Sitting of 2 February 1915

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on Friday, 27th November, 1914—met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23) Bill,
Standing Order, 8th August, 1914, relating to the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23) Bill, read. Bill read the first, second, and third time, and passed.

NEW WRITS.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to announce that during the Adjournment of the House I issued a warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in the present Parliament
2
for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield in the room of Joseph Pointer, Esq., deceased.
New writs were ordered—
For West Riding of Yorkshire (Shipley Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Percy Holden Illingworth, deceased.—[Mr. Gulland.]
For Swansea Borough (Swansea District, in the room of the Right Hon. Sir David Brynmor Jones, K.C., Master in Lunacy.—[Mr. Gulland.]
For Borough of Norwich, in the room of Sir Frederick Low, K.C., Judge of the High Court of Justice.—[Mr. Gulland.]

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
The Right Hon. Sir James Brown Dougherty, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., for Borough of Londonderry.
William Crawford Anderson, Esquire, for Borough of Sheffield (Attercliffe Division).

WAR.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken this week, and what arrangements hold with regard to private Members' time?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): To-morrow I shall move a Resolution taking the whole time of the House for Government business in the meantime and providing that the House shall not sit on Fridays. The terms of the Motion will be put on the Paper to-night. On Thursday we shall proceed with the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. These will be circulated with the Papers to-morrow morning.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SUPPLY OF COMMODITIES (PRICES).
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the scope of the inquiry by the Committee of the Cabinet into the prices and supply of commodities; whether the Committee is receiving evidence on the subject; when the inquiry is likely to be completed; and whether he will grant the House an early opportunity of discussing the whole question of the prices and supply of foodstuffs and other necessary commodities?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee of the Cabinet over which I am presiding has been for some time giving this matter most careful consideration. All aspects of the question are being examined. The Committee is receiving full information from the various Government departments concerned, and these departments are making such inquiries as are necessary to complete the information already in their possession. I cannot say when the inquiry will be completed, but no avoidable delay will take place, and the Government are fully alive to the urgency of the subject. The House will certainly be given the opportunity of discussing the whole question.
  Mr. BARNES: Will the Government consider the desirability of fixing in the meantime maximum prices for wheat and other commodities?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All these suggestions have been very carefully considered.
  Mr. BARNES: Pending the deliberations and the reports of the Committee, will maximum prices be fixed in the meantime?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: What will be about the earliest date of the discussion of this subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope very soon indeed.
  Mr. HODGE: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that in the East End of London 2s. 6d. per cwt. is being charged for coal, and if it is not monstrous and demands instant attention?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We are fully alive to the urgency of the question.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY— NOTICES OF MOTION.
  EDUCATION ACT (SUSPENSION).
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates to call attention to the efforts now being made to suspend the Education Act, especially in the agricultural districts, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Keir Hardie.]
  BRITISH ARMY (PAY, PROMOTION, &C.).
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates to call attention to the question of Army pay, promotion, and provision for disabled soldiers, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Peto.]
  EMPLOYMENT OF MERCHANT SHIPS.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates to call attention to the employment of merchant ships, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir R. Price.]
  PRESS BUREAU.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates to call attention to the action of the Press Bureau, and to move a Resolution.
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates to call attention to the presence of enemy aliens, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. James Mason.]
  ANILINE DYES.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates to call attention to the question of Government Aid to aniline dyes and other industries, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Almeric Paget.]
  CADET TRAINING IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates to call attention to the question of cadet training in secondary schools, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Yate.]
  SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates to call attention to the liberation of children from school before school age for beneficial labour, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir W. Byles.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS.
Mr. BENNETT GOLDNEY: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply—
Mr. SPEAKER: This ballot refers to Tuesday evenings only.
An HON. MEMBER: The Government are taking private Members' rights.
Mr. SPEAKER: His Majesty's Government have announced that they intend to ask the sanction of the House to their doing so, but hon. Members will see that I cannot assume that the House will accept the Motion.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Would it not be possible to postpone this ballot until the House has decided this point?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the ballot is not taken it is open to any hon. Member to hand in any notice at the Table for any Tuesday night, but I think it will be best to take the ballot.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS.
  SOLDIERS' PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. BENNETT GOLDNEY: This day week, to call attention to the insufficiency of the Pensions and Allowances to the wives and children of our troops, and to move a Resolution thereon.

  FOOD AND FUEL PRICES.
  Mr. CROOKS: This day fortnight, to call attention to the prices of necessary commodities, such as food and coal, and to move a Resolution.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: This day three weeks, to call attention to the food supply of the United Kingdom during the War, and move a Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think three weeks is too far off.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: This day fortnight—or on the first available opportunity—to call attention to the increased prices of food, and move a Resolution.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: As there is so much uncertainty with regard to the future, I would rather not give the notice I had intended.
  The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

  GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I desire to take the earliest opportunity afforded by the meeting of the House in order to correct a misapprehension which exists, as I know from references in the Press and still more from private correspondence, as to the relationship between the Government and the Opposition. The erroneous impression to which I refer, but which I know the Government does not share, is that we are supplied by them privately with information as to their plans for the prosecution of the War, and that in consequence we, to some extent, share their responsibility and are not apparently free to criticise as we might wish. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the House will quite understand I am very far from complaining that the Government have not given us sufficient information. I make no such complaint. The responsibility for the conduct of the War must attach to the Government alone. They only can decide when, if ever, public interest requires that they should officially take the Opposition into their confidence. It must, however, be perfectly plain—and I am sure the House will not think it unreasonable—that I should make it clear that we have no responsibility, that we are absolutely free, and that in criticising or refraining from criticising the action of the Government, we are actuated solely by what we consider to be the national interest. Let me say, further, it seems to me possible there will be more discussion in the present sittings of the House in which Members in all parts will take part than has been the case hitherto. I desire, therefore, to say once more, not only for myself, but on behalf of my colleagues, that we realise very keenly the serious nature of the struggle in which we are engaged and that in any criticism—and there must be criticism from these Benches—we shall not in any degree be actuated by considerations of party motive.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I take no exception—I need not say—to anything which
  10
  has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. His Majesty's Government, and they alone, are responsible for the policy of the country and the conduct of both our military and our naval operations. They do not desire in any way to abrogate or to share this responsibility with anybody else, or to shrink at any time from what they know to be fair, legitimate and patriotic criticism coming from any quarter. With regard to the position of those who are responsible for the leadership of the Opposition, I will only supplement what the right hon. Gentleman has said by two observations: In the first place we have thought it right and proper, as he knows, to communicate, practically day by day, a good deal of information that reaches us with regard to diplomatic and other matters. But that does not in any way fetter their right or freedom of criticism on the steps we have taken, or may take. In the next place, I desire in the most grateful terms I can command, to acknowledge the co-operation—patriotic in spirit and inestimable in value—which the leading members of the Opposition have given to us with regard to many of the inquiries we have had to conduct, especially in relation to delicate economic questions. They have acted as all British statesmen would act in such circumstances, but they have not in so doing surrendered their right to criticise in the fullest and freest way, and it must not be taken as in any way restricting their judgment or criticism with regard to any steps which we on our own responsibility may desire to take. I will only add that, faced as we have been and as we are with a number of responsibilities and cares which are almost unexampled in their complexity and in their magnitude, we welcome in the fullest sense criticism, as we know we shall receive the co-operation of the House.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: In view of the statements made from both Front Benches, I want to make an observation on a matter which arises directly out of both those statements We have heard from the Prime Minister of the relationship between the Government and the Opposition Front Bench, but it appears to me that the House of Commons as a whole has not quite received the consideration

  11
  to which it is entitled. Some time ago, on the eve of one of the Adjournments, a discussion took place with regard to the House of Commons not being adjourned for too long intervals. The interesting statement we have heard to day of information being conveyed to the chief Opposition Leader is one to which no one is going to demur, but it does seem to many of us that Adjournments for too long periods are not in the interest either of the House of Commons or the country. We were given a promise in the early stages of the War that these long Adjournments would not take place. There is a very substantial opinion in the country, and among many Members of this House, that the Adjournment which has just closed was of too long duration. Having regard to the very serious issues now obtaining in the country, I hope that the Prime Minister will be in a position to tell the House that we have had the last of these long Adjournments during the time the War lasts. The Notice of Motion which the Prime Minister told us he is going to bring before the House with regard to the time of the House shows that we are not going to meet on Fridays. The fact that we are only going to sit four days a week is an additional reason why, when we do adjourn, we should adjourn not for a long period, but for the shortest possible period consistent with the claims and demands the Government have made upon them.
  I submitted for question to the Prime Minister with regard to what is certainly the most serious issue with which the civil population has been confronted since the opening of hostilities. I refer to the terrible prices now ruling for food and coals and other commodities. We have been informed that the Government have appointed a Cabinet Committee. The only point I want to urge upon the Prime Minister—and I do not know that it needs much urging—is this; there is such a feeling in the country, and the poor people especially are being so hardly dealt with because of the almost famine prices that now obtain, that we ought to have a discussion of this important subject on one of the early days of next week. I do not object to the Cabinet Committee going on and making all the inquiries through the
  12
  Departments that they think necessary, but this is a subject in which the Whole House is interested, and we ought to be given an early opportunity of putting whatever views we have on the subject on behalf of those we represent before the Whole House. I appeal to the Prime Minister to say whether it would not be possible to set one day aside early next week so that the whole subject can be fully ventilated in the House in the interest both of the House and the country.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. As to my right hon. Friend's first point with regard to the Adjournment, I would point out that there was no objection taken by him or any of his Friends to the length of the Adjournment when it was moved until to-day. This is the first I have heard of there being any ground of complaint. Of course, we shall not ask the House to adjourn for any unreasonable time. With regard to his second point, I am as anxious as anybody that the matter should be discussed early and in the fullest possible manner.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: The Prime Minister has intimated that the Government are going to take the whole time of the House, and therefore private Members will not have very frequent opportunities of referring to matters in which they are interested. I want to call attention this afternoon to the leaflet issued by the War Office dealing with separation allowances, and to bring before their attention the method in which it is working out and the use which is being made of it by those who are attending recruiting meetings throughout the country. The leaflet which I have in my hand is one which is issued by the War Office, and is revised up to the 11th November, 1914. That leaflet sets out in parallel columns the amount that a soldier joining the Colours is to allow if his dependants are to get a similar allowance. These columns are familiar to the average Members of the House. If a private soldier desires that his dependants shall receive 3s. a day, he is to contribute one penny of his pay, and if it is to be 5s., but not exceeding 7s. 6d., it is 3d. a day, and so on. I want to ask the War Office, or

  13
  those who are responsible for this particular circular, whether they are actually carrying out what they promise in this particular document? May I illustrate this by a case in point. Take the son of a mother who has been in the habit of paying 10s. a week towards the support of that particular relative. When his claim comes before the Pension Committee, they, in the case I have in mind, assess this particular mother's; dependence upon her son at 5s., and they proceed to point out that in order to get that particular 5s. the private soldier has to contribute 2d. a day. As a matter of fact, he has already set aside 3s. 6d. per week, or 6d. for each day of his pay, for the purpose of providing an allowance for his relative. If you deduct the 1s. 2d. that is necessary for the 5s. from his 3s. 6d. you get 2s. 4d., and if you add the 2s. 4d. to the 5s., what that particular mother is getting is 7s. 4d. I want to draw the attention of the House to this paragraph in this leaflet, which is an official War Office leaflet. They say here:—
  "For instance, if the soldier had paid 12s. 6d. in peace, he will in future only have to give 6d. a day—3s. 6d. a week—and the Government will pay the other 9s."
  That is the deliberate statement in this leaflet, and it is being repeated on the authority of this leaflet at a great many public meetings all over the country. It is perfectly true that in the preceding paragraphs there is a single sentence which says that, payment by the soldier for his own keep is included. One finds with regard to that that a different average is being taken all over the county, and that, whereas in some parts of the country 5s. is the amount of dependence of a particular relative upon the boy who is in the Army, in others it is much more. There is a great deal of discontent amongst young men who have joined the Colours in view of what is said in this leaflet and in view of what has been repeated on public platforms with regard to what they will get from the Government if they gave up so much per day, and it is really time that some authoritative statement was made as to what the usual practice is, because what is said in the parallel columns is not really fair if you put it over against the paragraphs that precede it. In the case I have mentioned, where a soldier is giving up 6d. a day, or 3s. 6d. a week. 1s. 2d. of that
  14
  3s. 6d. is taken as a contribution towards the 5s. which the Government promise in the first column. That is not what is said in this leaflet. The leaflet as printed is not a fair leaflet to distribute to the average man who is being invited to join the Forces, and, as a matter of actual experience, it is causing a great deal of discontent among those men. I hope it will be made clear that what is really meant is that when a man joins, first of all there will be deducted from any allowance that he can claim a certain amount for his food, and that out of the 6d. or whatever else he allows from his actual pay of 1s. a day, that amount is a contribution to what the Government give. I think that ought to be made perfectly clear, and I hope it will be before we separate this afternoon.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to ask a question on a matter which is causing a good deal of interest in the country—the dealing of the Home Secretary and the War Office with the alien question. Would it be possible to debate that on some occasion, because if we try to debate it on the Home Office Vote or the Civil Service Estimates the Home Secretary will say, as he has said in the public Press, that in regard to a certain portion of it the War Office is responsible. If, on the other hand, we attempt to debate it on the War Office Estimates, the War Office will equally say the Home Office is responsible.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOWE DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): When did I say that?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Home Secretary has repeatedly admitted, both in the public Press and in this House, that he is responsible for a portion of the aliens question—I think that is common ground—but he has said in the public Press quite recently that with regard to certain portions of it the War Office is responsible. It is therefore impossible for us to debate the question as a whole on either of those Estimates. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister if he would consider the possibility of allowing us to debate that question, which is of vital interest in the country as a whole, so that we could deal with both those offices, and possibly also with the Admiralty as well, which may have something to do with the question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is any difficulty. I think I heard an hon. Member opposite give notice of a Motion on Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair on this very matter.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought that was on the Civil Service Estimates. The point I am trying to make is that the Home Secretary would probably say, as he has in times past said, that a great deal of responsibility is on the military side. I should be ruled out of order if I attempted to refer to the action of the military on the Civil Service Estimates. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to consider whether we could not have a day when we could debate the whole question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, the House will have an opportunity. The Government is only too anxious to give it them.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask whether there is the least desire on the part of the Government to discourage any discussion or criticism of ordinary financial matters? On account of the Government taking private Members' time, the impression seems to have got abroad in some quarters already that an effort will be made by the Government to discourage the time of the House being taken for ordinary questions of financial administration, such as the Insurance Act. I should like to know whether in this Session the Government would be prepared to treat these matters as in a normal Session?
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the House is likely to have a day for the discussion of Indian matters, and, if so, about when? It is a long time since they have come before the House.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It will be more convenient to leave these, matters till tomorrow, when I make my Motion.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give the House any information or assurance upon the important question of Consols. At present Consols, which are after all the security of the United Kingdom, are utterly unsaleable. A minimum price has been fixed below which no Consols can be
  16
  bought, and as that price cannot be given by anybody because it is out of proportion to the price of War Stock, the result is that anyone holding the security of the United Kingdom is absolutely unable at present to realise a single sixpence upon it, and if there was a security in the whole world which anybody six months ago would have said could be turned into cash at a few hours' notice, it was Consols. I think we want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has created a state of affairs under which that position has been brought about, and what is he prepared to do at a very early date to put that matter right, because it is one of those matters that is creating a great deal of difficulty and annoyance, and I think myself that if there is a good reason why this should be done we ought, to know what it is.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I wish to ask when the Report of the Committee which has been inquiring into the allowances for dependants of soldiers and sailors is likely to be made, because some of my Constituents have asked me to bring forward certain matters which are exercising them very much, but one hesitates to occupy the time of the House until one knows what the Committee is going to report? If the Committee is going to report soon, it would save a great deal of unnecessary discussion.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is an interim Report.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Is it, printed?
  Mr. MCKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON (Whitehaven): The administration of the Department means that the Government payment is being partly thrown on the earnings of the soldier who has enlisted. The circular which has been issued states in clear terms that in the event of it being proved to the satisfaction of the authorities that a soldier was making a contribution of 12s. 6d. to the home the 3s. 6d. would be supplemented by 9s. from the Government. As a member of an Old Age Pensions Committee in a mining district, I may state that we have had to deal with quite a number of cases in which a young man who has enlisted has, over and

  17
  above paying for his own maintenance and keep, been making a contribution to the general income of the home, not only 12s. 6d., but, in many instances, at a figure even much higher than that. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that Committee had before them a report which was the result of an inquiry held by the Old Age Pensions officer. In quite a number of cases there came under my own personal observation, as a member of the Old Age Pensions Committee, the fact that as the officer had reported a man who had already enlisted was making, in addition to paying his own maintenance, a substantial contribution to the home. That report has been endorsed by the Old Age Pensions Committee, but the War Office has refused to act on the advice of that Committee. At the last meeting of the Old Age Pensions Committee which I attended there was a strong feeling that it was useless for the Old Age Pensions Committee to meet and discuss these eases if the War Office continue its present policy. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that its effect on recruiting is very detrimental, and that there is a very strong feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction. In fact, it has been stated in very plain speech that people, have been deceived, and that the Government and War Office are not carrying out, not only the letter, but not even the spirit of their own circular. I do hope that if the Government are satisfied that the War Office have erred, they will take immediate steps to remedy the injustice which has already been done.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I wish to refer to a question which has already been raised. I should like to ask what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do in the case of those men who enlisted before the circular which has been referred to was amended? I am quite aware that a short time after the issue of the circular as to the grants and allowances to be made to soldiers' dependants, it was amended, but I would point out that for several weeks in many recruiting districts when the circular was in force, men were induced to enlist not knowing that any deduction would be made at all. As to the reasonableness of making the deduction, that is more than we can discuss here now, but the point is that the men were induced to
  18
  enlist, and have enlisted, on the faith that the War Office would make another contribution. That is not the case. In some cases they only get two or three shillings. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he proposes to do in order not to allow a breach of faith or breach of promise to take place with respect to the conditions of the official circular.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a question which affects a large number of people all over the Kingdom, namely, maximum rates. It affects not only the Government supplies, but also the supplies of a large number of people. I would like to ask the Government on what principle they propose to deal with the utilisation of the interned steamers, which, we understand, they are now going to offer as tonnage for the various requirements of the coal and food supplies of this country. Before the War the ordinary freight was three shillings, but quite recently—within the last fortnight or three weeks—freights have gone up to thirteen and sixpence. The hardship is that, most of the suppliers of food and a very considerable number of those who supply coal have, in fact, incurred expense on steamers which were carrying on the trade, but as the Government have commandeered the steamers, quite rightly, to supply the food and other necessaries for the Army, of course the effect has been to put the price of tonnage up to others. The result, of course, is that the price of coal and other commodities has very largely increased. The people who own steamers do not object to the vessels being commandeered, but they think that some consideration should be paid to those persons who are bound under contracts to supply coal to gas works, water works, or for the purpose of household distribution. It does seem to them that they ought to have special consideration paid to them, because of being under statutory obligation to supply coal in the way I have indicated. I do think that when we come to consider the question of taking over the tonnage of German ships and other ships which are interned, they ought to be treated in a different, way and not left entirely to competition. If I may put an illustration I would say this: Supposing I had one of the finest motor cars, a Rolls-Royce, and that it was commandeered by

  19
  the Government. I have got to pay, not 10 per cent. which the Government pay, but 400 or 500 per cent. for the motor car which I may want for my trade. This is a matter which affects the supply of the necessaries of life to every household in the Kingdom. I hope the Government will look at the question from this particular point of view, not only of shipowners, but of the consumers. I trust that an opportunity will be given to raise, and discuss the question of the utilisation of the interned steamers. The Government did not take the interned steamers, but they took our steamers, quite rightly, and I do not object to that. This matter involves a difficulty with respect to the coal supply of a large number of people in the Metropolis and other parts of the Kingdom.
  Mr. SUTTON: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the question of the unmarried soldier. In Manchester we have a very large number of those cases, and from what I hear and what I have seen the present policy is preventing enlistment in His Majesty's Forces. This is due to the course which is being followed by the War Office in reference to unmarried soldiers' pensions, with respect to widowed mothers. At a large recruiting meeting held last week in Bellevue we were appealing for recruits. A woman got up at that meeting and said that her only son had enlisted, and the War Office, were paying her only 18d. per week. We tried to appease her as far as possible, but I believe that it had a very damaging effect on recruiting, so far as the results of that particular meeting were concerned. In our Lancashire districts, and in the coalfields in some cases, we have instances of one, two, or three young men who have enlisted in His Majesty's Forces, and I am informed that many of those young men were taking home £1 a week, and that the mothers are now only able to get from the War Office support in the form of a few shillings per week for only one of those sons. I wrote to the War Office a little time ago over a similar case, and I was informed that they were considering the matter. The widow woman in the case to which I refer has two sons, one in the Navy and one in the Army. I want to appeal to the Financial Secretary for War
  20
  to take up this matter very earnestly because in Manchester and Lancashire particularly, and I take it over other parts of the country also, this is preventing recruiting from taking place.
  It is useless for us to address meetings pleading for recruits when people get up at those meetings and twit us with what the War Office has done, and tell us that the only recompense which they get from the War Office, when they are practically destitute, is a few shillings a week. There is one small matter which I wish to put before the Financial Secretary. I wrote to the War Office some time ago on the subject of free passes for soldiers and sailors on furlough at Christmas time, and I received a reply to the effect that the Government were considering the matter. I have questioned a large number of soldiers, in particular in railway carriages when I have been travelling, and in nearly every case I have been informed that they were having free passes allowed to them at Christmas time, and in the New Year time as well. But I would like to inform the Financial Secretary that I believe that there is not a solitary soldier who left Cleethorpes for Christmas or the New Year who had not his free pass granted to him. I would like to know why certain soldiers from certain places can have their railway passes allowed free while others from other places have to pay their fare? I hope that the War Office will take the matter up. The first question mentioned by myself and my two hon. Friends is a very serious one, because if these people outside are allowed only a few shillings a week then, with the price of food advancing as it is, we cannot conscientiously appeal to these people to allow their sons and husbands to enlist in His Majesty's Forces, when we are going to starve them at home by not allowing them sufficient money to purchase the necessary commodities of life.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): The hon. Member who has just sat down has raised the question of free railway passes. It shall certainly be inquired into. If there have been any cases in which they have not been granted, then, as the orders were issued, I can only suppose that in some instances they must have been misunderstood. If the hon. Member will give me

  21
  full particulars, I will promise that immediate inquiries shall be made and the matter shall, if possible, be corrected. Various hon. Members have referred this afternoon to the question of dependants' allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has been in correspondence with me on this subject. He is well acquainted with the procedure in these matters. The particular point to which I think he wished to draw attention this afternoon was the question of the leaflets. The leaflet to which he referred has been for some time past obsolete. As soon as it was brought to our attention that the leaflet was not merely capable of being misunderstood but was, in fact, being misunderstood, it was amended, and a new version, in which we endeavoured to make the matter plain beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, was issued
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Member say if in no case at any War Office meeting is the other leaflet being issued now?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that it is impossible to be sure that all the old leaflets have been destroyed, but it is not being issued from the War Office or from any responsible authority. I quite agree that the question which has been referred to is a very serious matter, and one which stands considerably in the way of recruiting, but I would assure hon. Members that the whole of this question, both as to policy and administration, has been under review by the Select Committee on Pensions, and I am informed that an interim Report of the Committee is either now actually in the Vote Office, or shortly will be.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: They do not touch that particular point.
  Mr. BAKER: That point certainly has been submitted; I have no doubt that on the interim Report debate will arise, and I would ask hon. Members to allow the matter to be dealt with more at length on that occasion. I would assure them that the War Office is not at all indifferent to the gravity of misunderstanding with regard to these matters, nor is it indifferent to any sense of grievance which may be created either in the minds of soldiers or any dependants, and all the criticisms and
  22
  advice which will be offered this afternoon shall be carefully considered, and, if possible, effect shall be given to them.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: The hon. Member has told us in reference to the circular of which complaint has been made that not only is it capable of being misunderstood, but that it has actually been misunderstood. I think that that is an important statement to come from the Government. The hon. Member has tried, apparently, to have this matter put right. But merely to have a circular which will make the matter quite clear does not, in my view, go far enough. However clear you make it now, that does not meet the position. The position is this, in the case of many a young man who is hesitating between his duty to his country and his duty very often to a widowed mother, as to whether he should or should not enlist. The circular issued in the first instance said that if those young fellows allotted 3s. 6d. the Government would make up the balance of 12s. 6d.—that is, 9s.—and they were entitled on that circular to conclude at any rate that the widowed mother would receive 12s. 6d, 3s. 6d. of which they would provide. They are surprised, we are surprised, and recruiting meetings are surprised, to find out what is the actual practice, namely, that you send an old age pensions officer to the widowed mother to inquire not only how much in cash did that son give, but whether he had any breakfast at home, and did she give him his tea as well, and, if so, you deduct what is estimated as the cost of the breakfast or tea from the amount of the allowance. It is a disgrace to be so parsimonious in dealing with these cases. What we want is not that the circular should be put right, but that the Government will act upon the principle which everybody thought they meant to apply in the first instance, namely, that if a son has been allowing his mother in cash up to 12s. 6d. and he is willing to forego 3s. 6d. out of his Army pay—it may be that he is a man who was earning £2 per week in civil life—then that the Government shall be prepared to add 9s. to the amount allowed out of the Army pay, so as to bring the amount allowed up to 12s 6d., and that they should do this without sending round to that woman to ask whether she was making any profit out of the

  23
  meals which she used to supply to her boy. I can assure the Government that this is causing a very great deal of resentment. It is unfair to recruiting, and, as a mere matter of interest to the Government, it would pay them to forego the few shillings they are saving in this parsimonious way.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I wish to say a word or two with regard to the circular. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite appears to think that the Government have entirely discharged their responsibility by the issue of the amended leaflet, which the hon. Gentleman says will put the matter right. I can assure the hon. Member of my own knowledge that the faulty or misleading leaflet is in actual circulation at the present moment in some parts of the country, and I think the Government ought, without further delay, to take steps to withdraw it altogether from the people who are likely to enlist, and so stop misrepresentations, for that is what it comes to. I trust the hon. Member will consider the matter, and that steps will be taken to withdraw this misleading leaflet, and substitute for it, wherever recruiting is going on, a correct statement of what the Government is going to do.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that a revised circular was issued by the War Office which alters, in some respects, the former one. I have before me now the revised one up to 1st January, 1915, and I came into possession of this circular after a speech which I delivered at a recruiting meeting the other evening, where I stated that I understood, upon the Report of the War office and of the Admiralty, dated the 9th November, and contained in the White Paper, that if any man contributed 1s. 9d. to the maintenance of his mother she would receive 7s. 6d., being 5s. 9d. plus 1s. 9d. which the son contributed, instead of a contribution of 3s. 6d., and the mother to receive 12s. 6d., including the contribution from the War Office. I made the statement that the mother would receive up to 9s. per week. I was confronted with this circular, within forty-eight hours, by members of the old age
  24
  pensions committee, and it certainly seems a very complicated document, which I venture to say very few Members of the House of Commons can really fully comprehend. It is very elaborate, and it is given too much in detail. Another point on which I wish to touch is this: There is really too much power given to the officers and administrators of these grants. I have made inquiry and I actually find that committee sat with out any knowledge of the position of the dependants, mothers or sisters, and they only got information from the officers informing them that they were going to report, and they did not know whether that report was from the War Office or not. I understood that when this matter was referred to the old age pensions committee it was for them to consider the report of the officers, and, if they have not considered the report of the officers, then that is going to be a very serious matter with regard to the administration of the grants allowed to the dependants. I wish to call attention to the interim Report issued to-day, in which there is not a word about the dependants nor about the administration, though the administration still causes a great deal of anxiety to many contributors to the fund. I should like to know from any member of the Committee when this Report is to be completed, because, practically speaking, with the exception of the widow's pension, and disablement benefit, there is really not very much difference between this Report and the one we had on the 9th November last. I think the Committee ought to report in full both as to administration and as to the dependants, so that we could have a complete discussion on the whole question.
  Mr. COWAN: I desire to refer to a question for which I would rather have taken another opportunity, but which, in view of the curtailment of the ordinary privileges of the private Member, a curtailment which I recognise to be, to a very large extent necessary and inevitable in the circumstances of the time, I am obliged now to bring before hon. Members, namely, the question of the restrictions imposed upon the sale of alcohol in this country during the War. Just before the Recess I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider taking further steps for the curtailment of the hours during

  25
  which public-houses are open, and whether at the same time he would consider the desirability of closing public-houses in the neighbourhood of military camps on the basis of compensating the publicans for the loss of profits which compulsory closing of their houses and the curtailment of hours would involve. The Prime Minister on that occasion replied that the whole matter was under the consideration of the Government, and that answer at the time, of course, I was obliged to accept. But I do submit that, considering what Russia has done and what France has done with a view to withdrawing temptation from the hundreds of thousands of men who are serving their country, and in view of those temptations to which many men succumb when faced by them, it is hardly enough to leave the matter in its present position. I desire to ask the Government whether they are not prepared to secure some measure of uniformity in regard to the hours of closing of public-houses throughout the country. I think the administration of emergency legislation in this respect has been to a large extent unsatisfactory, because it is not based on any system and not applied with any consistency in different parts of the country. I do not suggest for one moment that the men who have rallied so patriotically to the defence of their country are more inclined to abuse alcohol than others. On the contrary, I think that their record in camp has been magnificent.
  What we want to know is that men, whether in khaki or in civilian clothing, shall not be placed in such circumstances as will lead them to succumb to temptations gratuitously thrust before them. I do think that in view of the advance Russia has made in this matter, and in view of the great example which she has set, we have no right to place temptations before our men, especially as we know, by Russia's example, how easily these temptations can be withdrawn. I suggest to the Prime Minister that this matter might be dealt with on the basis of compensation to publicans, to whom it would cause a loss of profits owing to the compulsory closing of certain public-houses and further restrictions upon other houses. I am perfectly aware that members of the extreme temperance party in this House and elsewhere
  26
  are not satisfied, and will never be satisfied, unless they accomplish the ruin of everyone engaged in the liquor trade. I have no such desire. The trade is one which is carried on under licence of the State, and which can be carried on respectably, and very often is carried on respectably. If we are to curtail the selling of alcohol in the interest of the State in a great national emergency like this, it seems to me we must do it on the basis of fair compensation, and we must deal with this compensation as a part of the outlay necessitated by this great War. We are spending money in other directions, of course necessarily, and we are spending it like water; and if we are to further curtail the hours of trading in alcoholic liquors in this country, more particularly in the neighbourhood of our camps, I think it should be done on the basis of compensating those whose means of liveilhood we are reducing or taking away. Russia has prohibited the sale of vodka, which is the popular drink through out her vast, dominions, during the whole period of the War, with magnificent results, and I wish to know whether our Government will not also do something to take away from the people temptations instead of thrusting them in their face, and do this in consonance with the principles of justice and equity, by facing the necessity of compensating those who are called upon to make a sacrifice for the good of the country.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the Welsh Church Act and the administration by the Commissioners. It has been already reported to me that they are dealing with the matter for taking a ballot of the border of parishes as to whether they wish to be considered in England or in Wales. This has come as a great surprise in view of the Suspensory Act to many people concerned, and I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform the House what the qualification for voting is being required, how the notice is being published, how the voting is being done, and whether any rules of procedure have been drawn up by the Welsh Church Commissioners. As I understand, they have to draw up those rules under Section 11 of the original Act, and I want to know

  27
  whether those ruler, have been submitted to this House by the right hon. Gentleman or laid before both Houses of Parliament. I take it that they will necessarily make some rules under this Section, and I wish to know when they have been made, and whether they have been put before the House, and an Order has been made by the King in Council. I am told that the ballot will be completed in about a week, and as a matter of fact it has been done without anybody coming to a proper understanding of what it is about or any understanding about the Section of the Act.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I desire to mention the question of petitions from the men of His Majesty's Dockyards, to which, perhaps, someone will be able to give me a reply. It will be in the recollection of the House that the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, before the War began, said that the petitions would be gone into and replies sent. After the War broke out there was no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should hurry up, but, at the same time, we on this side of the House thought that the matter was still being considered, and that the Lords of the Admiralty still had under consideration those petitions. A considerable time has now elapsed and, so far as I am aware, no answer has been given to any of the petitions presented by the dockyard men in His Majesty's Dockyards. I think the lime has now come when one may ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty that answers shall be given, because a great number of men in the dockyards are much interested in the questions which they asked in those petitions. I feel certain there must be some reason why such a very long time has elapsed without any answer having been sent.
  Mr. TICKLER: I wish to draw the attention of the Government and of this House to the very serious state of disorganisation in which the fishing trade finds itself at Grimsby. That disorganisation is brought about through various reasons, and, amongst others, because the Admiralty thought proper to make restrictions as to the area in which those vessels are allowed to carry on their fishing. Those restrictions, no doubt, are necessary. But another cause of disorganisation
  28
  is that 260 of the steam trawlers in Grimsby have been taken over by the Admiralty for mine-sweeping purposes. That has seriously handicapped the trade. It has been laid down by the Admiralty that no non-Englishman shall be employed in those mine-sweepers. Each mine-sweeper carries ten men, so that 2,600 men from the Grimsby fishing have been taken by the Government on that service. When you take that fact into consideration, and also that amongst the fishermen of Grimsby there were over 600 aliens, it will be seen that fishing vessel owners of Grimsby have been placed in a very serious position. A recent Order of the Admiralty prohibits the owners sending any of the vessels to sea with alien crews, or with any of the crews alien. A great many of those alien fishermen have lived in Grimsby for twenty years. They have married English women and brought up families, and to all intents and purposes have expected that they were British subjects. However, the Admiralty have prohibited their employment on the Grimsby fishing vessels, and they are walking about Grimsby without employment, and the condition of themselves and their wives and families is becoming worse every day, and becoming desperate, so that, in fact, at the present time the greater majority of them are living on charity. It is a very deplorable state of affairs. The House will quite understand that by reason of those men not being allowed to be employed, a great many of the fishing vessels cannot be got to sea, because they cannot find crews to man them. Seeing that fishing is one of the staple trades, and is the staple trade in Grimsby, and produces very valuable food for the people of this country, it is being very seriously handicapped.
  I have during the last week or two introduced deputations to the Admiralty to see if some remedy could not be found, but at present they cannot see their way clear to give any remedy until a different state of affairs exists with regard to the War. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this matter, and at the very first opportunity will grant permission for those aliens to be shipped on those vessels so that they shall be allowed to sweep the sea. I may say that those aliens consist of Danes, Dutchmen and Norwegians. They have come to live at Grimsby, and have entered into the fishing, and they think

  29
  that the Government and the Admiralty have discriminated very much between the merchant service and the fishing vessels, and they cannot see why there should be that discrimination. A merchant vessel is allowed to proceed from Grimsby to Rotterdam, or any other port on the Continent, with an entire alien crew, while a fishing vessel cannot go into the North Sea at all to fish on the fishing ground with one alien on board. They think that is making a great distinction, and they hope that in the near future the Government may see their way to remedy that, and to allow them to go to sea. There is another question to which I desire to refer, and that is with regard to the men who are employed on the mine-sweepers. There are 2,600 of those men, all Englishmen, who have volunteered to do this work, and we all know it is a very dangerous occupation. Over 100 of them have already lost their lives, but so far the Government have not seen their way to give the wives of the men so employed separation allowances while the men are away at sea. Those men would like to know if the Government would see their way, considering that they are engaged in a very dangerous calling and performing very useful service for the Admiralty, to allow them the same pensions and allowances which are allowed to men in the Royal Navy.
  Mr. McKENNA: I rise after the speech of the hon. Member to deal with a different topic, but I understood that the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) was going to speak on a Home Office question.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will listen first to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member who raised the question (Mr. Bridgeman) did give me notice, but only since I entered the House, that he proposed to raise a question dealing with the Welsh Commissioners. I have not had time to inquire of the Commission what has happened, and I regret to say I am not informed from day to day of the work of the Commission, but at any time the hon. Member gives me notice of any question which he desires to ask, I will see that the fullest information is afforded to him.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not responsible for laying those rules before the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: Without looking at the Act and considering the point, I could not give an answer. I would gladly do so, but I have not had time to consider the matter. I have not the details before me and I am quite unable to answer appoints off-hand.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that one of the Commissioners is a Member of this House, and can not the question be addressed to him?
  Mr. McKENNA: One of my hon. Friends is a Member of the Commission, but I think notice was given to him even less than was given to me, and consequently I do not think he is here. I looked for him to see if he would answer the question.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Who is he?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member for West Denbighshire (Sir J. H. Roberts). The names were announced in the House at the time. If, therefore, the hon. Member will postpone his question till tomorrow, I shall be very happy to give him all the information which he has asked for. The hon. Member for Aberdeen East (Mr. Cowan) raised a question as to the sale of intoxicating liquors. I must remind him that there can be no prospect of carrying a Bill through the House at the present time unless it is the subject of general agreement. The particular proposal which he suggested we should carry, he began by informing us would not be accepted by the temperance party, and I believe I am not wrong when I say it will not be accepted by the opponents of the temperance party. Consequently I fear that that particular measure, however admirable it might be, would have little chance of general acceptance by the House. I would like to say I am entirely in sympathy with him in the desire to ensure that at the present time, or any other time, habits of temperance should be general throughout the country. If any strengthening of the existing legislation could be obtained by general agreement in the House, I can assure the hon. Member I will be only too ready to introduce and, if I can, to carry through the House a measure with that object.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: After what the Homo Secretary has said, I do not propose to elaborate any debate on the subject to-day; I only want just to enter one caveat. I do not think it would be at all satisfactory, nor do I think the Home Secretary intended to intimate so, that the Welsh Commissioners should be responsible to this House for the administration of the Act. The Welsh Commissioners are placed, or are supposed to be placed, in a semi-judicial position to administer the Act, and I think the proper person to be responsible for the administration of the Act is the Home Secretary I and nobody else. What I wanted to say about the main points raised by my hon. Friend is this: There is undoubtedly a very strong feeling among Churchmen that they have not been dealt with fairly in connection with the administration of this Act. They certainly understood quite definitely that nothing except purely formal matters were to be carried out under the Act until after the period of suspension which was inserted in the Suspensory Act. I do not want to elaborate that, but the House will recollect quite well the very remarkable speech which the Prime Minister made on the 15th of September, in which he said:—
  "We therefore propose that, subject to such comparatively formal matters as the institution of inquiries which prejudice nobody, with that exception in the case of the Welsh Bill its in the ease of the Irish Bill, no steps should be taken to put it into actual operation until twelve months from the date of passing, or, it the War then continues, during the same term as is prescribed in the Irish Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th September, 1914, cols.892–893, Vol. LXVI.]
  That was a perfectly definite and perfectly specific and clear pledge. I hope that on some future occasion the Home Secretary will be able to satisfy the House that that pledge has been carried out both in the spirit and in the letter. There is a very strong impression among churchmen that it has been wholly disregarded and that a serious infringement of their rights under that pledge has taken place since the Adjournment. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think it is only right to give him notice that that point is going to be raised, and I trust on some
  32
  future occasion to deal with all the details of the particular points that have been raised.
  Mr. McKENNA: As it has been suggested that a pledge of the Prime Minister has not been faithfully adhered to, I would like to remind the Noble Lord that within two days after that pledge by the Prime Minister an Amendment to the Welsh Church. Bill came down from the Lords to this House and was rejected by this House. In the proceedings of the 17th September the Noble Lord will find precisely laid down what was intended to be done, and it was clearly shown what the intentions of the pledge of the Prime Minister were. The House having heard the Debate, rejected the Amendment of the Lords, which would have carried out the Noble Lord's policy, and we are only acting now precisely in accordance with the intentions declared by this House when the Amendment by the Lords was rejected and when the Suspensory Act was passed in its present form.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Even now, I cannot for one moment admit that anything which subsequently took place can modify or affect the pledge given by the Prime Minister.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In answer to the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), as to when the replies to the annual petitions of workmen in the dockyards may be expected, I have got three-fourths of the way through. As the hon. Member fully understands, it is not possible to go on with the work continuously, and I took an early opportunity of informing my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) that any decision the Board might take would be announced in such a way that the men would not be prejudiced by the delay. We hope to be able to announce our decision very shortly.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before-Five o'clock.

  RECRUITS (BADGES).
  RECRUITS (BADGES).
  GREENWICH BOARD OF GUARDIANS (CHILDREN'S DIETARY).
  GREENWICH BOARD OF GUARDIANS (CHILDREN'S DIETARY).
  CINCHONA (EXPORT).
  CINCHONA (EXPORT).
Preamble
The Earl of CLARENDON—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
VIVISECTION.
Petition for withdrawal of sanction of law from the practice of; of Inhabitants of Letchworth, Herts.; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE OPPOSITION AND THE GOVERNMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Marquess opposite that I should ask him a question to which I wish to add a few words of personal explanation. A good many of us on this side feel that at the earliest possible moment we ought to obtain from His Majesty's Government some indication of the kind of conditions under which our business in this House is likely to be conducted during the present session. Those conditions obviously cannot be normal conditions, and people are asking what conditions are to take the place of the normal conditions, and what is to happen if the official Opposition finds itself precluded from discharging the usual functions which an Opposition is expected to discharge. I think the public mind is a little puzzled. I see it constantly stated—it has been so stated in the last day or two—that the whole situation will be governed by the fact that the truce between the Opposition and His Majesty's Government still continues. We remember very distinctly the circumstances under which that truce was proclaimed. It was, I think, on July 30 that the Prime Minister made to Parliament his memorable appeal that during the grave crisis through which we were passing anything like acrimonious discussion of domestic affairs should receive no encouragement. We have never concealed our regret that in the session of 1914, towards the close of it, His Majesty's Government seemed to us to depart from the understanding which we thought had then been arrived at; and we are naturally anxious to know whether during the session of 1915 similar departures are to be looked for.
On the other hand, let me assure noble Lords opposite that we have no desire on this side of the House to break the truce
414
or to revive Party hostilities. We realise very deeply indeed that this country is engaged in a colossal struggle, and that while that struggle is in progress we should endeavour so to arrange that our proceedings should be animated by a spirit of unity and concord. I think I am right in saying that in the case of the Parliaments of our Allies arrangements of that kind have been come to; and I noticed only yesterday that in the Dominion of Canada the leaders of the Opposition and of the Government have met for the purpose of discussing a plan for a non-controversial session of the Dominion Parliament. We want to know how we stand here. We want to know how we stand with regard to the terms of the truce, and what measure of responsibility we who are parties to the truce can be held to have assumed. Some responsibility we must assume, because an Opposition which desists from performing the normal functions of an Opposition does ipso facto incur responsibility for its conduct.
I will venture to run over in a very few words what would seem to be the obvious and appropriate conditions of the kind of truce into which we have entered. Such a truce would surely imply that the Opposition undertook to abstain from anything that could be properly called obstruction, and from any criticism opposed to the public interest. It would, I think, also imply that members of the Opposition should assist His Majesty's Government so far as persons who are not members of the Government and who consequently can have no voice in determining the policy of the Government can assist it by their co-operation. On the other hand, whilst such a truce prevails it would be expected that the Government would be absolutely frank and sincere in its relations with the Opposition, and would embrace every possible opportunity of taking the Opposition into its confidence. In the second place, it would not be unreasonable to expect that while the truce lasted the Government of the day should abstain from taking advantage of it in order to advance the interests of their Party in any way which would not have been open to them in different circumstances. We on this side are perfectly ready to be tested by those criteria. I think I may say with confidence that no one can point to any occasion since the outbreak of the war when we have in any way obstructed or

415
impeded the legislation or the proceedings of His Majesty's Government. As to criticism, we have resisted the temptation to criticise although it would be idle to pretend that there have not been episodes when the temptation to criticise was not inconsiderable. As to assistance, His Majesty's Government have received the ungrudging aid of conspicuous members of the Opposition both in regard to Departmental inquiries and investigations and upon the public platform.
I turn to the case of His Majesty's Government. We very gladly admit the invariable courtesy with which they have treated us during these trying times. They have invited our co-operation, and it has been loyally given; and they have supplied us with information. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and I have been permitted to see many interesting confidential documents, some from the Foreign Office and some from the gallant Field-Marshal who is in command of our Armies. But let me say—and let me say it as emphatically as I can—that in the case of these communications there has been nothing of the nature of preliminary consultation as to the conduct of the war or as to the preparations either for the naval or military operations connected with it. We desire, therefore, to emphasise the fact that we do not regard ourselves as having accepted in this respect any responsibility whatsoever, and we desire that that should be placed on record. I feel sure that the noble Marquess when he gets up will not complain of me for saving this, because he has said something very like it in his place in this House; but the fact remains that a letter which he wrote to The Times newspaper on January 8 has been regarded in many quarters as implying the existence of a somewhat different state of things. The noble Marquess will remember that he spoke in that letter of a kind of partnership between the Government and the Opposition, and suggested that the result had been that we had acquired a preliminary knowledge in regard to a number of subjects of the most importance. There seemed to be a certain ambiguity in that statement, and my right hon. friend and I thought it desirable that we should at once disclaim having had any such preliminary knowledge, at any rate with regard to the great measures connected with the prosecution of the war.
416
With regard to His Majesty's Government abstaining from taking advantage of the truce in order to push forward controversial legislation, I have, I think, already said enough. I will only add this, that if in our opinion there were in 1914 strong reasons why legislation of that kind should not be persevered with, those reasons appear to me to be very much stronger at the present moment. Neither House of Parliament is, in our view, at this moment so constituted as to be fit to take up questions of controversial Party legislation. I see it stated that of the House of Commons no fewer than 200 Members, of whom 150 are said to belong to our Party in politics, are absent from their places owing to the war, and in the case of your Lordships' House no fewer than 180 Peers are unable to attend to their Parliamentary duties. Those figures, of course, do not include the vast number of members of both Houses who are usefully engaged at this moment in work which, though civilian, is indirectly the outcome of the war which is now in progress.
My Lords, I have said these few words not with the slightest idea of suggesting that we wish to recommence Party hostilities, but there are certain things that we desire to make abundantly clear. In the first place, we wish to say that we on our side are prepared to observe the truce loyally. In the next place, we must add that we cannot altogether abandon our right of criticism. The Government may depend upon our using it with the utmost regard to the public interest, but the right belongs to us and we cannot abdicate it altogether. Then we desire to add this, that any assistance which we are able to give to the Government—and we are glad to give it—any abstention on our part from criticism of the Government, any confidence which we receive at the hands of the Government, must not be interpreted either in or outside Parliament as implying that we have accepted any responsibility either for the ordinary current business of the country or for the measures which are being taken to prosecute naval and military operations against the enemy. I do not think the noble Marquess will really differ from me in essentials, because he has, I think, virtually admitted the greater part of what I have just said; but I think the House will see that our position does lend itself to misrepresentation, and that it is most desirable that in the country generally there should be no misconception as to what our attitude is at the present time.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, first of all I hope I may be allowed to express very cordially, on my own behalf and also on behalf of those who sit behind me, our extreme satisfaction at once more seeing the noble Marquess in his place, restored, as we hope, to a full measure of health, and, as we have seen, with his power of Parliamentary expression altogether unimpaired. I have no complaint to make either of the matter or the manner of what the noble Marquess has just said. So far as regards the conduct of business, and so far as it is possible for us to look ahead, we do not propose to introduce any contentious business, but to confine ourselves entirely to such business as is concerned in one way or another with the prosecution of the war.
The noble Marquess made some observations upon the Parliamentary and political truce which is reigning between the two Parties, and he hinted—in fact, he stated—what has already been quite candidly stated by himself and by his friends both in and out of Parliament, that he considered that that truce was in some degree departed from by the action which we took last year in relation to the Bills which were subject to the Parliament Act. I have no wish to argue the merits of the action which we then took. It was due, as the House will recognise, to the different view taken by the two Parties of the effect of the previous passing of those measures by Parliament, and also of what the effect of action or inaction on our part would be towards producing the ultimate result of leaving each Party as nearly as possible in the position which it would have enjoyed if the war had not taken place. But, as I say, I have no desire to reargue this particular question, on which, I am aware, we are not likely to arrive at an immediate agreement.
I was grateful to the noble Marquess for drawing the very clear distinction that he did between co-operation with the Government on the part of the Opposition and any undertaking of responsibility by them. That is a distinction which I have always desired to bear in mind and to express, and I was sorry, after a statement which I made on January 6, that, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, some of his friends appeared to misapprehend the
418
position that I was taking up. I was replying to an observation made by the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, who at that time was leading the Opposition, and I desired to point out that while he was quite accurate in stating that the Opposition underwent no responsibility, yet I thought he had somewhat overstated the case in describing them as not possessed of any information. These were the words which the noble Earl used. He said—
"Many of us—myself for instance—know little more about it [the war] than the man in the street. I do not complain of that. It is an indispensable corollary of the Constitutional system under which we exist in this country."
I endeavoured, in answering the noble Earl, to lay some emphasis upon what the noble Marquess has mentioned to-day—the fact that certain of the most eminent members of the Opposition have been from time to time in receipt of information through the co-operation and assistance which they have rendered in different departments of His Majesty's Government. But I am sorry to say that the drift of my observations, probably through my own fault, was not very clearly apprehended, because both Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Bonar Law wrote to the public Press complaining that I had mis-stated the case.
In the case of Mr. Bonar Law he, I think, in his turn misapprehended what I had said. I had stated in the letter which I wrote in reply to Mr. Chamberlain in The Times that several of the leaders of the Opposition had been in receipt in this manner of information—more than one of the leaders. The word "leaders" may, of course, be used in more senses than one. Mr. Bonar Law took it as referring only to himself as leading the Opposition in another place and to the noble Marquess opposite. I had used it in the larger sense, in which the term is sometimes used, as including, roughly speaking, those who sit on the Front Benches in the two Houses. And the case, I admit, which I had particularly in mind, and the name which I had mentioned in the debates here, was that of Mr. Balfour, to whom I should certainly never dream of apologising for describing him as a leader of the Party opposite, and who has been giving to us the most unstinted and the most valuable co-operation in the deliberations of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That is not a case which I think ought to be forgotten. We are highly

419
indebted to Mr. Balfour for his assistance upon that small body, and although it is quite true, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, that the information of a military character which he has received in no way makes him, or indeed any of his friends or former colleagues, responsible for the conduct of the campaign, yet Mr. Balfour's position as a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence is one which, of course, admits him to the most intimate knowledge of everything connected with the war.
I took note—and, of course, with satisfaction—of the categorical statement made by the noble Marquess that he and his friends desire to maintain in the strictest degree the terms and the spirit of the political truce and that they also desire to continue to render us all that assistance of which I have spoken. And I ought to mention that, besides those prominent members of the Party opposite that I have mentioned, there are others—private Members of Parliament and others—who have in their turn given the most ungrudging and unadvertised help in various departments to His Majesty's Government. I also take no exception to what fell from the noble Marquess on the matter of criticism. It is clear, of course, that the terms of the truce, joined to the agreed absence of responsibility on the part of the Opposition, render it proper and reasonable for them to criticise within
420
limits the actions or the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I feel quite certain that both noble Lords and hon. Members in another place will continually bear in mind what those limitations are—limitations in the interests of the country, partly owing to the necessity of not stating in public a number of facts and circumstances which may be known in private, and partly because any excess of criticism is likely to be regarded outside as an evidence of disunion within the country. I should only add this, that while I am convinced that responsible members of the Opposition will fully bear these things in mind, I would beg them to remember that all their supporters outside, in the Press and elsewhere, may not be quite so scrupulous as they are themselves, and they, therefore, may in some cases consider it wise to abstain from public criticism which they might make in altogether unexceptionable terms, bearing in mind that similar criticism might be repeated in a very highly coloured form by some who do not entertain the same notions of moral responsibility that they do themselves. But, speaking generally, I thank the noble Marquess for the terms in which he has put his Question, and I hope he will consider my reply to it not altogether unsatisfactory.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.