the coming year from the proposals which we make. We propose to double the whisky duty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whisky only?"] The spirit duty. I am speaking in terms of whisky. With regard to beer up to 43 specific gravity we do not propose any alteration at all in the beer duties; after that we propose a surtax, which is a graduated one, and it is done deliberately with the intention of discouraging the heavier beers. Between 7 and 8 per cent. of proof spirit, that is, up to 48 specific gravity, we propose 12s per barrel. [An HON. MEMBER: "In addition to the existing duty?"] Yes, a surtax. Between 49 and 53, 24s.; and afterwards 36s., when you get to the heavier beers. This does not interfere with exports at all. The hon. Baronet is absolutely wrong. He is in a great hurry to impart information, but I would not mind that if it were correct. It is perfectly true about export, but it is not true about the stout sold, say, in Ireland.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not say anything.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Give us the figures.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What figures?
    Mr. HEALY: As to the effect on the breweries in Ireland.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give the effect on every brewery in Ireland; it is perfectly impossible. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will give an answer about a particular brewery, but I am not prepared with regard to Bass, Alsopps and the rest, to say what the effect would be. Those are our proposals as far as spirits and beers are concerned. It is perfectly obvious that the same scale of taxation must apply

    891
    also to wines. At the present moment wine is not bearing the same percentage of taxation upon the alcohol it contains as are spirits. If you put heavy duties upon heavy beers and spirits, you must also interfere with the duty upon wine. It is true that during the last few months the consumption of wine has fallen by 25 per cent. All the same, you cannot justify putting heavier taxation upon alcohol as produced in this country and charging, say, merely 7½d. per bottle upon champagne, when you are charging twice, three, or four times as much on your bottle of whisky. Therefore it is proposed, in order to put it on somewhere about the same scale, to increase the wine duty by quadrupling it. Upon sparkling wines, which now bear a surtax of 2s. 6d. a gallon, which means 2s. 6d. half a dozen bottles, there will be a surtax of 15s. a gallon. On the revenue side, owing to the very heavy anticipation, and the difficulty of knowing the extent to which there will be dilution, it is almost impossible to estimate what will be produced by spirits. I should doubt whether this year spirits will contribute more than they would at the present rate of duty. The consumption has gone up enormously during the last four or five months. I do not know what will be the effect of a duty of this kind. The effect of the additional duty of 3s. 9d. was to reduce the consumption of spirits by, I think, about 20 to 25 per cent. The consumption went down by something between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 gallons. That was the effect of a mere addition of 3s. 9d. If the addition of another 14s. 9d. will answer the same purpose, we shall have achieved very largely the purpose we have in view, without prohibiting the sale of spirits in this country. As far as beer is concerned, we anticipate that the change will produce a revenue of £1,600,000. As far as wine is concerned, we hope to get a revenue of £1,500,000 out he propose now?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is there change or any new duty upon alcohol in other forms, in other beverages—cider or so-called temperance drinks? [An HON. MEMBER: "Ginger ale!"]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have seen figures showing that so-called temperance drinks contain 4 or 5 per cent. of alcohol. If that is true, they must be escaping the revenue officers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, people would have no right to sell them unless they had a licence. I believe that 2 per cent. is the maximum at the present moment. If they exceed that, they certainly ought to be taxed. If I could get any proof from the gentlemen who write to the papers, I should certainly take steps against them.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What about cider?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am asking, not in criticism, but only for information: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with cider, having regard to the alteration he proposes in the position of beer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should doubt very much whether you have much cider in this country with more than 7 per cent. of proof spirit.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The minimum is 10.50 to 10.62.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what that means in proof spirit.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Thirteen or fourteen.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman's proposal include medicinal spirits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is some special provision for that. I have promised to consider the point. A question has already been put to me by an hon. Member opposite, and I propose to deal with that question. We must extend the exemptions there, especially now.
    Mr. HOGGE: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose in regard to the maximum of dilution? Talking about whisky, ha spoke about 25 under proof; what does he propose now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Thirty-five. I do not pretend that these measures alone will be adequate, and the Government, after careful and prolonged consideration,

    893
    have come to the same conclusion. We must have, in addition, more complete and thorough control of the liquor trade in areas producing war material, or where there is transport, or occasionally in camping areas. Even with spirits at double duty, and beer with 7 per cent. of proof spirit and above raised in price, men earning exceptional wages can buy quite enough to incapacitate them for work. In these areas, therefore, where it is vital to us to stop excessive drinking, the Government must have complete control over the sale of these commodities. I have already, when summarising the evidence, indicated the perils. There is excessive drinking; there is a congestion of public-houses at points where they are direct temptations to that minority of men whose wills have already been sapped by alcohol; there is the absence of provision for healthy, decent refreshment, both in the way of nourishment and of stimulant; and there is the fact that the sale of liquor is bound to be in the hands of those whoso special interest is rather in advancing their business than in controlling the appetites of their customers.
    We propose to take powers, limited to the period of the War, because we do not want to raise any issue beyond that. I do not mind saying that I should have liked, if it had been possible, to have taken this opportunity of putting the nation in a position at the end of the War to deal with this problem without the complication of vested interests. After all—the House will allow me to say this—the nation has got to live afterwards. It could perhaps afford a drink bill of £160,000,000 before the War. Even then many lived in squalor and misery. But it was a prosperous period. No one knows how long this War will last. No one knows how exhausting it will be. What we could afford before the War we certainly cannot afford after the War. One of the things we cannot afford is a drink bill of £160,000,000. I had hoped it was possible, by the agreement of all parties, for us to be placed in a position to do something that would have given us complete control during the War, and which would have made it unnecessary for
    894
    us, either to have very heavy taxation, or any of those other expedients which would give us complete control, at the same time leaving us free, men of all parties, to consider, when we put our heads together, how we are to rebuild our country.
    However, that is not the proposal I am now making. I simply propose that we shall have powers during the War to enable us, for instance, to close any public-houses in these areas whose presence is considered for the moment injurious, and having a prejudicial effect on the output of munitions, the transport of material, or the discipline of the troops. We must have the power also to use either licensed premises, or any other premises in the areas, for the purpose of supplying reasonable refreshments to the men engaged in these burdensome tasks, and for the purpose of preventing any section of men from abusing the facilities for the supply of intoxicants. Even the power must be included, should it be thought necessary, to suppress the sale of spirits, or of very heavy beers, in these areas. This power need not be exercised unless the exigencies of the War, which are paramount, make it, in the judgment of the Admiralty and the War Office, absolutely essential that this power ought to be given. The areas themselves will be defined by Order in Council, on the advice of the War Office, the Admiralty, and, of course, the Home Department. The extent of the areas must depend upon what those Departments consider necessary, in order to ensure real and effective control. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the areas be large or small"?] That is a matter which they will have to consider. Each case will be considered upon its merits. Sometimes men live at a great distance, and sometimes railway and tram accommodation enables them to travel easily outside the mere city or borough boundary. The control will be exercised by a Central Board, appointed by these Departments and representatives of them. Hon. Members will ask, what about compensation? We have come to the same conclusion here as we did in the other Defence of the Realm Acts—that where you are taking away a man's property and a man's livelihood, you must give him fair

    895
    compensation. That will be given for the acquisition of all interests where public-houses or other property is used, appropriated, or damaged.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will that be temporary or permanent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If a house is taken for the purpose of supplying refreshments, you may take it either permanently or temporarily; that is a matter which has got to be settled by the Board itself.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: How about the employés?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They will have to be considered like the others. We must see that people are not damaged, and do not suffer, in consequence of any action that is taken. For instance, the State must be free to purchase its supplies of intoxicating liquors from any brewer, without reference to existing ties in those areas. The State, if it supplies refreshments, must supply the very best it can provide, and therefore it must be free from ties; and the compensation payable to the brewer will be in proportion to the temporary loss of custom which he thus sustains.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: What about the position of the clubs?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The clubs will, of course, be under the same control. Our view is that you must give complete control over the supply of intoxicating liquors in those areas to those departments which are responsible for war material.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: What will be the method of compensation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly I to what I am now coming. The principles I and methods upon which compensation is to be based are exactly the same as in the acquisition of other properties, and injury to other interests already dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act. A Commission will be appointed—whether the present Commission or another, I propose to announce on the Second Reading
    896
    of the Bill—for the purpose of ascertaining what is a fair amount to be paid; the names of the Commissioners will be given before the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not profess to believe that our proposals are cast in an heroic mould. They are not so thorough and so bold as that of the Russians. I do trust, however, that they will be sufficient, and that it will not be necessary for any Government to proceed to more drastic courses in order to ensure the output of munitions of war. They involve undoubtedly a great amount of self-abnegation on the part of a considerable portion of the community, but I feel confident that the community, as a whole, will be prepared to endure all that if necessary in order to increase the output of munitions. There are hundreds of thousands who are enduring more at the present time—much more! I gave figures to the House last week. I am sure that in order to help them the country is prepard to suffer any sacrifice that is necessary. Their gallantry is beyond description. They are constantly appealing to us to send them more munitions, more material, to enable them to cope with their terrible task. They know what it means. They can see in front of them miles of entrenchments, defended by every art of human ingenuity, and defended—as we know by now—by some of the blackest arts that man ever devised. They ask us to help them to get through without unnecessary loss. Their appeal is not lost on us. Their appeal is for a fair chance in the fight. Honour demands that whatever it costs us, we shall give them it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has made a long and interesting speech, but I confess that, after listening to him with the utmost care, I am somewhat bewildered, and I do not clearly understand what are the proposals of the Government. I do not for a moment suggest that that is due to any want of lucidity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The subject is very complicated, and no doubt when we read his speech we shall see clearly what the Government propose to do. I have, however, come to the conclusion—only within the last few minutes—that in these circumstances,

    897
    when I do not understand the proposals, it would be out of place for me to make a speech expressing any opinion in regard to them. I have determined to take that course for myself, and I am inclined to think that the House, as a whole, will consider that it would be wiser to wait till we have seen the Bill, until we have seen the reports which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to circulate, so that then we shall be in a better position than we are to-day to express an opinion on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action in regard to the age of whisky which is to be sold at public-houses?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will answer that afterwards.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I entirely agree as to the force of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. At the same time the character of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward is such that I feel it incumbent upon me without any delay, at this stage, to say a few words. I think the right hon. Gentleman entered upon an unnecessary task when he devoted a large portion of his speech to prove the gravity of the situation in which the country stands, and the duty of all of us to do everything in our power to enable that crisis to be properly met. I am quite sure that there is no man in any quarter of this House, and I am certain that there is no man of any responsibility in Ireland, who does not fully grasp the gravity of the situation; and I do not believe that there is in Ireland any section of men whatever who are not willing to face any sacrifice that is proved to be necessary to enable the crisis properly to be met. I therefore pass that altogether.
    6.0 P.M.
    Speaking for those for whom I am entitled to speak, I say that we are willing to face any sacrifice that is proved necessary in order to meet this evil. The right hon. Gentleman went on to prove his case—that is to prove that, although no slur is to be cast upon the general attitude of the workmen of Great Britain, there are a certain number of workmen who are slack in their work, and he attributes that—and quotes authority for the statement—to excessive drinking. I am bound to say that listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and before I have the opportunity of reading the reports and of
    898
    weighing the actual matter, I thought for the moment that so far he had made good his case for some remedy of this defect. When it comes to the case of Ireland, however, I have to remark that he made no case out at all. There are great works in Ireland, great shipyards in Belfast, great transport businesses carried on in other ports in Ireland, and great explosive works at Arklow, in Wicklow County. He did not venture to allege, because I know he could not allege, that there has been either any increase in drunkenness in these places in that country, or that there has been any slackness on the part of the workers. On the contrary all the information I have received from Belfast concerning the workmen of Belfast redounds to the eternal honour of the city of Belfast. I am told that the men are working longer hours than ever they did, and that there is less drunkenness amongst them. I am told that is true of every other place where anything which can be included in the definition of munitions of war is being manufactured in the country. Therefore, so far as Ireland is concerned, not only did he not justify this, but he did not attempt to make any allegations whatever. That being so, I am bound for a moment, even at this early stage, to look at the remedies he is proposing.
    With reference to the second proposal in his Bill, namely, that he should take complete power in any munition area as the authorities deem necessary for the purpose of dealing with slackers, I confess if he had stopped there I would have been inclined cordially to accept and support his proposal. I think that proposal is a just and reasonable one. It is not just because of the misconduct, or the alleged misconduct, of workers in one district that a whole people should be penalised, but I think it is just, and quite justifiable, that wherever it is proved in any particular district that the interests of the country are being injured by excessive drinking the Government should have in its hands sufficient power in that district to deal with the matter by taking over public houses, by establishing perhaps canteen systems whereby good liquor, food, and accommodation can be given to the men and so forth. So far, therefore, as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I think he would be quite justified in making it, and I, for my part, would cordially accept it. I am happy to think in practice it probably would not have to be applied to Ireland at all, because in these

    899
    munition districts of Ireland there is no need for it; but, if the need arose in the future, he would have the power, and no one would complain that that power should be put rigorously in force.
    But the right hon. Gentleman proposes something else. He proposes, in effect, to destroy root and branch a great Irish industry. Now I would not even complain of that if he could make a case. I do not complain of any sacrifice, no matter how awful it is, which may be entailed upon Ireland in doing her duty in this matter; but I say when there is no case made it would be a cruel thing without the smallest necessity to inflict this injury upon this Irish industry. The right hon. Gentleman opened his speech by saying it was all a case of necessity. Unless he could prove necessity he said—I think those were his exact words—his whole case went by the board. He has failed to prove necessity in the case of Ireland, and, so far as Ireland is concerned, I say his case goes by the board, and I do not think it would be right if I allowed even this preliminary stage to pass without saying that, in my opinion, his proposals will be resented by every party in Ireland. I do not believe that there is any party in Ireland but will resent these proposals in view of the fact that no case has been made out against Ireland. I felt it was only candid and right on my part that I should make this protest at this stage.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Might I just ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman? Was I right in gathering from what was said that this central body was to have absolute control over the areas to be defined? The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me private information that, so far as the area which I have the honour to represent is concerned, legislation for that area, considered by itself, would not have been necessary.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Judging by the first portion of the Chancellor's speech, one might have expected his proposals would have been more chastened, but before he had finished his speech I was convinced that he had struck a most unjust, and possibly a fatal, blow at almost the only considerable manufacture that is left in the three southern provinces of Ireland. Men of my way of thinking, up to the present, have refrained, and will still refrain, from saying or doing anything that would increase the anxieties of the Government in
    900
    the tremendous task that they have before them on the Continent. It is a matter of life and death; but there really is a limit if Irish representatives in this House are not to forget altogether that they are Irishmen and the representatives specially of their own country. We claim that the only just and logical treatment of Ireland would be to exclude Ireland altogether from this Bill. If the Home Rule Act which you have passed is anything better than a worthless scrap of paper, you have renounced the right of this House to interfere in the management of Irish affairs of this very special description, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to-night the first to set his own Act at defiance, to destroy a great Irish trade, and forestall and usurp the authority of the Irish Parliament, even before you have brought it into existence.
    As to the great Irish distilling trade and the great Irish brewing trade, you have already taxed them within an inch of their lives—14s. 9d. a gallon upon whisky, and £1 a barrel upon porter—and I really do not know how these manufacturers are going to survive the new pains and penalties the Chancellor has announced to-night. I have often heard Englishmen speak with indignation of the laws by which the Irish woollen industry was crushed in the interests of English traders. For the last fifty years you have been persecuting this great Irish manufacture, which is of as great importance to Ireland, practically, as the cotton industry is to England. You have been persecuting it—I do not charge with the same malicious intention, but certainly with the same deadly persistency with which you extinguished the Irish woollen trade. You raise the Irish whisky duty by large amounts at various times, and now tonight you propose additional penalties which will practically break the back of that industry. I am afraid that the effect of the Chancellor's proposals upon the Irish brewing trade will be almost equally disastrous. The Members for Dublin, if they chose to do so, could say what Dublin would be without Guinness's brewery, against which, I am informed by competent authorities, a proposal of this kind will strike a deadly blow. Gentlemen opposite have shown upon this subject an ignorance which, I think, is a little unworthy.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I say deliberately Dublin would be infinitely better off without this.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: But having just handed over to Ireland the management of her own affairs, does not the hon. Gentleman think he might attach some little importance to the opinion of the Irish people themselves as to the existence of the one industry in which Dublin beats the world? As the hon. gentleman has challenged me, I for one will stand no cant or nonsense as to the product of that manufacture. So far from Guinness's stout or Cork stout having any pernicious influence upon the health or morals of the people in the same way as absinthe, I have yet to meet any experienced Irish doctor who will not tell you there is no more wholesome, healthy, or fortifying medicine that can be prescribed for delicate people or hard workers, and it is that reputation of Irish stout that has been earned by those very qualities of strength which the Chancellor to-night proposes to penalise in order to satisfy a lot of self-righteous prohibitionists opposite, without daring to deprive the English working men of the particular class of beer of a lighter quality which conforms with their tastes and habits.
    I will go further—I suppose I shall horrify the hon. Gentleman who interrupts—and say that the same may be said of properly matured Irish whisky. I say that there is no more healthy or more hygienic tonic than Irish whisky. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scotch whisky!"] Hon. Members speak for themselves; I have never tasted it. The great majority of the doctors of these countries will tell you that no better, no more healthy tonic can be prescribed for a man than Irish whisky which has been allowed to ripen in casks for four or five years. The trouble only comes in from villainous adulteration, and from the sale of raw spirit while it is still reeking with fusel oil. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had confined himself to a remedy for these adulterations, we should have gladly joined him in preventing the sale of these poisonous drinks to the people. To that extent I am in entire agreement with a portion of his statement, and I know of no responsible Irishman who would not welcome any regulation for the pureness and matureness of whisky before released from bond for sale. But that is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Gentlemen who sit behind him are now driving at. They are not driving at maturity of the whisky sold to the public, but they are driving at killing the trade altogether
    902
    by inches. I take the consequences as to my own Constituency of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to-night. Between the distilling trade and the brewing manufacture I am safe in saying that at least 10,000 of the population depend more or less upon these manufactures. I do not know how many distilleries and breweries will disappear under the right hon. Gentleman's new proposal. In addition to that, there is the destruction of employment, which seems such a light matter to some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The county of Cork is one of the most extensive barley growing districts in the country, and if you succeed in crushing this trade you will reduce that barley producing area in Ireland to the condition of a wilderness, although, as everyone knows, the chief hope of the country is that it may be able to increase its acreage under cultivation. I am not exaggerating when I say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his surtax, succeeds in annihilating those two great manufactures in Cork, the result will be as appalling as if that city were bombarded and sacked by the Germans. That is the truth, and the wrong to Ireland will not be lessened in the estimation of the Irish people by the misconduct, if I may use the term, of the self-righteous Gentlemen who are urging these proposals. We were the first in all Ireland to declare for England in this War, not only in speeches, but in recruits, and from the very first hour, without a moment's hesitation or equivocation, we took that course, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now made a very handsome return for our patriotism. There would be some consolation in this matter if we could even persuade ourselves that we were being victimised for some good object connected with the successful prosecution of the War, but it is nothing of the kind. This is not a genuine War emergency measure, and the conduct of hon. Gentleman behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows that it is in reality a teetotal measure which the Government, have been tempted to accept under cover of war pressure. I venture to assert that the pretext of that war pressure has now been pretty well disposed of.
    It seemed to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made rather a feeble defence of the statement, which ran through all England, that drink was a more formidable enemy than Germany. At all events, we have the fact that the Prime Minister forgot all about that

    903
    speech when he paid his visit to Newcastle. The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly given us a most shocking and painful picture of the misconduct and the want of patriotism of a section of British workmen. I am afraid he has made a statement which in its way is as great a discredit to Britain as the loss of a battleship. I would entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman if the case he made out in regard to the minority were true of the huge majority of British workmen. I mark to-night that although the right hon. Gentleman brought out with tremendous emphasis the state of affairs in regard to particular sections of the country, he made no general statement showing the extent of this horrible misconduct, and he left the House under the impression that he referred merely to an inconsiderable minority of British workmen, whom the Defence of the Realm Act already gave him the most drastic powers to deal with. I have the utmost respect for men who are in the habit of taking a rational measure of alcohol, and who renounce that measure, but when we come to those hon. Gentlemen who were born with an aversion to alcohol, and to whom alcohol is not one of the vices they are incurring, I have very little respect indeed for them when they thrust their compulsory virtue upon men who lead harder lives, and to whom stronger nutriment and stimulants may be necessary to enable them to bear up against the exhaustion of life.
    I will not discuss to-night the extraordinary effect which the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will have upon the finance of Home Rule. This is perhaps a subject of remote and melancholy interest under present conditions. We are not in the confidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we cannot pretend, on the spur of the moment, to be able to measure the financial consequences of his proposals; but if what I apprehend about them is justified, you might as well throw the Home Rule Bill into the fire right away so far as the revenue of Ireland is concerned, for you will have sacrificed something like half the entire revenue of Ireland, and I really do not know how you are going to replace it unless you place a tax upon Irish potatoes or tax the new peasant proprietors out of existence, not to speak at all of where the new Irish Parliament, if it ever comes into existence, is to find material for its own
    904
    schemes. Next Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will unfold his Budget, and I hope that we shall then be in a better position to understand where we shall stand in Ireland as to the future. I cannot allow an hour to pass without entering my strongest protest against the right hon. Gentleman's proposals here to-night, and I will only say that, in my opinion, he has done an ungracious and a bad day's work for the future relations of his party with Ireland.
    Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it would be unwise and undesirable to discuss these proposals to-day. I think we ought to consider them and thoroughly understand them. I have risen to make two remarks. The first is with reference to the statement of the hon. Member who has just sat down that these proposals have been thrust upon the Government by temperance people and teetotalers. That is a statement without an atom of foundation whatever, which has been evolved only in the hon. Member's imagination, and for which there is no justification. No suggestion of this kind has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, so far as I am aware, no member of the temperance party knew what proposals the right hon. Gentleman was going to make. These proposals have not come from the temperance party. The whole thing has arisen, so far as I have understood it, from the impression which has been made upon the Government as to the necessity of doing something in this matter, and they have evolved in the Cabinet their own proposals. They were not moved to take action by the temperance party. Whether these proposals are the wisest that could be made, we can best discuss when we are more familiar with them. I would suggest that any proposals that are to be made in connection with this very difficult subject will be found to be surrounded with difficulty in every direction in which you wish to move, and there will be no difficulty in bringing criticism to bear upon any of these proposals. Therefore I suggest that we should adopt the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, and calmly consider these proposals before proceeding to discuss them.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask two questions relating entirely to procedure. My first question is, when shall we have the Bill in our hands and the Papers

    905
    which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to lay on the Table, which, of course, are necessary for the further consideration of this question. I draw the inference from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is going to take a series of Taxing Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means as soon as he has got leave to introduce his Bill. The second question I want to ask is, are the Resolutions which he intends to move going to be embodied in this Bill, or are they to be reserved for the Defence of the Realm Bill next week?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I merely desire to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has taken a very wise course in adopting the suggestion initiated by the Leader of the Opposition, and I propose to reserve any criticism I have to make until the Second Reading stage.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I should like to say a word or two on the subject of procedure, because I consider procedure is at the root of the liberties of this House. I think the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Baronet opposite cannot be taken to-night, for the very good reason that you have passed an Act of which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take advantage of in Committee of Ways and Means by a course against which I protested at the beginning of the Session. I assert that no course similar to that to which I objected just after Questions has ever been taken by any Government since this House has been a House of Commons. What is the course suggested? You put down a Defence of the Realm (Amendment—No. 3) Bill. Invariably we have all given the Government, without question, any powers they demanded under the Defence of the Realm Act. But what followed the Defence of the Realm Act? "Ways and Means Committee," in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to move Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley seems to think that the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition can be treated as a First Reading; but it cannot, because the moment we pass our Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means to-night, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, as an annex to his statement on the Defence of the Realm Act it has the effect of an Act of Parliament if he so chooses. How, then, can we treat this as a mere preliminary Motion? What are the words of the Act of 1913? This is
    906
    why I said at the beginning of business to-day that there was no precedent for the course proposed to be taken. It practically amounts to this, that the Government propose to have a Budget discussion next Tuesday, while all the effect of the Budget discussion is to be taken to-night by reason of the Ways and Means Resolution. This is the Statute of 3rd Geo. V.:—
    "Where a Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons (so long as it is a Committee of the Whole House) providing for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any tax in force or imposed during the previous financial year, whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modifications, and the Resolution contains a declaration that it is expedient in the public interest that the Resolution should have Statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the Resolution shall, for the period limited by this Section, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have statutory effect as if contained in an Act of Parliament."
    What is the meaning of putting the Resolution down? Either this is Budget night or it is not. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman's retort when I interrupted him and asked whether this is a Defence of the Realm Act or a Finance Act, but he is the most reckless man as to procedure who ever held his office. He cares nothing for the forms of this House. Can he show us any occasion on which this has ever been done? The Budget is fixed for Tuesday. On Thursday, the preceding Parliamentary day, he puts down his Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, and, if we are not watchful, the Clerk may mumble them at the Table, and, not having seen them on the Paper, we may have a Statute doubling the taxation upon whisky, increasing it upon beer, and largely increasing it upon wine, without knowing what they are. Is that the normal procedure of this House? The fact is that you intend to use this period of War and our feelings in regárd to the War, and in regard to the soldiers themselves, on a taxing question. If beer and whisky are bad, prohibit them altogether. That is the logic of the case. Come down and say, on your responsibility as a Government, "whisky is bad," as the Russians said that Vodka is bad, and we will support you, but do not mix up this attempt at taxation with a War measure.

    907
    Are we considering revenue to-night or are we not? We are considering whether we are going to win or lose in this War. We have not grudged the right hon. Gentleman money. He has not been grudged taxation. Do not let him mix up the two things, and do not let him mix them up by means of a procedure for which I challenge him to find a precedent. He has had great experience; he has secretaries galore and he has a large staff at the Treasury. Can he show any precedent for what he is doing to-night? He must admit that there are many things which in a normal time might be criticised, and which we have never attempted to criticise. When the War is over England and Scotland in some shape or form will have got the benefit of the thousands of millions of taxation that you are expending on the War. You produce shells and your workers who produce them are getting higher wages. We are not getting anything except so far as shipbuilding in Belfast is concerned.
    There never has been such a spectacle as Ireland has shown during this War in all her connection with England. Troops going through the streets have been cheered, men taking rifles from soldiers going to the docks and carrying them, knapsacks being taken off their shoulders and borne by little children, and "God Save the King" being sung as well as "God Save Ireland." There never has been anything like it in the history of the country. Yet this is the occasion which you accept to bring in what you call a temporary measure. It is not temporary. That is the extraordinary thing about the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. When you have destroyed these distilleries and breweries, they are gone for ever. When the War is over where will all the workmen be? There are 8,000 heads of families in Guinness's brewery.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: They will get compensation.
    Mr. HEALY: There was not a word said about compensation. I will not say "when the whole of them," but when half of these 8,000 men have gone to the workhouses, who will bear—
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Could not some of them enlist?
    Mr. HEALY: Some of them might be of enlisting age, but, if that is the proposal, let it be put forward. If it is the
    908
    proposal as the hon. Gentleman says to drive men into the Army, let it be so stated.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say that it was a proposal to drive men into the Army, but, when the hon. Member said that it would involve 8,000 men going into the workhouse, I ejaculated, "could they not some of them enlist?"
    Mr. HEALY: I said "half of them." I have always said that there are a great many—too many—public-houses in Ireland, but it was done by eight resident magistrates with the distinct Government object of getting revenue from the Irish people. It is your own Act. You did it. England has got, and will get, the value of all her munitions, all her artillery, and everything in the nature of equipment for her men, but the only thing Ireland is getting—so far as I know—is measured by the extent to which food is taken out of the country. The revenue which is promised to us under the so-called Home Rule Act depends very largely upon the taxation which was to come from spirits and beer, and hon. Gentlemen must not be surprised if we see in these proposals practically a, proposal to destroy that measure. I unhesitatingly say, "With the proposal made to-night passed into law, good-bye to the Home Rule Act so far as ifs efficacy is concerned."
    I cannot altogether forget the right hon. Gentleman's own position. It is an amazing thing to me that he should have made the speech he did and that the Prime Minister should have gone to Newcastle-on-Tyne and should have made the speech he did. The two speeches are wholly irreconcilable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made this extraordinary statement: "The lure of drink is a greater danger than the power of Austria or the power of Germany." He stated also that in consequence of that lure this country was short of munitions of various kinds. Down went the Prime Minister to Newcastle-on-Tyne. Did he say the same? Nothing of the kind. He said the very contrary. He said that this country was adequately supplied with munitions of war and that there is no shortage of munitions of war. He is again given the lie to-night by his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Really, I think in a matter of this kind we are entitled to have the Prime Minister present, and for my part I object to the passing of a Bill of this kind to-night having statutory effect unless we are told

    909
    which story we are to believe. Are we to believe the gospel of the Prime Minister at Newcastle, or the gospel of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They are absolutely irreconcilable, and there are no means that I can see of taking the two of them and for any Liberal to say, "I take my stand rather with the Chancellor of the Exchequer," or "rather with the Prime Minister; there is really very little difference of opinion between them." I say that they are poles asunder.
    I think, therefore, we are entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to put his Ways and Means Resolution under the Act of 1913. Will it have statutory effect from to-night? If so, what is the tremendous urgency? Why did not the Prime Minister tell the people of Newcastle that there is this tremendous urgency? Why have all the papers been led to believe that no such strong and drastic action will be taken? Above all, I think we are entitled to know this. The right hon. Gentleman, according to the newspapers, has been in constant conference with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin). Did he speak to them in the sense that he has spoken to-night, and did they then and there acquiesce in the proposals he has put forward here? I should also like to know this: Will Ireland get anything in return for this altruism, because that is really what it amounts to. Nobody has suggested that the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made applies to our country. It could not apply to Ireland because we are not making munitions of war. What are we going to get in return? Why has the Government exhibited all this tremendous anxiety with regard to one particular trade? Why are the poor being robbed as to flour, coal, and other things, and no attempt being made by the Government to stir a finger to prevent it? Why is all their energy directed against one particular industry? In some parts of Ireland coal is £2 5s. and £2 10s. per ton. It is £2 10s. in the county of Cork. Why do not the Government establish a minimum price, or do something?
    I think the Government in this matter are taking a plunge, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cork was justified in saying that this is a teetotal scheme, and that advantage is being taken of the War for teetotal purposes. The Welsh people
    910
    are very discontented because of the surrender as regards their Church. We have read of the great discontent caused in Wales by the proposals of the Government. But many of the people who favour Disestablishment are very strong teetotalers, and this is a sop to them. [A laugh.] I am glad to see that teetotalers can laugh so heartily. Certainly, it is very remarkable you should have a Bill proposed as to Wales without the knowledge of the Welsh Members and against their wishes. They were told that they were consulted, but they replied that they never heard of it, and in the middle of the seething discontent that existed in the Welsh party you suddenly find the storm deflected; you suddenly find a change in the bowling, and a new interest is discovered in which the Welsh Nonconformist clergymen are almost as much concerned as in the Church itself. And the Welsh Nonconformists will now understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, while he did his best for them on the Church, he had to give in to the Tories and brewers, but he had stuck to them on the drink question. That, in my opinion, is really the genesis of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is so varied in his actions and speeches, he is so adroit, that I am sure when he came to put all the strands together, and to make his decision, this suggestion as to the betrayal of the Welsh Church was not left altogether out of account, but did pass through his mind.
    I maintain that this Defence of the Realm Bill is not a Bill standing by itself. It should be allowed to stand by itself. There has never been, so far as I know, a Ways and Means Resolution to found the Defence of the Realm Act. Ways and Means is a separate thing from the Defence of the Realm Bill, and I think we are entitled to know of what Bill the Ways and Means Resolution is the foundation. According to the procedure adopted in 1913, the Ways and Means Resolution was followed by a Finance Bill, and the Finance Bill got its First Reading. I speak subject to correction. I may be a little rusty on these matters, but I think the Finance Bill immediately followed the passing of the Ways and Means Resolution. It would certainly be a very remarkable thing if the Defence of the Realm Act Bill is based on a Ways and Means Resolution. You would have in the Defence of the Realm Bill practically the provisions of Budget legislation. Such an extraordinary, incongruous legislative, monster has

    911
    never been produced by any previous Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I very much regret the right hon. Gentleman should have fallen under the strictures I have made. Whenever proposals are made for the three Kingdoms, they are bound to be to the prejudice of my country. It is an absolute incongruity. Legislation for England is produced under the stress of Welsh and English public opinion, under the influence of the Press, of the newspapers, and of the pulpits and platforms. Our country, unfortunately, is not in the main track of these public forces. It is subject to wholly different and distinct considerations, and it was with a knowledge of those conditions and considerations that the provisions of the Home Rule Act were passed. Having passed that Act, you are now creating what seems to me to be the greatest difficulty of all. You are now practically putting a rope round our necks and handcuffs round our wrists. Any sacrifice it may be necessary to make for the War we are prepared to make, provided they are war sacrifices. But this is not a war sacrifice. This is a Bill which, if passed, will have its duration and effect long after most of the Members of this House will have passed away. Certainly it will be a sad thing to think, when we have devoted our energies and our aspirations to the defeat of Prussian tyranny, the result will be that, in the one country above all others which is entitled to some consideration for having forgotten the wrongs and injuries of the past, the result of this Bill will really be to subject it to a still more crushing tyranny.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think I can set the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind at rest at once, and also the mind of the House. I have not seen the Resolutions to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means. But I am quite certain that by no possibility can they be included in the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Bill. These Resolutions will have to be passed in Committee. They will have to receive the assent of the House on Report, and upon them a further Bill will have to be introduced.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I can clear this matter up. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had only allowed me to answer two questions put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the main part of his speech would have been unnecessary.
    912
    The Defence of the Realm Bill stands absolutely alone, and I simply explained the other provisions because I thought it might be convenient to the House that I should submit all the proposals of the Government with regard to the drink question together, rather than explain part of them on the Defence of the Realm Bill and then proceed to make another speech on the Resolution in Ways and Means. I understood the House to give general assent to my proposition that I should take that course and explain the whole of the provisions at the same time. The Defence of the Realm Bill has nothing absolutely to do with taxation. These proposals will be incorporated in the Finance Bill of the year. I explained them together, because otherwise the proposals of the Government would have been truncated, and the House would not have been able to judge them as a whole. The Defence of the Realm Bill, which I invite the House to give me leave to introduce, is a Bill which deals entirely and exclusively with the control of the liquor traffic, and, as far as I can give an absolute pledge, nothing else. It has certainly nothing whatever to do with taxation, and that is my answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Bill will be out to-morrow morning. With regard to the Papers, I am afraid I shall have to submit certain documents to the Admiralty, for it is their responsibility. I do not know whether the Home Office document is ready, but at any rate it will be out either to-morrow evening or on Saturday morning. The House will get them all before we come to the consideration of the Second Reading.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And when will that be?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot say. Supply is, I think, announced for next Wednesday.
    Mr. HEALY: Why not pass the Resolution on Tuesday instead of to-night?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, really, I am surprised at that suggestion from the hon. and learned Gentleman. For an hon. Member with his experience to suggest that, having already proposed to put an extra duty on spirits, we should then suspend the whole thing and prevent its being brought into operation until Tuesday, is very extraordinary. Of course, he knows what would happen in that case.
    Mr. HEALY: Then these are Budget Resolutions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are Ways and Means Resolutions. I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman several precedents for Ways and Means Resolutions being introduced in this way. With regard to the age question, I will consider that. A Committee sat on that very question some time ago, and they reported against discrimination. We came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the case was not sufficient to draw a distinction at the present moment. I think the hon. Baronet opposite takes that view.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not. I think it is a great mistake not to do it. I cannot understand why you leave it out.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We had a discussion on this in 1909, and the evidence then was the other way. It was discussed in the House of Commons. I was then perfectly prepared to do it, but when it was gone into I found that those who were in favour of patent stills said they produced a purer article immediately by that process than was produced by the other process in two or three years. I am expressing no opinion on it. It is really a fight between Dublin and Belfast, and Heaven forfend that I should intervene between those two great Irish cities! The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to say, in a very amiable way, that I differed from my chief. I am very anxious not to enter into anything likely to be controversial. Everything I said had the full sanction of the Prime Minister. What I said to-night about munitions is exactly what was said by the Prime Minister. I said that there are in front of us operations which will require infinitely more ammunition than we have got at the present moment. The Prime Minister said nothing inconsistent with that. I am not sure, indeed, these were not actually his words. Therefore it is vital for us in the great operations that are in front of us that we should increase enormously our output of munitions. The Prime Minister said absolutely nothing contrary to that. He was dealing with another branch of the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman will find nothing inconsistent in the statement which I made, with the statements which Lord Kitchener and Sir John French have also made upon this all-important question of munitions. It is really too important a question to be made a matter of personalities. It is a matter of life and death to our country.
    Mr. HEALY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman should not be confined to one speech?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that question is raised, of course, I will resume my seat.
    Mr. HEALY: You can speak on the next Resolution.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir RICHARD COOPER: I am not going to allow this occasion to pass without objecting to the views expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the authorities in this country, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, are all consistent in what they are saying about the munitions of war. Such a statement is a preposterous one for any responsible Minister to make to the House of Commons. It is impossible, without the facts and figures in one's hand, to give chapter and verse for the belief I am going to express. I understand that we are passing a Resolution with regard to drastic proposals in connection with drink. There is but one construction to put upon the action we are taking to-night in passing this Resolution. It is nothing more or less than to saddle upon the working people of this country the responsibility for the delays in the production of munitions for the War. I cannot understand how it is that this matter is on the point of being passed without any representative of labour getting up and saying one word in defence of the working classes. The Leader of the Irish party has made a statement, which has not been challenged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else, to the effect that in Belfast, where there are great shipyards, there is less drunkenness than before the War. Whether or not that is true I do not know. If it is true, I am entitled to ask why should Belfast shipyards be better to-day with regard to the drink problem and the Tyne and the Clyde so very much worse? Is there all that difference between the Irishmen and the Scotchmen in their habits of drinking?
    I have said in my own Constituency, and I repeat here, that I regard the whole campaign against drink as being a means of hiding the faults of the Administration during the past year. To show the House that I am not in opposition to any proposals, right or wrong, for which the Government take responsibility in putting them before this House and which in their view are necessary for the proper carrying

    915
    out of the War, I would refer briefly to that part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals which enable the Government to take charge of some of the public-houses in this country. For the moment they are confining it to areas where munitions of war are being turned out. I heartily agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that particular and in what he said. For the first time to my knowledge a responsible Minister has touched the root spot of the drink problem in this country, which lies in the character of the public-houses which are maintained by the State, inspected by the State, and taxed by the State. They are the only practicable social life avail able to the working men of this country. Anyone who will go into the Black Country, which I know, or into those districts of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to-night, will know that the vast majority of the working men find their social life there. We are all possessed of human nature, and, like the working men, we should inevitably drift sooner or later into the life of the public-house, where the object is only to sell beer and spirits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] A member of the Labour party says, "Oh, oh!"
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not know whether the hon. Member is looking at me and thinks that I made the remark.
    Sir R. COOPER: I was looking at the hon. Member.
    Mr. THOMAS: Well. I made no remark whatever.
    Sir R. COOPER: The Labour party has been remarkably silent. I am glad that in this House there has been a little discretion shown. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go beyond what he does to-day, and I hope the opportunity will come while I am still a Member of this House—I want to see the State take over the whole of the drink traffic of this country, and the whole of the public-houses. I want public-houses made places where drink is no more offered for sale than anything else that a man requires. There is not only the working man to be considered in regard to social life, but his wife. To my knowledge there are enormous numbers of working people where the wife has no social life, except perhaps afternoon tea. There is another important aspect of the matter, namely,
    916
    that we are depending more and more on the work of women in our factories and offices, and that an enormous increase has taken place in the number of women who take up commercial work. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes later on to extend the principle he has put before the House to-night, I hope he will consider whether he cannot do what is done in every Continental country, namely, provide a suitable and desirable place where drink is sold by the State, where it is controlled by the State, and where food and refreshments can be obtained not only by the working man, but by his wife and the workgirls.
    Mr. O'GRADY: This is not the proper time to make rabid speeches upon the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we are not going to allow the occasion to slip without making some protest against the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has had this advantage for several months: he has had experts engaged upon this work, and they have collected a certain number of figures. We want to answer those figures properly. We believe that we can put up a good case against that put up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the reason why we do not intend to go tonight into the whole question and to answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In order that we may put up a proper answer to his statement I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say whether the hours lost by the working men he indicated were lost in the production of the munitions of war and armaments. For instance, he knows as well as I know that in the shipyards there is a certain number of men doing work upon war vessels, but that 75 per cent. of the people employed may be engaged on private work. In regard to private work there are reasons why the men lose time. For instance, this winter we have had the worst winter for many a long year. Hon. Members who know the shipyards know that they are in the open and that the men cannot work during bad weather. I also want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his officers have also taken into consideration that in these yards the men have lost time because they have had to wait for the material, and whether that time lost has been included in his statement. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said himself that a large

    917
    number of the men—the strong, healthy, lusty men—have left and joined the Colours. The men now working cannot work as well as the old squad, who used to work regular hours and produce the great output prior to the War.
    May I also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those who have been going into this question have taken into consideration the fact that on the Clyde the normal hours in the shipyards are fifty-three; those for the night shift being forty-five. As a matter of fact, no man works overtime upon night shift, and if you put the forty-five hours against the fifty-three you are bound to bring down the fifty-three. All these practical points require to be considered. As the chairman of an approved organisation I know how the thing is working out. Our books are flooded at the present moment with men, not because they drink too much, but because they are sick through physical exhaustion. An hon. Friend of mine has, as his two branch secretaries, two life-long teetotalers working in an armament firm at Sheffield who now are on the sick list for the first time in ten years. These are instances showing that there is another side to the question. I do not wish to enter into personal matters, but there is no doubt that the Prime Minister did say at Newcastle that we had sufficient munitions of war and that the workmen of this country were working an average of from sixty-seven to sixty-nine hours per week. I am prepared to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that average is a true one when you take into consideration the facts about the private yards, night shifts, and so on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement has apparently come from men who do not understand not only the facts of the case but the facts of life. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the report of an inspector who went round to certain public-houses in the vicinity of the shipyards, particularly on Saturday night, and found, when it was near ten o'clock the bar tender putting up hundreds of bottles for the men to take home. What are those bottles? They are half mutchkins or half pints of whisky which the men take home. There is a great difference between that quantity and the quantity indicated by the inspector in his report. So far as we know there is not, on the whole, as such excessive drinking and this constant loss of hours in the shipyards and on the munitions of war as the Chancellor of the
    918
    Exchequer has made out to-day. I am sorry the Chancellor quoted that letter from a working man. I know he did not mean to convey that it applied generally, but, unfortunately, someone will take it to apply generally, and I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I would say to the man himself, that the best thing he can do is to send down an inspector and get the man certified to go into a lunatic asylum. It is too bad to quote a letter of that kind. We know that workmen do drink, and that some of them take excessive drink, but, after all, that applies to all classes of the community. In the second place, it is not at all typical. Even if there were a thousand cases of a similar character they would not be typical. The main outstanding fact is that year by year our own people are becoming a more sober people. The Chancellor himself, when he brings forward his Budget every year, remarks on the fact that the revenue is decreasing, because the people are drinking less. So we want on another occasion to analyse these figures thoroughly, because, if they stand now, they are a terrible indictment against our own people, and they will resent it, and will ask us what we were doing not to resent it also on the floor of the House of Commons.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is clear from the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me a little time ago that the Resolutions which are to be put from the Chair in Ways and Means are part of the Resolutions on which the Finance Bill will be drafted, and that the Clauses which make them effective will find their place, not in the Defence Bill, but in the Finance Bill, for which leave will be sought, I suppose, next week. It has been customary for many years to allow a general discussion to be taken on some Resolution of the Budget covering all the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the year. What I wanted to know was whether you, Sir, will assure us that, by passing the Resolutions which the Chancellor desires to take and must have to-night, we shall not have destroyed in any way our right to a general discussion over the finance of the year on the first Resolutions which will be moved on Tuesday next?
    Mr. HEALY: I suggest that there is no reason for any departure from our financial principles. A Budget has never before been split up between a Thursday and a Tuesday, and if these are Budget

    919
    Resolutions it is most important for us to have regularity of procedure. We are now having a Taxing Bill discussed for the first time on a Bill for the Defence of the Realm. The suggestion is now made that when we come to the next Resolution, which is really a Budget Resolution, we shall not treat it as a Budget Resolution, although it makes a most revolutionary change, and that we shall have the whole discussion on Tuesday, perhaps on a Resolution putting a penny extra on tea. What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) suggests would be a departure from the financial practice of the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it very often happens that, on the first night of the Budget, a number of Resolutions are passed, and it is necessary for the protection of the revenue. Then, by agreement between the parties, the general discussion of the Budget takes place on the subsequent Motion, with the assent of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not see why that should not occur again. It is not a matter for me to intervene in, because these arrangements are made in Committee of Ways and Means and not with myself in the Chair.
    Mr. LOUGH: It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman have taken a most serious responsibility, and I am very glad to shelter myself under the action they have taken. I believe everyone will agree to let the Chancellor bring in his Bill, and for no one to say a word about, that until we have considered the proposals; but as to passing the Resolutions I would really appeal to my right hon. Friend. I am sure he has considered the point. I see the difficulty which he raises about giving notice of Resolutions, but there have never been such Resolutions in the history of Parliament. We must pass them sub silentio. I feel a sense of responsibility which prevents a humble Member like myself being entirely silent. I would ask hon. Members if they have lost all sense of responsibility as to the gravity of the procedure that we are following? I will give one figure to show it. We are dealing with a tax on beer which, six months ago, was 7s. a barrel and was raised by 17s. to something like 24s. The beer most used in Ireland has a very heavy specific gravity. We are going to add 36s. more a barrel, that is making it 60s. a barrel instead of
    920
    7s., than it was six months ago. It is largely used in Ireland and is a very innocent drink, and is suitable to the climate. I do not know anything about it myself, but it is a large subject of revenue, and here is a proposal to make the tax ten times greater than it was six months ago, making three-fourths of the change here to-night, and not a Member of the House of Commons is to say a word about it. I am most reluctant to say a word about it. I should like to give the Chancellor my most hearty support in the object he has in view in everything that he has said to-night, but when you come to look at it, we find that it is totally irrelevant to the subject on which he made his speech. He felt that himself after he had mentioned the revenue. He said, "I have done nothing so far," and then, in a few sentences at the end, he gave what we all believe, and what the whole country must see to be the real step that he has taken in his extension of the Defence of the Realm Act, namely, the power of the State to take over the public-houses and absolutely to control the sale of liquor in all the areas in which ammunition is produced. That is the Bill. That is the thing that we are thinking of. That is what we all approve of.
    I would not have detained the House even for the short period that I have occupied if that proposal was before us in its naked simplicity, and if we were agreed to do nothing else but that to-night, but I ask the House to consider this other matter of the revenue. It seems to be the most extraordinary proceeding that we have ever had. It may be right and it may be necessary, but is it not being done with undue rapidity? I would ask the Chancellor to consider the case of business houses. To-morrow they have to close their doors or produce ten times the tax they were paying six months ago. I believe the Resolutions are of the most sweeping description. I said I was a most humble Member of this Assembly. I am extremely sorry to intervene, but I do it with a deep sense of responsibility, because I want to give the Chancellor every support in what I understand to be his main object—that is, to catch those fellows who will not work, and especially a fellow like that whose letter he read who is drinking whisky all the week and making himself unfit for work; but I ask the Chancellor, Will his revenue proposals touch him? Will doubling the price of whisky have any effect on a wretch like

    921
    that? He will sell the clothes off his children to appease that craving described in the letter. Therefore, the revenue part does not touch that evil. There is not a Member of the House who will not back up the Chancellor in saying, "Let us suppress him altogether; let him not get drink; let us bring compulsion to bear upon him." I have heard Parliament described as a Parliament of poltroons because we have backed the Government up so much. We must back them up, but surely they are putting a very heavy tax upon the House to-night. This comes suddenly upon us. I cannot tell what can be done. I cannot make a suggestion in an emergency like this, but I appeal to him in the most friendly spirit to think of the great businesses which are interested, not all of them malign or evil businesses, and if he can think of some way of shielding them without passing these terrible Resolutions to-night, I would appeal to him to do so.
    Mr. CREAN: If I did not feel strongly the effects that will accrue from this Bill to Ireland, I should be only too happy to help the Chancellor and the Government in any effort they make to put an end to this cruel war. But, to my mind, the right hon. Gentleman is taking money now under false pretences. He is not Hiving these men whom he is maligning—the workers of Great Britain—a chance of defending themselves against him. If this Bill gets through it cannot be gone back on. I have been a worker myself and have had to deal with cases of emergency. There is a greater reason now why men should not be able to work as well as they could under ordinary conditions. The most physically fit men you have are going to the front. They are leaving men behind them whom the age limit prevents from going. They are incapable of working a full week's work. We have to fall back upon older men and men who are nearly always idle in ordinary times, but when an extraordinary occasion occurs, when numbers of men are suddenly requisitioned, you bring chronically idle men, who would not be employed on other occasions, into the several dockyards, where you have work only fit for younger men. In this way the average of hours worked in the week cannot be accurately sized up. Take a man of between fifty and sixty working in the black squad. I know what it is to have a man working on the side of a ship, knocking down the rivets from early morning till late at night. It is only
    922
    physically fit and young men who can continue that for any number of hours, and if it is extended over more than a fortnight or three weeks even the very fittest men are incapable of doing the long overtime that they are called on to do under emergency conditions. It is an outrage to introduce this into the House of Commons, and it is a breach of all the Rules of the House. It is a Budget before the Budget is due. It is sprung on the House with no knowledge that it would happen.
    If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to abolish the manufacture of liquor there would be some sense in it. He could compensate those whose business he destroyed. If he had proposed to take over all the public-houses and run them at a loss, no one would object to it. You could give it to whom you like and keep it from whom you like. But you now fall back upon this emergency to flaunt the House of Commons with the fads of total abstainers, and those who will use any excuse to destroy drink of any description. They sneered at the hon. Member (Mr. W. O'Brien) when he dared to say that this was a Bill which would bring injury to the City that he represents by closing two great breweries and one distillery. You have already closed a number of distilleries in that county. You have closed four in the City. There is one working, and you wish to close that now. We are justified in raising a protest against that. You will pass this Resolution without any evidence, and giving no one an opportunity of speaking.
    We shall be told that we are against the War and against the Government if we dare to say a word against these Gentlemen here who are urging their fads under the cloak of the War. We are rot against the War. We believe it is necessary to protect the Empire. We are not against men going to the front to fight for the Empire, and to bring the War as soon as possible to a final and satisfactory settlement in the interests of the Empire; but we are against any attempt to malign the workers of the country. You did not dare to refer to any of the industries in Ireland You did not dare to refer even to Belfast, because you could be contradicted here on the spot. I will ask you, does it apply to Haulbowline? Many of my Constituents work there, men belonging to the Black Squad and men belonging to the engineers. I know them, total abstainers, who had to give up their work because it becomes too

    923
    much for them. They worked overtime until their physical energies were exhausted, and they lost time. It was not drink that knocked them out. You are going to penalise the families. No matter what drink will cost, they will take the drink, and the extra money they spend will be taken out of the mouths of the children, off the backs of the children, and from the family. You cannot separate these men by this way of making a Resolution. Deal with these chronic drinkers in any way you can, tax the country to support their families and put them in prison, but do not malign the working men, and the nation, and the class to which they belong, because a small percentage degrade themselves. I would not stand here and listen to any such charge being made against the working man. I know them better than the right hon. Gentleman who has spoken. I have been president and secretary of many of their societies, and therefore I can speak with authority about the working man. I know your kind of man; he is the poor, feeble man who cannot get any work under ordinary conditions, and if you give the other men the opportunity of sifting them and selecting the men who are guilty of this, as you call it, dereliction of duty, you will find the great majority of those who build up this percentage are men who, during ordinary circumstances, could never get a day's work because they would not be fit to do it. The gentlemen who take these men into work are Government employers. As an hon. Member pointed out, you do not charge them at Woolwich with dereliction of duty. You compliment the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). You have a constant, steady flow of workmen there who are in the habit of working a good, honest day's work. You have a selected body of men. You have an average employer who has a crush of work who will only keep the good man to do his work; he will not have the others, and they will take anything they can get. What will the employer do? He has here on the stocks work belonging to the Navy. He will bring his waster, and put him there on the work. He does not care that much what will happen so long as he has the man charged against the Government, and he will put the physically fit man on the work he has to do.
    There are many things that can be said against the right hon. Gentleman's statements to-night, and I tell him that his
    924
    Budget will not bring him what he thinks. The Revenue will come not from the people who can afford to pay it. Increase the Income Tax. Increase the cost of wine. The man who can afford to drink wine, let him pay for it. But whisky, often at night they must bring it home to their poor wives when in the toils of childbirth, and you will charge them double and treble as much as they should be called upon to pay for it. Doctors order it in the hospitals because it is a poison. It is ordered in the workhouses where the poorest of the poor are and cannot live without it. Gallons upon gallons are used in the workhouses, and are given to keep life in the poor creatures whose stomachs cannot bear food. They get only a little, and you are going to put all this burden on Ireland. Will you tell me that you are entitled to do it? Will you put that tax on the Canadians? They have Home Rule; we have Home Rule, too, so we have been told. Will you put it on any of your Colonies? I beg to know if you would. If you say the tax you are putting on shall have a reflex action and shall be put on the Colonies, I will support it, but so long as you cannot impose it on the will of the independent Colonies, South Africa the youngest of them, I say you have no right to apply it to Ireland without the consent of the Irish Members.
    I challenge you to leave the decision and application of this to Ireland, to the Irish Members of all sections, and I will say: "Right you are, you are entitled to this if they pass it by a majority of even one." But if you do not leave this as you should under the Home Rule Act, your duty here to-night, instead of trying to drive out of occupation tens of thousands of men and starving their families for want of work—your remedy is, "Let them join the Army if they are turned out of work." If you want them to join the Army, that is not the way to do it. You think that because they are doing it in Germany you can do the same, and there will be no protest against it, and you say, "We will make the Irish workmen go to the front for us because we will starve them and leave them no work to do." Your duty will be to see that the Irish Members of the House of Commons of all sections above and below the Gangway have some say in this matter if this is to apply to Ireland, as the Canadian Parliament has to say why it should not apply to Canada.

    925
    I hope someone will persist in bringing this to a Division to-night. I believe in the interests of Ireland anyhow we should protest in the only way available to us now, and that is to go into the Division Lobby to protest against this charge on their own acts against the Irish people.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I ask the indulgence of the House not to deal at all with the general question, but to emphasise the importance of the Chancellor and his advisers considering the effect of these fiscal proposals, the effect of the taxation on alcohol, on the administration of the medical side of benefit under the Insurance Act, of medicine generally—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have promised that.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I only want to say the time is short; that no one knows better than the Chancellor what a difficult question it is to provide for it, and I ask very respectfully that he will take steps to consult not only the medical profession but the pharmacists and manufacturing chemists of the country with a view to seeing how alcohol which is used legitimately in medicine shall escape the increased taxation.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken into account the great difference of climate and the habits of the people in Ireland, Scotland, and different parts of the British Isles. The class of liquor which people can drink in the south of England, and do drink, and which suits them is quite a different thing from the class of liquor which people can, and do, drink in, and which is suitable to, the West of Ireland or the North of Scotland. One thing which struck me particularly in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals was that a considerable section of people would have no extra taxation whatever in regard to the kind of liquor they generally drank, or would be likely to drink in the future, whereas other parts of the country would find liquor only suitable to those districts taxed out of all proportion. I would point out that the beer usually consumed in the south and south-west of London would not be tolerated for a moment in either Lancashire or Yorkshire, and it is quite an unfair thing to deal with a subject of this kind in this way and lay down a rule for the whole of the British Isles, including Ireland, without taking
    926
    into account matters of that kind of great importance, and which would have the effect of discriminating against one class.
    Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914," put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, and the Attorney-General. Presented accordingly; read the first time; to be lead a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, if this were the formal Budget night, Tuesday next, would you put the Question, "That I now leave the Chair"; and, if not, when was the procedure abandoned?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Since the hon. Gentleman has called my attention to the matter, I believe the procedure was abandoned about twenty-four years ago. If this were Budget night I should not put any Question, "That I leave the Chair." The Budget is taken in Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SPIRITS (CUSTOMS).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
1. That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

£

s.

d.

For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

0

14

9

For every gallon of perfumed spirits

1

3

7

For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

1

0

0

and the duties of Customs on the articles hereafter mentioned, being articles in

927
which spirit is contained, or in the manufacture of which spirit is used, shall be proportionately increased and shall be as follows:—

£

s.

d.

Chloral hydrate

…

the lb.

0

3

6

Chloroform

…

the lb.

0

8

7

Collodion

…

the gallon

3

9

1

Ether acetic

…

the lb.

0

5

1

Ether butyric

…

the gallon

2

3

2

Ether sulphuric

…

the gallon

3

12

2

Ethyl, iodide of

…

the gallon

1

17

7

Ethyl bromide

…

the lb.

0

2

10

Ethyl chloride

…

the gallon

2

3

2

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is the first Resolution which I propose to move.
I have already explained that we propose to deal with this when we come to our Budget Bill, and we simply take the Resolution in the form usual in these cases, with a view to covering the possibilities. I could not accept the responsibility at this stage of leaving this out without further consideration of the actual proposals which we propose to put in when we come to deal with the Bill itself. As at present advised, I think that there must be important exceptions, but we are considering the best method of dealing with it. We see the importance of lightening the duty on what is after all an ingredient of healing and curing. I do not propose now to enter into any further discussion upon this question. I will do what has generally been done with taxes which ultimately have been challenged, and which, ultimately, have been defeated in the House. There has always been acceptance of the Resolution on the first night. Of course, the House of Commons has not time to consider the thing fully then, and if it does not pass the Resolutions then and ultimately accedes to the proposals, then it may be found that it is too late. Of course, practically all the commodity which we propose to tax would be cleared out of bond then. Therefore, the practice has already obtained of accepting the Resolution on the first night. When you come to beer, my right hon. Friend will see that this is not a very serious proposal, for the simple reason that we do not propose to touch the particular brew which is going through at the particular moment. We propose to leave the existing brew un-
928
taxed. Therefore the Resolution, if adopted, will not come into immediate operation.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Why propose it to-night?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The same thing applies to spirits. If the Resolution is passed to-night there will be no inconvenience involved upon the spirit dealers, for the simple reason that the amount which they have cleared out of bond during the last month, is far more than they could possibly deal with in the ordinary course of business between now and the time when the House will come to a final decision. On the other hand, if this were put off until next week, then undoubtedly so much spirit would be cleared out that any Resolution which you would pass would be rendered absolutely null. If there were any serious inconvenience imposed upon the spirit trade I could easily enter into an arrangement with them. With regard to that subject we could take the matter as being sub judice, and make arrangements to enable them to clear out any additional quantity of spirit to enable them to deal with their ordinary business, and they could pay on account of the spirit as has been done before until the matter has been adjudicated upon after full discussion and Debate by the House of Commons. But I hope that the House will follow the usual rule, that where we propose any sort of extra tax the Resolution in Committee of Supply should be passed the first night, in order to enable us to prevent forestalments, which would render the tax absolutely nugatory.
I can only make that appeal to Members. I can quite see the weight of all that has been said by hon. Members for Ireland, but after all we cannot tax Scotch whisky and leave Irish whisky untaxed. You could not maintain a state of things in which the men on the Clyde should have to pay for whisky double as much as is paid by men in Belfast engaged on exactly the same kind of work. We have got to take the facts exactly as they are. I regret very much to have to take this course. The only other alternative is absolute prohibition of spirits. As between the two I should have thought that there was no doubt that those who prefer spirit would prefer even a double tax to the absolute prohibition of the sale of spirits. I trust, therefore, that the usual course will be followed, and that after the very

929
strong protests which have been made and which will be taken into account, the Committee will be satisfied to let us have this Resolution with the full understanding that, whatever inconvenience may happen to the trade in the meantime, the Government will deal with the matter reasonably, and so that the business is not impaired until the House adjudicates finally upon this question.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly neither I nor my Friends desire to put any unnecessary difficulties in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and still less to refuse him in such circumstances as those in which we meet to-day any facility which a Government habitually enjoys in much easier times. As far as my Friends and I are concerned, we see no objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking tonight such Resolutions as are necessary to prevent any taxing proposals being rendered nugatory, even though the House should afterwards approve of them; but I should like to emphasise the fact that this silent assent is given to-night for the necessary protection of the Revenue, because, without it being given in the usual way, taxing proposals of the kind foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman would be rendered absolutely null and of no effect for many months after the House had come to a decision, and it must not be taken that our consent to this Resolution in any way commits us to proposals of which we have heard for the first time this afternoon. I think that the Chancellor stated the practice of the House rather more broadly than is quite correct. It has not been the practice of the House, or of this Committee, to pass on the first night of the Budget discussion all the Resolutions relating to taxation, but only such Resolutions as are immediately needed for the protection of the Revenue. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not ask for anything but what is immediately needed for the protection of the Revenue.
I could not quite follow the explanation which he gave a moment ago, but it seems to me that applying that which is the customary rule, to take all that is necessary for present purposes, the case for taking the Resolution to-night was not made out. But I speak subject to correction. May be I have not understood him. One other word. The Government have had a grave problem to deal with. I
930
should like to see that problem dealt with successfully. As the Chancellor has said, in order to deal with it successfully you must deal with it with something like general, though I do not say universal, assent. I cannot conceal that the scheme which the Chancellor adumbrated—I am speaking merely of his taxing proposals and am leaving the others wholly on one side—is fraught with enormous difficulties of application, and that unless very carefully safeguarded and very considerably modified it may work very partially and unjustly, as between different concerns engaged in the same trade, and I must preserve for myself and those for whom I speak the fullest right to examine the proposals of the Chancellor hereafter, in a spirit which would be much more friendly naturally to the proposals of the Government than our spirit would be in ordinary circumstances. But this is a subject of such gravity, touching the habits and the social life of the people so profoundly, that I do not think it possible for an Opposition which has entirely ceased to oppose to say that in a matter of this kind they will take no responsibility whatever and will leave the whole burden of the decision upon the Government without taking any part in the Debate. If, therefore, we are ready to give whatever assistance is needed to the Chancellor to-night for the protection of the Revenue, it must be understood that that is without prejudice to our future examination of the subject, or any alterations or changes which further examination and discussion may show to be desirable in the Resolution submitted to us.
Mr. HEALY: We are now at the Budget, and we are at the Budget in these circumstances, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no Budget statement. He is proposing a tax of an unparalleled kind. He has given us no estimate of its yield, neither on the beer nor on the whisky. The beer tax is being practically increased tenfold, the spirit tax is being doubled, and is being doubled on the increase of 1909–10, and the spirit tax is being so increased after the speech, or rather in spite of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he was proposing his War Budget last year, when he enumerated all the subjects of taxation from which revenue could be hoped, and he declared that he was bound to tax beer—a penny on beer—but that

931
he could not add to the extra tax on whisky of 3s. 9d. imposed three or four years ago.
8.0 P.M.
Therefore, it is not merely the procedure which he has adopted to-night, of forestalling the Budget, but he is making revolutionary changes in respect of it, and he is making the further change of giving no estimate of the yield to the Revenue, or the consequences. Nay, more, he is doing that without telling us what is the Budget sum he is expected to Budget for, and in all these three matters he has made an absolute departure from the practice of the House and from the practice of his office, In addition to that, I would like to point out that this is what I call assassin taxation; it is murderous taxation. In times of war you are entitled, as the Czar of Russia did in the case of vodka, to prohibit; but when the Czar of Russia prohibited the drinking of vodka he was the owner of the tax and the owner of the public-houses. Every public-house in Russia was a Russian Government monopoly; every penny that came from the vodka tax went into the pocket of the Czar, if he liked to put it there. In the case of this taxation the essence of it is destruction, and in the case of destruction the corollary of it is compensation. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is that he is destroying an industry by a system of taxation; whereas, if he prohibited he would have to compensate. He has stated in the second speech he made that he believes the distillers and brewers would prefer taxation to prohibition.
But it is not on his opinion that the matter should rest. The brewers and distillers should be consulted as to their choice of option; and certainly if I owned shares, which I do not, in any brewery or distillery, I should like to have the exercise of the option as to whether I should prefer to be taxed out of existence, or to be put out of existence by Statute, plus compensation. The choice in that respect should lie with the sufferer. Take the case of John Jameson's. What was the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxation of spirit a few years ago? It was that John Jameson's ceased to pay dividends; that was on the 3s. 9d. taxation. How would it be under the present proposal. That man is a Unionist; he subscribes £1,000 to the Unionist party; he is a chief contributor
932
to their fund. There is not a single one of those men who are members of or sympathisers with our party. Therefore, when we stand up in this House we are not advocating any industries in which we are concerned; we are not advocating the interests of any men with whom we are in political affiliation or sympathy, When there was laughter, somewhat ungenerous, from hon Members, I wonder what they would say were cotton prohibited and linen recommended in its stead. Would they laugh if the cotton industry of Lancashire, and the living of men and their wives and children were destroyed? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, without notice, without our knowledge that this was to be Budget night, in the dark, and under the disguise of the Defence of the Realm Act, proposes, as regards these industries with which we have no concern, and for which we seek only the barest justice, a measure to destroy them. What have war measures to do with finance? When we supported him the other day in taking over these large works, foundries and other important works in Leeds and elsewhere, there was a promise in every case of compensation. If you destroyed a man's business, or trade, you were to pay him compensation. I maintain that this is not Budget legislation; if it were we should have had a Budget statement. It is simply legislation intended to be murderous, and therefore I am here. I am sorry that it should be upon the Custom's Resolution, in these topsy-turvy times in which we are living, but I really think that a statement might have been made as well upon the third Resolution as upon the first Resolution. We are living in a year of wounds, and we are doubling the price of anæsthetics, chloroform, ether, bromide. You are taxing the hospitals as well as the public-houses.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that I never made that proposal, and never attempted to apply it to matters of that kind. If he did not notice it when I addressed the House, I address directly to him now that statement.
Mr. HEALY: It is a great pity; it is not always possible to hear, and I did not hear that statement; something may have been engaging my attention at the time, but it is not my fault. I say that we ought not to be left to the indulgence

933
of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. It ought to be in the Resolution. These are not matters under the favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These are matters for Members of the House of Commons themselves; they are matters dealing with legislation; and the Resolution with which I am dealing is a Resolution which doubles the tax on hospitals in that respect. Is it so very urgent to pass that Resolution to-night in regard to anæsthetics? Why is there this urgency to double the tax to-night upon them? Why include that in the Resolution? There should be some merciful consideration for the wounded? Why then should you not omit it from your Resolution? Why is it inserted?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEwas understood to say that it would be omitted.
Mr. HEALY: I am glad to have obtained, some redress upon that point. So far as we are concerned, it is true that our party is a small party. It is true that a larger party have deserted their country and its interests on this occasion, and they have done it in the expectation, such as the Welsh Members got in regard to Disestablishment, that Home Rule will become before very long, and after the War, an effective measure for Ireland. I venture to predict for those Gentlemen who are conniving to-night at assassin taxation for their country that they will be left in the lurch at the next election. I venture to predict that Home Rule, nominal Home Rule, placed on the Statute Book will never be heard of again for Ireland as a whole. Already there has been a promise to omit Ulster from it, and with this taxation you put on to-night, with your breweries destroyed, your distilleries destroyed, with your workhouses filled, with the operatives gone, with the labourers who till your fields gone, I should like to know, with the three-fourths left to you, what hope you can have of a system of legislation which we are told would have made Ireland a nation when this Bill was announced a year ago.
I therefore intend for the first time since this War broke out to challenge a vote. Our numbers will be small, it is true, but small as they are they are taking a course which every Irish Nationalist has hitherto taken upon a Rill of this description. This has not been brought forward as a war measure. To make it effective as a war
934
measure it should propose total prohibition with full compensation. That would have been necessary. You have not attempted that. You have maligned your own countrymen and you are ruining ours, and I am sorry to think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will give more pleasure to Potsdam than in Great Britain and Ireland, I venture to say that the wireless in Berlin are engaged in reporting and repeating the words of the right hon. Gentleman. The letter from a workman, somebody under delirium tremens who has written that letter which the right hon. Gentleman has used as a muzzle, on the House of Commons to-night, I believe, will be printed throughout the length and breadth of Germany and Austria within the next week. When I am told that I have misrepresented the words of the Prime Minister as to his whole-hearted accord with the right hon. Gentleman, I can only say that I am able to read and write, and, being able to read and write, I read the speech of the Prime Minister, and I say that speech is an absolute contradiction and an absolute answer to the right hon. Gentleman, who is airing in this business, as he has done in others, his own personal fads at the expense of his colleagues. I believe it will be found that these personal fads to-night will mark the beginning of a new feeling in Parliament, a feeling that will give joy to the enemies of this Empire and will bring dismay to its friends. For my own part, much as I dislike many things that have been done in Ireland in the last seven or eight months, with no Lord Lieutenant, with no Chief Secretary owing to bereavement, and with a stranger for Under-Secretary, I greatly fear that this Bill will lead to much more than it has on the floor of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman, the hero of the Budget of 1909, the hero of the Insurance Act, has tied another kettle to the tail of the Liberal party.
Question amended by leaving out from "£1 0s. 0d." to
"Ethyl chloride … the gallon £2 3s. 2d."—[The Attorney-General.]
Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

SPIRITS (CUSTOMS).
Resolved,
1. That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported

935
into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

£

s.

d.

For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

0

14

9

For every gallon of perfumed spirits

1

3

7

For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

1

0

0

And it is declared that it is expedient the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

WINE.
Resolved,
3. That, in lieu of the duties now payable on wine imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred

SPIRITS (EXCISE).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
2. That in addition to the duty of Excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

£

s.

d.

For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

0

14

9

and so on in proportion for any less quantity.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 5.

Division No. 1.]

AYES.

[8.17 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Adamson, William

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Rowlands, James

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rowntree, Arnold

Anderson, W. C.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Leach, Charles

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Barnes, George N.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgston)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Maclean, Donald

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John A.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Sutherland, John E.

Bentham, George Jackson

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Manfield, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Brace, William

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Bryce, J. Annan

Millar, James Duncan

Tickler, T. G.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Toulmin, Sir George

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Verney, Sir Harry

Chancellor, Henry George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Watt, Henry Anderson

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crews)

Nuttall, Harry

Whitehouse, John Howard

Crooks, William

Pratt, J. W.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristel, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Pringle, William M. R.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goldstone, Frank

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Haslam, Lewis

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Henry, Sir Charles

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Hogge, James Myles

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. G. Howard.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Robinson, Sidney

John, Edward Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

NOES.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Crean and Mr. Gilhooly.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—

Wine:

s.

d.

Not exceeding 30 degrees of proof spirit

the gallon

5

0

937

Wine:

s.

d.

Exceeding 30, but not exceeding 42 degrees of proof spirit

the gallon

12

0

And for every degree, or part of a degree, beyond the highest above charged, an additional duty

the gallon

1

0

Sparkling wine in bottle, an additional duty

the gallon

15

0

Still wine in bottle, an additional duty

the gallon

1

0

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
In this Resolution the word "wine" includes lees of wine; and the word "degree" does not include a fraction of the next higher degree."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

BEER (CUSTOMS).
Resolved,
4. That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on beer imported into Great Britain and Ireland, there shall, on and after the third day of May, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid, in the case of every description of beer (other than beer called or similar to mum, spruce, black beer, or Berlin white beer, or other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a similar character), the following duties on heavier beers (that is to say):—
For every thirty-six gallons of beer brewed at a gravity

£

s.

d.

Of more than 43 degrees, and not exceeding 48 degrees

0

12

0

Of more than 48 degrees, and not exceeding 53 degrees

1

4

0

Of 53 degrees and over

1

16

0

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the Provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

BEER (EXCISE).
Motion made, and Question put,
5. That in addition to the duty of Excise in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall, on and after the third day of May, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties on heavier beers (that is to say):—
For every thirty-six gallons of beer brewed at a gravity

£

s.

d.

Of more than 43 degrees and not exceeding 48 degrees

0

12

0

Of more than 48 degrees and not exceeding 53 degrees

1

4

0

Of 53 degrees and over

1

16

0

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the Provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
The Committee divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 5.

Division No. 2.]

AYES.

[8.28 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hogge, James Myles

Robinson, Sidney

Adamson, William

John, Edward Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Anderson, W. C.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Rowlands, James

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Barnes, George N.

Leach, Charles

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Maclean, Donald

Sutherland, John E.

Bentham, George Jackson

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Manfield, Harry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Brace, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Bryce, J. Annan

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Toulmin, Sir George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Verney, Sir Harry

Bytes, Sir William Pollard

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Watt, Henry Anderson

Chancellor, Henry George

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Thomas P.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Nuttall, Harry

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Pratt, J. W.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Crooks, William

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Goldstone, Frank

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Henry, Sir Charles

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

NOES.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Crean and Mr. Gilhooly.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
5. That in addition to the duty of Excise in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall, on and after the third day of May, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties on heavier beers (that is to say).
For every thirty-six gallons of beer brewed at a gravity

£

s.

d.

Of more than 43 degrees and not exceeding 48 degrees

0

12

0

Of more than 48 degrees and not exceeding 53 degrees

1

4

0

Of 53 degrees and over

1

16

0

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution
940
shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.—[Mr. Lloyd George]
Resolutions to be reported upon Tuesday next (4th May); Committee to sit again upon Tuesday.
The remaining Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That I this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minute before Nine o'clock, till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

WAR.
  ROYAL NAVY (MEAT SUPPLIES).
  ROYAL NAVY (MEAT SUPPLIES).
  CAVALRY CORPS AT MESSINES.
  CAVALRY CORPS AT MESSINES.
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  LABOUR FOR THE BLIND.
  LABOUR FOR THE BLIND.
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  HUT BUILDING CONTRACTS.
  HUT BUILDING CONTRACTS.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  ROYAL GUN FOUNDRY, WOOLWICH.
  ROYAL GUN FOUNDRY, WOOLWICH.
  ALIEN ENEMIES, INDIA (MINING CONCESSIONS).
  ALIEN ENEMIES, INDIA (MINING CONCESSIONS).
  TROOPS IN INDIA (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  TROOPS IN INDIA (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  WOMEN'S PEACE CONGRESS.
  WOMEN'S PEACE CONGRESS.
  LETTERS AND PARCELS TO SOLDIERS.
  LETTERS AND PARCELS TO SOLDIERS.
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT IN GERMANY).
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT IN GERMANY).
  ALIEN ENEMIES (OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM).
  ALIEN ENEMIES (OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM).
  Stock Exchange Loans.
  Stock Exchange Loans.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Advances for Drainage.
  Advances for Drainage.
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
  Cottage Building (Ireland).
  Cottage Building (Ireland).
  Irish Land Commission.
  Irish Land Commission.
  Petty Officers' Promotions.
  Petty Officers' Promotions.
INDIA.
  LICENSING SYSTEM, CALCUTTA.
  LICENSING SYSTEM, CALCUTTA.
  British Minister to Norway.
  British Minister to Norway.
  British Consul-General at Turin.
  British Consul-General at Turin.
  Agricultural Labour.
  Agricultural Labour.
  Fishery Scientific Assistants.
  Fishery Scientific Assistants.
  Swine Fever.
  Swine Fever.
  Glasgow Ejectments.
  Glasgow Ejectments.
APPEAL COMMITTEE.
Second Report from; read, and agreed to.

JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the One hundred and forty-sixth Volume of the Journals (4th and 5th George V., 1914), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journal have been delivered.
House adjourned till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.