Sitting of 8 February 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.—(By Order.)
  Bill considered.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1914.
  Amendment made: Leave out "1914," and insert "1915."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 28.—(Restrictions on Advertising Vehicles, etc.)
  Sub-section (1) (B):
  To carry or cause to be carried in Union Street or Union Terrace or except with the consent in writing of the Corporation in any other street within the City by any person for advertising purposes any board placard picture print or notice exceeding four feet by two feet six inches or to carry or cause to be carried any other advertisement exceeding those dimensions.
  Amendments made: After the word "notice," insert the words "or any other advertisement"; after the word "inches," leave out the words "or to carry or cause to be carried any other advertisement exceeding those dimensions."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 34.—(Books of Account.)
  Sub-section (4):
  The Secretary for Scotland shall for the year commencing on the thirty-first day of May one thousand nine hundred and fifteen with respect to the common good City rates and assessments and the tramway undertaking of the Corporation and for the year commencing on the thirty-first day of July one thousand nine hundred and fifteen with respect to the gas and electricity undertakings and annually thereafter appoint for the purpose of the audit of the accounts of the Corporation an auditor or auditors who shall be an accountant or accountants practising in the City and a member or members of
  212
  one of the Incorporated Societies of Accountants in Scotland and in the case of dispute as to the remuneration of the auditor or auditors shall on the application of either party fix the fee to be paid to such auditor or auditors and in the event of the office of auditor or auditors becoming vacant by death or from any other cause before such accounts are audited by him or them as the case may be shall subject to the like incidents appoint an auditor or auditors to supply such vacancy
  Amendments made: Leave out the word "thirty-first" ["thirty-first day of May"], and insert the word "first." Leave out the word "May," and insert the word "June." Leave out the word "thirty-first" [thirty-first day of July"], and insert the word "first." Leave out the word "July," and insert the word "August." Leave out the words "and a member or members of one of the Incorporated Societies of Accountants in Scotland."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  SCHEDULE.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Short Title.)
    Amendments made: Leave out "1914" in each case, and insert instead thereof "1915."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    Liverpool Corporation Bill.
    Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NEW WRIT.
For County of Antrim (Mid-Antrim Division), in the room of the Hon. Arthur Edward Bruce O'Neill, killed in action.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
Accounts presented showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1914, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 111.]

BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT, 1882 AND 1890.
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and

213
1890, during the year ending 30th June, 1914, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th February; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]
TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 24th November, 1914, made by the Board of Trade, varying the Regulations of 22nd July, 1910, under Section 12 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, as to the constitution of District Trade Committees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND),lb/> ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons had been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 30th September, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Urban District Council of Lurgan under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copies presented of Orders made by the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Councils of the county of Anglesey; And of the county borough of Sunderland
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (STATISTICAL ABSTRACT).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1903–4 to 1912–14. Forty-eighth Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 4th February; Mr. Charles Roberts]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]
NAVY AND ARMY SUPPLY, 1915–16.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 5th February, 1915, relative to Navy and Army Supply, 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
Copy presented of Account for the year 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 15th June, 1914; Sir Thomas Whittaker]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 114.]
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 152, dated 26th November, 1914, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WEST AFRICAN CURRENCY BOARD.
Copy presented of Report of the West African Currency Board for the period ended 30th June, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DOMINIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken in London in June and July, 1914, and Papers laid before the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH PLAIN SPIRITS IN BOND (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered showing the total quantities of British Plain Spirits in Customs and Excise collections in Scotland, distinguishing the quantities in distilleries and general warehouses on the 31st day of January, 1914, and the 31st day of October, 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 155, of Session 1914).—[Sir John Dewar.]
EAST INDIA (RISE IN PRICES).
Address for "Return of Copy of Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the question of prices in India."—[Sir Herbert Roberts.]
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Copy ordered "of Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions for each month of 1915."—[Mr. Runciman.]
PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
Copy ordered "of Statements for each month of the year 1915 of the number of Paupers relieved in England and Wales (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 111, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  GERMAN PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.

    REPORTS TO FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Reports were made to the Foreign Office by British naval or military attaches in Germany between 1st January, 1913, and 1st August, 1914, relating to the strength or condition of the German services or to German preparations for war; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table of the House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Neil Primrose): During the period referred to the British naval and military attachés at Berlin reported, as usual, upon the organisation and strength of the German navy and army, as occasion arose. These Reports are dealt with in the War Office and Admiralty respectively. I do not know what useful purpose would be served by publishing them.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether a Blue Book may now be published containing the principal Reports from His Majesty's Ambassadors, Military Attachés, Consuls, etc., relating to the military preparation and aggressive designs of Germany during the years 1912, 1913, and 1914, to the outbreak of the War?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: The preparation of such a Blue Book would entail much extra labour on the Foreign Office, War Office, and Admiralty. The various Reports received would have to be collected and examined by all those Departments, and publication could not help in the progress of the War, and the staffs of the Departments, which are now and have been for six months working under great pressure, could not, without prejudice to other work, undertake this at the moment.

  NEGOTIATIONS PRIOR TO WAR.

    COMBINED OFFICIAL PUBLICATION BY ALLIES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the advisability of reprinting in one volume the Government publications of the different countries on the causes of the War and the negotiations prior to the War?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: Steps are already being taken to issue a combined publication of the nature referred to.

  SIR HENRY HOWARD'S VISIT TO VATICAN.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications passed between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government in regard to Sir Henry Howard's Mission to the Vatican; and, if so, will he state the nature of such communication?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The Italian Government were informed of the intention to send the Mission and of the nature of the instructions to Sir H. Howard. This Mission, like previous Missions from this country and other Missions now at the Vatican, is in no way contrary to the Law of the Guarantees and no objection has been taken to it.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Did the Italian Government make any communication to this Government of its views on the subject?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  BELGIUM (CONFISCATION OF BRITISH GOODS).
  Colonel WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, according to a proclamatoin of General von Bissing, Military Governor of Belgium, the goods of British and other residents now absent from Belgium are, after 1st March, 1915, to be confiscated; and, if so, whether he will warn the German Government that in that event the same course will be taken with regard to the property owned by German subjects in this country?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: According to my information, the German Government's action is not exactly what the hon. and gallant Member supposes. A recent decree issued by General von Bissing imposes a tenfold tax on Belgians "who voluntarily left their domiciles at the outbreak of the War and have absented themselves from Belgium for more than two months if they do not return before 1st March," and this tax must be paid before 15th April, "after the expiration of which date recovery of the amount may be enforced." Although, the wording of this decree is restricted, I understand that it will, in practice, apply to all Belgians who shall by 1st March have been absent from Belgium for two months, and it is very possible that it may also, in spite of its wording, be applied also to foreign subjects domiciled in Belgium; but this is uncertain. Besides this, deposits in Belgian banks to the credit of the Belgian, British, French, Russian, Japanese, Serbian, and Montenegrin Governments, and of the Russian and Japanes State Banks were seized at the end of September. The question of retaliation therefore does not arise in the form contemplated in the question. In general, however, His Majesty's Government will take all such facts into consideration
  218
  in determining the advisability of retaliatory measures. I have already inquired of the Belgian Government whether they have any information to show that the decree is applicable to British subjects.

  GERMAN MISSIONARIES IN INDIA.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether German missionaries operating as educationists in India are drawing Grants from the Government; and whether a German, liable to military service, who was arrested at Agra by the local military authorities, has been released on parole by order of the Adjutant-General or other authority?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): In some cases Grants-in-Aid hitherto given to German missionaries engaged in educational work in India have been continued. The question of withdrawing or continuing a Grant is, it is understood, in each case decided after careful inquiry by the local Government into the conduct and attitude of the missionaries and the character of the educational work. As to the latter part of the question, I have no information.

  INDIA (JOURNAL "AL HILAL").
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the anti-British and pro-German character of the journal "Al Hilal," published at Calcutta in Urdu, has received the attention of the Government of India; and whether, seeing that in editorial articles the British Army has been said to prefer retreating to fighting, will he say when this print will be suppressed?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The security deposited by this paper was forfeited under the Press Act last November.

  GERMAN SENTENCE ON BRITISH SOLDIER.
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken with regard to William Lonsdale, a British soldier, now a prisoner in Germany, who was recently sentenced to death for striking a German

  219
  official who had insulted Lonsdale, the sentence afterwards being commuted to twenty years' imprisonment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. CROOKS: Do you intend to do anything? I call it an atrocious outrage!

  DAUNTSEY SCHOOL, WILTSHIRE.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether, on or about the 7th of January, his Department issued orders direct to the headmaster of Dauntsey School, Wiltshire, through the inspector of secondary schools, and took action resulting in the schools being vacated on the 8th of January by a contingent of the Canadian Artillery Brigade who were billeted there on the 1st January; and, if so, whether the governors of the foundation were consulted before this action was taken, and upon whose initiative it was taken?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. H. Pease): This school was occupied on the 1st January by troops without the authority of the General Officer Commanding required in such cases by the Army Council. The Board, under these circumstances, asked the General Officer Commanding whether the school could be evacuated. The General Officer Commanding explained at an interview on the 7th January that the school had been occupied through a misconception, and that orders had already been given for its evacuation. The headmaster, the only responsible officer of the governors on the spot, was at once informed by the inspector of this, but no orders were issued by the Board, either directly or through their inspector. The school was vacated on the 8th January by direction of the military authorities. The governors were subsequently fully informed of these facts.

  ALIENS.
  Mr. MOUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of alien enemies who have been released from the detention camps?
  Mr. TENNANT: No returns of releases of alien enemies from detention camps are available for the period prior to the 17th October. In the period subsequent to that date up to and including the 30th January the number is 2,821.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why do they let them in and out without keeping any record?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know that they are let out.
  Mr. SANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in some parts of the United Kingdom much anxiety prevails as to the position of naturalised aliens residing therein; and whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent such naturalised aliens from giving information or assistance to the enemy?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am aware that a good deal of anxiety has been expressed in various quarters about naturalised British subjects, but I think it is mainly due to misapprehension. It seems to be thought that they enjoy some immunity, but this is not the case. If there is any reason to suspect any such person of acting or of being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm, he can, like any other person, whether British subject or not, be removed by order of the competent naval or military authority from any place where he could be dangerous and be required to reside elsewhere.
  Mr. SANDERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in a specific case of suspicion application should be made to the military or naval authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: Application should be made to the competent military or naval authority in any case of suspicion.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister what are the terms of the working arrangement between the War Office and the Home Office as to the procedure for releasing alien enemies who have been interned and the date when such arrangement was made; and whether, if such arrangement was in writing, he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the Home Office is responsible for the investigation by the police of the question

  221
  whether a particular alien enemy should be released or not; whether the Home Office is responsible in case the information obtained by the police on this question is inaccurate or insufficient, and, if not, who is responsible in such a case; whether, when such investigation is completed, the Home Office makes a recommendation to the War Office as to whether the alien enemy should be released or not; and whether it is in all cases necessary that before an alien enemy is released there shall be a joint consideration of the case by the Home Office and by the War Office?
  Mr. BUTCHERasked when and by whom it was decided that the responsibility for releasing an alien enemy should rest with the War Office?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The responsibility for the release of alien enemies from detention camps was assumed by the War Office on the 11th November, in accordance with a decision of the Cabinet. It was at first proposed that the Home Office should make the inquiries of the police and submit their reports and recommendations in the usual way; but as this involved loss of time, since it was necessary in all cases to make inquiry through the police, the Home Secretary placed at the disposal of the War Office a small branch which had already been formed for the purpose of conducting these inquiries. This branch, though located at the Home Office, acts wholly under the control of the War Office, and there is no division of responsibility. The arrangement was effected by means of semi-official letters which passed between Lieut.-General Sir Herbert Belfield and Sir Edward Troup, which I will circulate with the Votes. Since this arrangement was made, the matter has been wholly in the hands of the War Office, and I am informed that the Home Secretary has been consulted only in one or two isolated cases. The police authorities are of course responsible for the accuracy of their own reports, and in the Metropolitan area the Home Secretary is responsible for the Police; if the reports are incomplete the War Office calls for further information.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If the reports of the police in the provinces are incomplete, who would be the proper Minister responsible?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No Minister is responsible for the action of the local authority.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If complaint is made in this House that the police do not give sufficient information, is not the Government responsible in any way?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The War Office is responsible for the whole thing. The hon. Gentleman asks who is responsible for the action of the local police. The War Office is responsible for the whole thing.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the War Office now responsible for the arrest as well as for the release of these people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Was the representative of the Home Office responsible up to 11th November?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. Up to that time the matter was in a rather tentative state. The matter was considered on the questions of hon. Members, and we came to this decision on the 11th November Since then the War Office is in control.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Is the War Office in direct communication with the police in the provinces?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary for War how many aliens were released from internment during the month of January, and if the War Office in each case acted upon reports by the police that the individuals released were neither dangerous nor destitute?
  Mr. TENNANT: The number of alien enemies released from internment during the month of January was 717. The police were consulted in each case, generally, and also on the special points to which the hon. Member refers.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a German baron, whose brother holds a high command in the German Army, is permitted to reside in the Brighton area, and has a yacht at Shoreham; if he consented to the release of this person from internment; and if, having regard to the danger of German submarines getting supplies from aliens residing along the

  223
  coast, he will insist upon the prohibited areas being extended and all alien enemies being excluded from these areas?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The gentleman to whom the question is assumed to refer became a naturalised British subject eight years ago, and has never been interned. The Admiralty are satisfied after close investigation that no action is required.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibilities, not to say the probabilities, of this German baron being the means of conveying supplies to the enemies' submarines off our coast?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Admiralty Intelligence Department, which is the branch of the Admiralty in charge of the question of dealing with aliens, has examined the case of this individual German baron, and is of opinion that there is no danger to be apprehended either of that kind, or any other, with regard to him.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that if the position were reversed, and if it were the case of a prominent English general, say, residing in Germany, that the same consideration would be extended?
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the individual in question is the brother of the Military Governor of Brussels?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not make a personal study of these cases of individual aliens. I am informed that the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty investigated this case and thought no action was necessary.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this German baron, who is brother of the Military Governor of Brussels, is suspected by every patriotic man in the Kingdom?
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the yacht in question has remained at Shoreham, or has been out from that port during the time of the War?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I really cannot say offhand what is being done, but I know that the authorities, who have no other object but to secure the safety of the country, are quite satisfied. I cannot
  224
  conceive any reason why they should not use the great powers in their discretion if they had the least reason to be apprehensive.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM CONSOLIDATION REGULATIONS, 1914.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, under No. 14 of the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Regulations, 1914, the competent military authority has power to make an order prohibiting any person suspected of acting or having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm from residing in any area specified in the order; whether, after the naval raid on Scarborough, orders were made by the competent military authority for that district, in pursuance of Regulation No. 14, prohibiting various persons, chiefly aliens, naturalised or otherwise, from residing within a certain distance from the East Coast; whether a letter was thereupon written by the Home Office to the War Office suggesting that such orders were invalid and ultra vires; whether such letter was written by the Home Office without having seen any copy of the orders in question thereof except such notice as had appeared in the public Press and without any request on the part of the War Office for the advice of the Home Office; and whether after the receipt of such letter by the War Office the orders were suspended and remain still suspended?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The attention of the War Office was drawn by the Home Office to the newspaper reports about removal of aliens consequent on the Scarborough raid, but the War Office had already on learning that a large number of removals had been made, telegraphed to the military authorities to suspend action, if the orders had not been made in accordance with the special instructions which had been issued from the War Office just previously to the raid. These instructions were not in the hands of the military authorities when the orders were issued, and action was accordingly suspended and the various orders were then reviewed in the light of the instructions. The Home Office wrote to the War Office because the newspaper reports gave the impression that the removals were not in accordance

  225
  with the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The Home Office had not seen copies of the orders, but as complaints were being received from persons who attributed the orders to the Home Office, they brought the matter to the notice of the Department which was competent to deal with it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Was the letter of the Home Office written on the request of the War Office or on their own initiative?
  Mr. TENNANT: It was not a question for the War Office.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the local military authority was superseded, as it were, by the War Office in regard to this matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: The local military authority is, of course, always under the War Office. The local authority sent these orders for confirmation by the War Office. When we informed them that we thought the orders were not in accordance with the Defence of the Realm Regulation, they were suspended in order that inquiries should be made.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Was the Home Office letter written before or after the action taken by the War Office in London?
  Mr. TENNANT: After.
  Mr. BUTCHER: May we have a copy of the Home Office letter?
  Mr. TENNANT: That had better be left to my right hon. Friend.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (TEACHING FRENCH).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Cockerton judgment prevents the teaching of French in elementary schools in which many scholars would gladly receive it; and whether he will bring in legislation to legalise the teaching of the language of Allies in such cases?
  Mr. PEASE: I am advised that the teaching of French in public elementary schools is not illegal and it is, in fact, taught in a certain number of such schools. Legislation is, therefore, not required. The question whether French should be taught in any particular elementary school must depend mainly on local and educational considerations.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION FOR SOLDIERS' CHILDREN (SALISBURY).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the number of children of school age in Salisbury has been recently increased by the influx of soldiers' families from Bulford and that, the existing schools in Salisbury being in part overcrowded and in the whole deficient for the requirements of the city, these children are deprived of proper education; and what steps will be taken to deal with this situation?
  Mr. PEASE: On the information at present before me I have no reason to suppose that any soldiers' children who have lately come into Salisbury are deprived of proper education, but I am making further inquiries.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the boys' department of St. Mark's School, Salisbury, has for many months past been overcrowded; whether the Board has warned the managers that Article 19 of the code was a condition of receiving the Grant; and whether it is intended to enforce the provisions of the code in this case?
  Mr. PEASE: For the school year ended 31st October, 1914, the average attendance exceeded the recognised accommodation by two. The latest information shows that the attendance has fallen considerably. A warning was sent, and the local education authority have instructed the managers that the conditions of the code must be complied with. I trust steps will now be taken to find accommodation; if not, I shall press the local education authority further.
  Mr. KING: How long has this gone on?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: To whom is the accommodation confined?
  Mr. PEASE: That is the average accommodation. There are days when probably the accommodation is less satisfactory. I cannot say without reference how long the question connected with accommodation has gone on, but certainly for some few months.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. Phipps, chief secretary of elementary education under the Board, recently visited Salisbury in order to report on the educational facilities of that city; and, if

  227
  so, whether his report was to the effect that school accommodation in Salisbury is deficient?
  Mr. PEASE: Mr. Phipps went to Salisbury, but not in order to report on the educational facilities of the city, and the second part of the hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

  LICENSED PREMISES (EARLY CLOSING).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the statement of Colonel F. W. Robson, commanding the 14th regimental district at York, to a deputation representing the Leeds licensed victuallers, that the duty in regard to early closing of licensed premises had been put upon the military authorities by the Home Secretary; and will he say whether the Home Office took any and, if any, what action in that direction?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Secretary of State's attention had not been called to the statement until my hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper. Powers were given to the military authority in this matter by the Order in Council of 12th August in which both the War Office and the Home Office concurred. It was not till 31st August that similar powers were conferred on the Licensing Justices by the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, which in certain cases are subject to the approval of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman speak up on the next question. I could not hear what he said.

  GERMAN BOOKS.
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the effect upon certain booksellers of the methods adopted by his Department in the granting of licences to import German books of scientific or academic importance; whether such licences have been granted to firms owned or managed by foreignors, but withheld from prominent firms owned or managed by British-born subjects; and, if so, will he say whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: Licences to import books of scientific and academic importance have been freely issued and there has been no discrimination in favour of firms owned or managed by foreigners. Owing to representations recently received from members of the trade the policy of granting licences for this purpose is being reconsidered in consultation with the Board of Trade.

  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board what further steps the Government are taking, or propose to take, to deal with hospitality for Belgian refugees?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There is no addition to the public statements already made which I could usefully make at the present time.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask what the Government are doing in regard to Belgian refugees of military age?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question is not one for the Government, but for the Belgian military authorities and the Belgian refugees themselves.

  PRINCE OF WALES' RELIEF FUND.
  Mr. HOGGEasked how much of the Prince of Wales' Fund has now been expended by his department in relief of distress?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Local Government Board, as a Department, are not responsible for the distribution of the Prince of Wales' Fund. Grants from the Fund for the prevention and relief of distress among the civil population are, however, made on the recommendation of the Government Committee, of which I am Chairman, and the amount of such grants up to the present time is approximately £230,000.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the Local Government Board advised the local representatives that the money should be distributed in certain directions?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; it is the Government Committee for the prevention and relief of distress which is communicated with by the local committees.

  CADETS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the cadets who were at Dartmouth at the outbreak of the War were lost on the "Monmouth" and the "Formidable"?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer, I regret to say, is ten and six respectively.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of Dartmouth cadets sent on board at the commencement of the War and what number has since been lost; and whether the proportion is much greater than in any other class of naval officers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As stated in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member on the 16th November, the number of Dartmouth cadets embarked at the commencement of the War was 434. Of this number I am sorry to say that forty-one have lost their lives. No statistics have been worked out as to the percentage of officers lost in the various classes, but it is, I am afraid, a fact that the percentage of the cadets embarked from Dartmouth who have lost their lives is greater than in any other class of officer.
  Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully reconsider the question whether the Admiralty will send any more young officers on to the ships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is impossible to discuss that now. The hon. Gentleman can realise why that is so.

  INTERNED STEAMERS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many enemies' interned steamers have been put or are being put into the coasting trade; and whether the Admiralty is exacting the highest rates prevailing in the market for these boats?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Thirty vessels are being used in the coasting trade out of thirty-six. The remainder are either un-seaworthy or being employed for other purposes. The freight at which they are chartered is the current freight of the day for the voyage. The result of the action of the Admiralty has been to reduce the freights from the Tyne for instance from 13s. 6d. to 11s.
  Mr. PERCY ALDEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the current rates on railways are not being charged on the steamers? If the railways are taking a lower rate, why should traders be asked to pay the market rate, which is now 11s. instead of 4s.?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a question of which notice should be given.
  Mr. PERCY ALDEN: I will put down a question.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty is letting enemies' interned steamers to shipowners and demanding from them considerably higher rate of pay than the Admiralty is itself paying the same shipowners for the use of their boats which have been commandeered; and whether the rates which have been charged for the interned ships are being accumulated for the benefit of the alien enemy when the War is over?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty is not letting the enemies' interned ships to shipowners, but is running them for Government account. The freights earned are paid into the Exchequer. The ultimate disposal of the fund so raised is not yet decided upon, but it will not go to the enemy owners of the vessels.

  DOCKYARD WORKMEN'S PETITIONS.
  Mr. BARNESasked when the replies to the dockyard workmen's petitions of last year will be issued?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Very shortly, I hope.

  NAVAL STOKER THOMPSON.
  Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Berthnall Thompson, No. 140,297, retired naval stoker, who was called up for service in August last, was sent to the West Coast of Africa on His Majesty's Ship "Challenger," and was invalided home in October suffering from paralysis; whether he is aware that, as a result of anxiety about how he was to keep his home going on the pension to which he was entitled, the man committed suicide on 11th January last; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will consider the

  231
  possibility of something being done by way of assisting the widow and three children?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Thompson was a pensioner receiving £35 7s. a year prior to being called up in August. When invalided in October his pension would of course continue. If the facts be as stated by my hon. Friend, a pension will be provisionally awarded to the widow according to the White Paper scale of November last.

  WARRANT ENGINEERS (PROMOTION).
  Mr. BARNESasked the grounds on which promotion is refused to warrant engineers, Royal Naval Reserve, in view of the number of commissions now being given to engineers who are not in the Reserve; and whether these warrant engineers may apply for temporary commissions in the Navy or merchant service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The rank of warrant engineer was created in 1903 for the purpose of providing a permanent reserve of warrant officers for the Engineer branch of the Royal Navy. In this capacity they are a valuable reserve as they supply the want most felt in the engineering department when a sudden expansion of the Fleet becomes necessary. Temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve have, as a rule, only been granted to engineers taken up with their vessels for service in the Fleet, and these officers do not serve in regular ships of war. These appointments are in no way permanent and terminate when the ship in which the officers are serving pays off.

  PRIZE MONEY (ABOLITION).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could now make a statement regarding the new scheme of poundage promised by the Government as a consequence of the abolition of prize money?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the question of prize money for the Navy still remains in abeyance; whether the Fleet have received any benefit up to date for the large amount of enemy's shipping (nearly 100,000 tons)
  232
  which has been accounted for; and, if not, whether he will make some communication to the House on this question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will, if I may, answer this question and No. 43 standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth together. The question of prize money has been receiving close consideration since the outbreak of hostilities, and certain conclusions as to the basis of distribution have been taken by the Board of Admiralty. But the hon. Member will recognise that under modern conditions the subject is more complicated than it has been in the past. I need scarcely assure the hon. Member that the whole matter continues to receive the closest attention of the Government. The question of making periodic advances to the Fleet has been discussed from time to time, but there are very great difficulties in the way, and I am afraid that I can hold out no hope that such ad interim distributions will be possible.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will there be no distribution of prize money until the War is over?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that may be so. There are great difficulties in the way. I would like to consult my advisers on the matter.

  DOCKYARDSMEN'S WIDOWS.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will say what is the position of widows of dockyardsmen called up for service and who are killed on the battlefield; are these widows entitled to any compensation for the loss they sustain owing to the stopping of the money they were receiving from the dockyard authorities; can he say whether, in the case of an established man, the money he has paid on behalf of his pension will be returned with interest to the widow; if not, what is to become of that money for which the Government have given no return; and will he also say what is the position with regard to compensation under the new scheme when a man is killed on the battlefield and is still receiving pay for his services as a dockyardsman?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member will permit me I will circulate the answer with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In the case of a man killed after he has left the dockyard: will his widow be in a worse position than she would have been if he had been killed in the dockyard?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: On the whole I think she would be better off, and certainly better than if her husband had been a civilian who has joined the Colours. I would rather have the whole thing stated fully.

  NAVAL TRANSPORT SERVICE.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider whether the time has arrived when the captains and officers of merchantmen employed on transport service should have temporary Royal Naval Reserve commission conferred on them, not only for the purpose of defence, but also to enable them to deal effectively with insubordination among the crew, especially considering the percentage of aliens among them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The question has already been fully considered by the Admiralty, but I am advised that the grant of commissions would not effect the object in view.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept the suggestion in the question, will he give the officers referred to a badge to show that they are employed in His Majesty's service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will consider that, but as the crews are not under the Naval Discipline Act, my hon. Friend will realise that it would not attain the object which he suggests on the Paper.

  NAVAL CASUALTIES.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the number of casualties in the Navy since the commencement of the War?
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the House a summary of the facts already made public, namely, the number of officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marine Forces killed, wounded, and missing, including the Royal Naval Division, specifying those killed and drowned through the effect of
  234
  submarines, mines, gunfire, killed, wounded, and missing in the trenches, and by accident, up to date?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A Return, giving such information as is possible, is being prepared which I hope to issue shortly with the Votes.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will that reply to my question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I can tell.

  RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if the household canvass conducted by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee has been extended to Ireland; and, if so, whether he can state the results obtained?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: When may we expect to have a decision arrived at?
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is now in a position to make public the statistics as to recruiting in Ireland which have been supplied to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford?
  Mr. TENNANT: No statistics were supplied by the War Office, but I am informed that the figures as to recruiting in Ireland referred to were compiled by the police, and were furnished to the hon. and learned Member by the Irish Government, who, at the same time, pointed out that these figures could only be regarded as approximate.

  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (TOTAL NUMBER OF CASUALTIES).
  Mr. HOGGEasked what are now the total casualties in the present War; and whether some arrangement could now be made to issue the totals up to date with each fresh list of casualties?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The casualties of the Expeditionary Force in the Western area of the War up to 4th February are approximately 104,000 of all ranks. I will consider from time to time whether the total figures cannot be given.

  DECLARATION OF LONDON.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have made any modification or changes in the Declaration of London from its original form; if so, will he state what these changes are; whether the Declaration of London, with or without its modifications, has the authority of international law; whether any nations have accepted its terms as a new code of naval warfare; if so, will he state the names of these nations; and whether the British are using the Declaration of London or certain clauses of it as a temporary code during the present war?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: By Orders in Council of 20th August and 29th October, 1914, which have been published, certain modifications were announced subject to which His Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt the Declaration of London during the present hostilities. The Declaration has not been ratified, and has therefore not the same authority as a universally ratified code of law. In vew of recent German announcements of an intention to disregard the laws and customs of the sea further modifications in British practice may be necessitated.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the hon. Member lay these modifications on the Table of the House and let us know what they are?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  BLINDNESS CAUSED BY WOUNDS.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will take into consideration the cases of men who have been rendered blind through being wounded in the War; and whether, having regard to the fact that the calamity of blindness is more terrible than most of the other wounds by which men are incapacitated, he will see that they receive some extra pension?
  Mr. TENNANT: A soldier rendered blind by wounds in war would be eligible for the highest rate of disability pension. This is the existing rule, and I do not find that a departure from this is contemplated by the recent Select Committee on Allowances and Pensions. I may mention here
  236
  that, by the reports of voluntary workers among the blind, steps are being taken to give individual encouragement and assistance to each blinded soldier to acquire some industrial aptitude which would prevent him from settling into a life of complete dependence on others.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Am I to understand that the blind really will get a little bit more than the others?
  Mr. TENNANT: They will be on the highest scale.

  DISPATCHES FROM SIR JOHN FRENCH.
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked whether further dispatches from Sir John French, continuing his narrative of events, have been received since that dated 20th November and published on 30th November; if so, when such dispatches will be published; and, if not, when further dispatches of this kind, to which such deep public interest attaches, may be hoped for?
  Mr. BALDWINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when we may expect a further dispatch from Sir John French, including the list of recommendations which he said was nearly ready when his last dispatch in November was published?
  Mr. TENNANT: No further dispatch since that dated 30th November has been sent, but the list of recommendations supplementing the dispatch of that date has now been received, and will be published as soon as the necessary verification of the names and arrangements for "Gazette" purposes have been completed.

  FRENCH YELLOW BOOK.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the the Prime Minister whether the Report mentioned in the French Yellow Book as having been received from a trustworthy source was communicated to His Majesty's Government shortly after its receipt by the French Government?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The answer is in the negative.

  INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish particulars of any case of death from inoculation against typhoid fever?
  Mr. TENNANT: As far as the War Office is aware there has been only one death which can be in any way connected with inoculation. This case was that of Corporal Nichols, of the 3rd Battalion (Reserve), City of London Regiment. I stated in this House on 27th November last that the cause of death was pneumonia, but when the death certificate was received it was seen that the cause was given as "(i.) Anti-typhoid vaccination; (ii.) Pneumonia." The case has been investigated and submitted to Sir William Osler, who considers that death was due to an eight-mile march which the man took within twenty-four hours after inoculation and not to the inoculation directly. Instructions have been given that care must be taken to see that men recently inoculated are not given hard work until their condition justifies their undertaking it without risk.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of typhoid, and deaths from typhoid, among inoculated men and uninoculated men in the Expeditionary Force from the commencement of the War to a recent date?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of the 421 cases of typhoid in the present campaign among British troops, 305 cases were in men who were not inoculated within two years. In the 421 cases there have been thirty-five deaths. Of these deaths thirty-four were men who had not been inoculated within two years. Only one death occurred among patients who were inoculated, and that man had only been inoculated once instead of the proper number of times—namely, twice.
  Mr. BYLES: Are men now able to refuse inoculation if they like?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Are the figures given included in the list of actual casualties?
  Mr. TENNANT: No.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Does the list of casualties include all prisoners as well as wounded?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: All missing?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the results of inoculation in the United States Army in 1911, 1912, and 1913?
  Mr. TENNANT: These figures are of considerable interest and the House will perhaps pardon me if I state the position fully. Prior to 1911 inoculation was not compulsory in the United States Army. The ratios of admission to hospital per 1,000 of strength for typhoid fever were in the years from 1899 as follows: 10.85, 5.62, 5.62, 3.57, 5.66, 5.53, 2.94, 3.03, and 2.32. This last figure is for the year 1910—the last year in which inoculation was voluntary. In 1911 the ratio was.81 and in 1912.31. For 1913 figures are not available. To sum up from the year 1900, when voluntary inoculation was introduced, the ratio gradually fell, and, from 1911, when it became compulsory, a further marked drop took place.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that compulsion in the United States Army only came into operation towards the end of 1911, and that the reduction to that date was from much higher figures than those of 1900, namely, from 88.5 per 1,000 in 1898 to.85 in 1911?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the order came into force at the end of the year, it shows what a marvellous effect it had.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the first year of compulsion, as shown by his figures, shows an increase in typhoid?
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the punishment for refusing inoculation of men who have fought at the front by depriving them of the five days' leave to visit home which is granted to inoculated men is a form of influence and persuasion sanctioned by the War Office to induce men to undergo an operation which is not compulsory or legally enforceable and to which they have a conscientious objection; and whether men who stand upon the legal right guaranteed by the public announcements of the Minister for War are to be punished indefinitely for doing so by the refusal of the leave granted to others, or whether this action on the part of officers will at once be put an end to by a general order issued from the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of any case where a man returning from the front has been punished in the manner described in the question. The danger of infection being spread in the Army by un-inoculated men is considerable, and has to be guarded against by precautions being taken as regards granting them special leave. Any general Order that may be issued will be in this sense.

  TROOPS' UNDERCLOTHING.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the requests for a continuous supply of such things as shirts, socks, underclothing, woollen caps, and gloves to make good wastage; whether any portion of our troops are in need of these articles of clothing; and whether he can make any statement which would put beyond all doubt the fact that the War Office is meeting all such demands upon its attention?
  Mr. TENNANT: I can assure my hon. Friend that the War Office is in a position to meet all present requirements in regard to shirts, socks, underclothing, woollen caps, gloves, etc., and it is also prepared to meet wastage.
  Mr. HOGGE: Has my tight hon. Friend seen the appeal in the newspapers this week, from the wife of Field-Marshal French, asking for these very articles named in the question?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not happen to have seen it.

  SERGEANT-INSTRUCTORS.
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the sergeant-instructors who are doing such excellent service at the training depôts are considered when promotions are under consideration?
  Mr. TENNANT: This matter is receiving careful consideration.

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state the reason for the delay in the payment of money under an allotment made in November last of 1s. 6d. a day in favour of his three children made by Sadler F. A.
  240
  Clark, No. 81,519, 1st Battery Royal Field Artillery, 45th Brigade, 8th Division; and whether he will see that all arrears are forthwith settled and that the allowance in future is promptly paid?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Application in this case was received on the 4th instant, and payment was made on the following day with arrears from 23rd October last. From inquiries that have been made, it appears that the soldier is alone responsible for the delay, as he made no application for payment of the allotment prior to that contained in a letter received by the Paymaster at Woolwich on the 4th instant, payment being made on the 5th.
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if he is aware that Private Hugh Watt, Highland Light Infantry, enlisted on the understanding that his foster-mother, Mrs. Annie Watt, 242, High Street, Perth, who was entirely dependent on him, should be able to draw a dependant's allowance; if he is aware that the Perth pensions committee passed a dependency allowance of 12s. 6d. a week; if he is aware that the Army Pay Office has held up a decision on this subject, and that, as Mrs. Watt refuses to take any allowance from a charitable source, the only income she has is the allotment of 3s. 6d. per week from Private Hugh Watt; and if he will see that a decision in this and similar cases is arrived at with the least possible delay?
  Mr. BAKER: The case quoted by the hon. Member has not hitherto been regarded as carrying a right to a dependant's allowance, but it would fall within the definition of dependence proposed by the Select Committee on Pensions and Grants.
  Sir J. DEWAR: Will arrears also be taken into consideration?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir; I cannot say that arrears should be paid under the new definition.
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he would state what arrangements are made, if any, to continue the allotments to the wives of officers who have been promoted from the ranks and who previously received allotment, having been on the strength of the officer's regiment; and, if not so allowed now, will he arrange for the allowance to continue unless the officer expresses a desire otherwise?
  Mr. BAKER: It has been arranged that the weekly amount previously issued by the paymaster shall be continued from the officer's pay to the family or other dependants by the regimental agents of the officer until he makes other arrangements.

  BULFORD CAMP (SALE OF PERIODICALS).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary for War if a monopoly or partial monopoly has been granted to Messrs. W. H. Smith at Bulford or other camp?
  Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of any monopoly being granted to Messrs. W. H. Smith at Bulford or elsewhere, but if the hon. Member refers to the supply of newspapers at the camps that is a matter which is arranged locally.

  ZEPPELIN RAID.
  Mr. INGLEBYasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can state how many Zeppelins raided the East Coast on 19th January; whether the Zeppelins were accompanied by motor-cars; if so, whether he can give the number of such cars; and whether any of them have been identified or any of their occupants arrested?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is not in the public interest to give the information which may be in possession of the Department regarding the first point. The other points are being further investigated, and I hope to be able to give an answer shortly.
  Mr. INGLEBY: Would it not be possible to ensure more complete co-operation between the military and police, especially in certain country districts on the East Coast, so that each may know to what extent it can rely on the other, and, therefore, be prepared to deal effectively—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order."]
  Mr. TENNANT: We will endeavour to do so.

  HUTS FOR RECRUITS.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the huts built for the recruits of Lord Kitchener's Army at Portsmouth are watertight; and, if not, will he take steps to ensure that these huts are immediately made habit able for the men?
  Mr. TENNANT: I find on inquiry that a few huts at Portsmouth developed leaks. These were stopped at once, and no huts are now leaking.

  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether certain men of the Royal Garrison Artillery at present stationed at Garrison Point Fort, Sheerness, have been refused the leave of absence promised some time ago; whether he will state what is the reason for this refusal; and whether men concerning whom no complaint has been made are being penalised because of the failure of a few of their comrades to return to duty at the expiration of their leave of absence?
  Mr. TENNANT: The men were divided into batches for the purpose of Christmas leave. Almost all of the first batch overstayed their leave three or four days. In consequence of this the second batch were warned, but they also overstayed their leave. As a result of this disregard of orders, all leave was stopped except in the case of those men who had passed their drills.

  PNEUMONIA.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can state the number of cases of pneumonia which have occurred among the men training in the military camps in England and Wales during the months of August, September, and October, the number of deaths, and the number who have been discharged as physically unfit for further military service owing to having suffered from this disease?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have not yet received the complete statistics, and I should be obliged if my right hon. Friend would repeat his question on Wednesday.

  ARMY HORSES.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary for War if arrangements have now been made for sheltering Army horses on open down lands; and if he has any information as to the mortality among these horses due to exposure before shelters were provided?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, provision is being made for shelter for horses in hut camps. I am informed that little or no mortality can be directly attributed prior to the provision of shelter.

  LINENHALL BARRACKS (DUBLIN).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the Linenhall Barracks were lent by the Board of Works to Lady Aberdeen for the purpose of holding an exhibition, on condition that the premises should be handed back in their original condition on the 31st October, 1914, and were requisitioned by the Government for military purposes on the 10th October; whether a claim has been made by Lord Aberdeen for £6,000 compensation for the loss of the use of the premises for twenty-one days; whether any accounts or documentary evidence has been produced in support of the claim showing the money collected and disbursed in respect of the exhibition; and how the Government propose to deal with Lord Aberdeen's claim?
  Mr. BAKER: The Irish Board of Works lent Linenhall Barracks to the Committee of the Dublin Civic Exhibition on the condition stated in the question. They subsequently offered a continuation of the tenancy at a fair rent to the Civics Institute of Ireland, which had taken over the exhibition of the purpose of its permanent activities in connection with housing and other matters. Before these arrangements were complete they were broken off by the military occupation of the buildings on 12th October. Lord Aberdeen has made no such claim as is suggested, but it has been proposed that the War Department should repay to the Civics Institute such a portion of their expenditure upon the buildings as represents the value for military purposes of improvements and additions effected. This proposal is now under consideration, and all the necessary figures are in the possession of the War Office.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman state what claim is being made by Lord Aberdeen?
  Mr. BAKER: Lord Aberdeen is making no claim on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Civic Institute, to the extent I have stated in my answer.

  ARMY CLOTHING.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his Department has appointed a firm in Glasgow to represent it in the giving out and receiving of clothing for the Army; if so, will he say what is the name of the representative so appointed; what are the terms to be paid to such firm; and whether they are in the form of a percentage on the cost of the clothing or of any profits that may be got out of the contractors for the clothing?
  Mr. BAKER: No such appointment has been made by the War Office, but I understand that some such arrangement has been made by a contractor to the War Office, who was authorised to sub-contract. I do not know the name of the agent or the terms of his remuneration.
  Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman give the name of the contractor?
  Mr. BAKER: The name is Glanfield.

  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state how it is that some men who joined the National Reserve since the 11th August last and did not sign the card of obligation have obtained the £5 bounty whilst hundreds of men who have belonged to the National Reserve for years before that date have been refused the bounty on the ground that they have not signed the card of obligation, although they were never invited to do so, or having signed it enlisted through an ordinary recruiting depot?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The only men who are known to have joined the National Reserve since the 11th August last and have obtained the bounty are a few individuals who had applied to join before that date at places where the supply of cards had temporarily run out. The bounty was payable not for enlisting, but for undertaking beforehand to do so if called up; but it has been given to those who, having given the undertaking, enlisted without waiting to be called up.

  SUBMARINES IN IRISH SEA.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether two German

  245
  submarines were recently seen alongside a neutral steamer in the Irish Sea; whether the steamer was outward bound from Manchester, loaded with oil and oil products; whether he can state the name of the ship and who her agents are; the port for which she cleared; and the names of the shippers of the cargo and the consignees; and whether the export of oil on neutral vessels is still to be permitted?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All possible steps are taken to investigate reports such as that referred to. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the results of the investigations. The export of fuel oil from this country is prohibited.

  H.M.S. "GOOD HOPE."
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that five men of His Majesty's ship "Good Hope" were landed on a rock or islet in the Pacific previous to the naval engagement in which that ship was sunk; and if he will give the names of these men?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: One acting warrant officer and four men had been landed from the "Good Hope" before she was lost. Their relatives were informed of their safety shortly after the loss of the ship was made public, but it is not proposed to publish their names.

  ADMIRALTY SWIMMING COLLAR.
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the German sailor is provided with an efficient lifesaving Waistcoat; if he is aware that our men are only provided with a kind of dog collar calculated only to assist in drowning any man using it; if he will make proper provision in this direction for our men; and whether he can say if any expert opinion, other than that of the manufacturer, as to the use and suitability of these collars was obtained before purchase by the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certain statements have appeared in the Press in regard to the life-saving appliances in use in the German Navy. His Majesty's ships are normally provided with life-saving appliances sufficient to provide for the full complement of the ship. The Admiralty
  246
  swimming collar was introduced as the most ready means of providing a personal equipment to be always worn or carried on the person which, while not encumbering the wearer in the performance of his duty, would give effective aid to a swimmer. As such, the evidence goes to show that it has answered its purpose and been the means of saving many lives. I may remark that the collar was not introduced as the design of one manufacturer, but after consultation with representatives of leading firms, some of whom were experts in life-saving appliances. It was considered to be the best form of appliance that could be supplied quickly in the large numbers required. Since the introduction of the collar the Admiralty have continued to devote constant consideration to the subject, with the result that it is hoped to issue improved appliances immediately.
  Mr. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the approximate cost of these collars?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot off-hand, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman if he likes to know.

  H.M.S. "FORMIDABLE."
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any further information concerning the sinking of His Majesty's ship "Formidable" than was contained in the announcement made public at the time of the event, when it was stated, on the authority of the Admiralty, that it was not certain whether the vessel was struck by a torpedo from a submarine or a mine?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As stated by my Noble Friend Lord Crewe in another place, the definite opinion of the Admiralty is that His Majesty's ship "Formidable" was sunk by two torpedoes fired from a submarine.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain to the House on what duty Admiral Sir Lewis Bayly's squadron was engaged at the time of the sinking of H.M.S. "Formidable"; whether any inquiry or court-martial has been held; and, if so, whether it is proposed to make public the result?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir, I do not think there is any advantage to be gained by the discussion of this matter at the present time. It is not proposed to hold any formal inquiry nor to bring any person before a court martial. The Board of Admiralty have considered attentively all the circumstances and I have no statement to make.

  NAVAL CHAPLAINS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEwhether he will consider the advisability of whether he will consider the question of revising the scale now in force with regard to pay of chaplains in the Royal Navy; whether he will consider the advisability of paying them 12s. a day for the first four (instead of five) years and then raising them 2s. instead of 1s. a day every three years up to 19 years, then giving a rise of 2s. a day every two years till the end of the twenty-seventh year, when the maximum of 30s. would be reached, the present extra allowances for shore appointments not to be affected by these increases.; and (2) whether he is aware that the pay of naval chaplains compares unfavourably with that of Army chaplains; that since 1870 the pay of every rank and rating in the Navy has been increased, whereas no addition has been made to the pay of naval chaplains; that during the last 45 years the cost of living has gone up considerably, a matter which the Admiralty have recognised on many occasions when giving additions to naval pay, but one that has apparently been overlooked in the case of the chaplains; and will he consider the advisability of now increasing the pay of these chaplains?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of the pay of naval chaplains is now under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. I cannot, however, give any undertaking in the matter.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty have considered the suggestion I made to them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot recall the particular suggestion which the hon. Gentleman made, but I said the matter was under consideration.

  FREE RAILWAY PASSES (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
  Sir KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say how it happened that the men of His Majesty's ship "Cedric" were required to pay their railway fares when going on leave from 18th January to the 25th; whether he is aware that this hardship was the more felt by the men because, although the ship belongs to Liverpool, the men mostly come from southern ports, and therefore the amount paid in railway fares would in some cases equal the amount of pay for the month; whether he can see his way to refund these fares; whether he is aware that the petty officers and men of His Majesty's ship "Skirmisher," when proceeding on their Christmas leave, were required to pay their own railway fares; whether he will say what constitutes Christmas leave; and whether leave given from the 23rd December to the 28th should be properly regarded as Christmas leave?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: An order was issued on the 29th ultimo that in those cases where free railway passes had not been issued repayment might be made of the rail fares actually incurred by officers and men in proceeding on Christmas leave or on leave granted during the months of December and January in lieu of Christmas leave. As the cases in question would appear to come within the terms of this order, application should be made by the men concerned in the usual manner to the commanding officer of their ships for repayment of the rail fares incurred by them in proceeding on leave.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one case the men made that application without success?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I was not aware of it. It will be attended to.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what circumstances free travelling passes are issued to men in the Royal Navy; and whether he will see that the facilities in this respect given to soldiers are also given to sailors?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Subject to the exigencies of the Service, free railway passes are issued to seamen generally on

  249
  lines similar to the issues to soldiers, with the exception that I understand that soldiers have recently been granted free railway passes when proceeding to their homes in cases of grave and urgent illness or death of a parent, wife, or child. No naval case of this nature has been brought to our notice, but it is proposed to obtain the necessary authority for a similar concession for sailors in order to provide for any cases which might occur in the Royal Navy.

  GERMAN DYE-STUFFS.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether a special permit has been given by His Majesty's Government to a shipment of German dye-stuffs from either Bremerhaven or Rotterdam in the steamship "Matanzas"?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No permit was given by His Majesty's Government for the shipment of German dye-stuffs in the steamship "Matanzas," nor did the question of a permit arise, as the vessel was a neutral one engaged in trade with a neutral country.

  Cattle Disease (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a memorial from the South of Ireland Cattle Trade Association representing to him the inconvenience to trade, the hardship to animals and the losses to owners caused by the existing Regulations for the compulsory detention of cattle at the port of embarkation; and whether, in view of the fact that Ireland is and has been for the past seven months certified to be free from cattle disease, and of the importance of an unrestricted cattle supply in the present emergency, he will consider whether the time has arrived for revoking the Regulations complained of?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I see nothing in the present situation to call for the revocation of the Order to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that the entire Irish cattle trade hold a very different view, and will the hon. Baronet consider whether some deference cannot be paid to their views?
  Sir H. VERNEY: No. I understand that the view of the Irish cattle trade is not unanimously the view held by my hon. Friend. In view of the large number of animals which have been detained, and the risk of infection in this country, it is to the advantage of both countries that the Order should not be revoked.

  Nursery Schools.
  Mr. KINGasked why nursery schools as newly authorised are not public elementary schools; and whether this is due to any intention to make the use of these schools a matter of favour and privilege rather than of public right?
  Mr. PEASE: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the "day nurseries" in aid of which Grants will be made through the Board of Education. These institutions are not conducted as elementary schools, and the hon. Member will see, by reference to the Regulations, that they are intended for the benefit of the poorest class of parents whose circumstances oblige them to go out to work. At present they are all voluntary institutions, and their accommodation is very limited.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he authorised the cutting down of infant schools he held out the prospect of nursery schools in their place, and that these nursery schools as now authorised are in no way a fulfilment of the offer which was then made?
  Mr. PEASE: At any rate, we have quite recently been able to give Grants to these nursery schools, and local education authorities can also give grants to these schools if they are utilised in connection with elementary schools.

  India (United Provinces Executive Council).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has decided to establish an Executive Council for the United Provinces; and, if so, whether this step is taken upon the recommendation of the Government of India; and, in that event, whether the adverse opinion of the late Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Hewett, was overruled?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The hon. Member will find, on referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT for Thursday last, that I have already given the answer to the question.
  Sir J. D. REES: Was Sir John Hewett consulted at all when it was decided to create the council, and is his opinion also understood to be favourable to its creation?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer which is already published he will see that the opinion of Sir John Hewett was given in 1909, and that since that date, after the lapse of six years, it is permissible to come to a different conclusion.
  Sir J. D. REES: Did he come to a different conclusion?

  Acting Teachers (Final Examinations).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the final examination for acting teachers held in November and December last was set with questions more difficult and searching than formerly, and that complaints have been made that it was an impossible test for young women up to the age of twenty-five at present engaged in teaching; and whether he will explain why the examination papers were set on these lines?
  Mr. PEASE: The Board have no reason to think that the questions set at the final examination for acting teachers in November and December last were more difficult and searching than those set in recent years, with the possible exception of the mathematical questions. The Board are considering whether it would be proper for them to make any allowance on this ground before the results of the examination are finally decided. No such complaints as are suggested in the question have been received by the Board.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the educational papers have all made great complaints with a practically unanimous voice against the difficulties of this examination?
  Sir J. D. REES: Cannot the Board arrange that the examination papers shall not be more difficult than is desired by examinees?
  Mr. PEASE: It would be impossible to secure uniformity in regard to the character
  252
  of the papers year after year, but so far as is possible we will take into account any matters of this kind before finally deciding.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether the Welsh Commissioners have made general rules of procedure as required by Section 11 of the Welsh Church Act; if these rules have been approved with or without modifications by His Majesty the King in Council; and, if so, when they were laid before both Houses of Parliament; and whether such rules embodied the methods devised for ascertaining the wishes of residents in the border parishes?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Welsh Church Commissioners have made general rules of procedure under Section 11 of the Welsh Church Act which have been confirmed without modification by His Majesty the King in Council. The rules were laid before Parliament on Tuesday, the 2nd instant. The rules do not embody the method adopted by the Commissioners for ascertaining the wishes of parishioners in border parishes.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are there not going to be any more rules than those already passed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Home Secretary what has been the procedure of the Welsh Church Commissioners in ascertaining the wishes of the border parishes; and why they have submitted no rules on this matter to His Majesty in Council?
  Mr. McKENNA: With respect to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave in reply to his question on Thursday last. As regards the concluding part of the question, I must remind the hon. Member that an appeal lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the event of parishioners being dissatisfied with a decision of the Welsh Church Commissioners in respect of a border parish. In such event the proceedings of the Commissioners would form a material part of the case, and the Commissioners cannot be asked to discuss or defend those proceedings beforehand.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it a fact that while there is a right of appeal as to the result of the election nobody has a right

  253
  of appeal as regards procedure, and why has no notice whatever been given by the Commissioners that a ballot was going to be taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will put these further questions to the Commissioners.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the pledge given in his name on the 16th October, 1912, the failure to redeem it since, and the increasing urgency of the need for its redemption, he will have introduced and endeavour to pass this Session a Bill for the completion of land purchase in Ireland; and, if not, when he proposes to redeem his pledge on that subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for the Enfield Division on the 22nd July last.

  Peterhead Harbour of Refuge (Discharge of Workmen).
  Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the usual practice of discharging a number of the workmen employed at the Peterhead harbour of refuge works has been carried out for this winter season; whether he is aware that, of the thirty or forty men who have been discharged, some are skilled men who have been employed at the works for a considerable time; and whether, in view of this critical period and of the advice that has been given to employers generally to employ as many workpeople as possible, he will have as many men taken on at the Peterhead works as possible, and thus reduce the volume of distress in the district?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty are aware that nineteen (not thirty or forty) employés at the Peterhead harbour of refuge works were discharged in November last, the majority of whom had been entered temporarily to complete certain seasonal work in hand. Only one was a mechanic, and he had but comparatively short service. It is impracticable to employ more labourers at these works at present. The Admiralty are fully alive to the aspect of the matter referred to by my hon. Friend at the end of his question.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Edward Hilton Young, Esquire, for the Borough of Norwich.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES), 1915–16.
  MR. TENNANT'S STATEMENT.
  Order for Committee read;
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I think to-day's Debate is to be given, by common consent, to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Tennant) concerning the War, and to getting you, Sir, out of the Chair. I do not wish in any way to detain the House from my right hon. Friend's presentation of questions of policy with regard to the Army, but to present Army Estimates for a total of £15,000 in a year like this is, on the face of it, a proceeding so curious as to need some explanation. It is a matter, of course, which the House or the Committee may well wish to discuss, but I think it probably will be found to be for the convenience of the House not to discuss the form of the Estimates to-day, if only for the reason that we have only just been able to put in the Vote Office the Treasury Minute which deals with this question, and the House will probably desire to study the Treasury Minute before making criticisms and remarks as to the form which the Army Estimates are to take, and which the Navy Estimates will take when they are presented. But I think it will be in accordance with the traditions of the House and its desire for financial correctness that a brief statement, which will be very brief, should be made, to begin, in order to explain the form in which the Estimates are presented.
  There were three possible alternatives before the Treasury and the Public Departments as to what might be done. First of all, we might have tried a full and proper Estimate of the cost of the War which was going to arise in the present financial year. Secondly, we might have
  278
  presented ordinary peace Estimates of the total of the current year's Estimates or some total close to that, paying the ordinary peace cost of the Army out of the Estimates when placed in the Appropriation Act, and paying for the war cost from Votes of Credit. Thirdly, we might have done what we have decided to do—namely, to present token Estimates mainly as pegs upon which discussion may be hung, and to take Votes of Credit as they are needed for War purposes, depending for proper financial control and correctness rather on accounting than on estimating while the War is going on. As against the plan of trying to make, before the beginning of the financial year, any estimate of what the great War purposes will cost during the year, there is this to be said: In the first place, we cannot estimate what the cost of the War will be, and, in the second place, if we could do it, it would not be a wise thing to do, because any detailed Estimate showing, as far as could be shown, everything we were doing and intended to do, would give information of an undesirable nature to our enemies as to numbers, as to their organisation, as to their training and equipment, and so on.
  As to the second plan, if we had tried to present ordinary peace Estimates we should have involved ourselves and the House in difficulties and misunderstandings. That was the course which the Treasury first favoured and tried to have carried out but it rather broke down on making the attempt. As to presenting normal peace Estimates, it is to be observed that, when you come to the actual questions concerned, you cannot, distinguish between what you have spent in peace and what you do actually spend in war. With regard to stores and materials, for instance, it is almost impossible to say, "This we should have required for normal needs, and this, on the other hand, we require on account of the War." There is also this point—that in normal peace Estimates there are certain sub-heads, such as Half-pay, and so on, which practically disappear in time of war, and to have included this sort of sub-head at a normal figure must have misled the House. The War Office and the Admiralty do not really, I think, have a normal peace organisation and add to it in war other services and extra expenditure. In a war, the conduct of which involves the entire naval and military resources of the State, what happens is that practically the whole of the expenditure of these great Departments

  279
  becomes, ipso facto, war expenditure; and you cannot distinguish between normal peace expenditure and extra expenditure on the War. We might have tried to present Estimates showing what the estimated cost of the two Services would be when we return, if we do return during the financial year, to times of peace. That, again; is very difficult. We cannot tell what the peace expenditure of the Army will be in this financial year, because we do not know whether we shall return to a peace expenditure during the year. It is not possible under these circumstances to pass suddenly from a war to a normal peace expenditure, because, however suddenly peace might come, there would be large commitments for such things as stores, war gratuities, pensions, and so on, which we cannot at all foretell now. Any attempt to do so would mislead the House; and if we were to try to do it, the House really does not wish to discuss now what the probable peace expenditure on the Estimates may be after the War is over. So we come to the third course, which is the one we have adopted, of presenting token Votes, which will serve the main purpose of affording opportunities for discussion, and financing the two great Departments practically out of Votes of Credit while the War is going on. I think that that is inevitable. We were driven to adopt that alternative after a practical examination of the others.
  The problem then remains of how to secure to the House that control over expenditure which is desirable and which the House, ought to have. In regard to certain expenditure, control to a high degree can be secured not through Estimates but through Appropriation. At, I think, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, we have agreed that the Appropriation Accounts should be so prepared as to show the expenditure under the respective Votes and sub-heads of Navy and Army Estimates that were contained in the original Estimates for 1914–15 as laid before Parliament. The expenditure will be accounted for under the same sub-heads as it was estimated for in the last Estimates that were laid before Parliament, and in the Appropriation Accounts there will be shown, for purposes of comparison, under each Vote and Sub-head, the amounts that were actually voted for the purposes of the current financial year. There is only this difficulty left to deal
  280
  with, and it is a difficulty which financial critics will detect: Under this system the House might allow the Executive to take by Votes of Credit more than was necessary, and on the restoration of peace it might be found that there were large unexpended amounts which had been voted under Votes of Credit which had not been submitted to the House and approved by them in the form of Estimates. That might be found to be so if the War came to an end while there was still some considerable portion of the financial year to run. To meet that, the Treasury and the Departments will take care to limit the amounts asked for under Votes of Credit from time to time, so that the supply of finance shall not exceed the cost of the Services on the pre-War footing by more than the war charges actually incurred or imminent when the Estimates of the Votes of Credit are presented, so that the Government may not be found, if the War were suddenly brought to a conclusion, with moneys which they could spend on the peace services of the Army without their proper presentment to Parliament.
  The only other subject to be explained is how it is proposed to deal with Appropriations-in-Aid. We might take the Estimate of the Appropriations-in-Aid, and, whenever we asked for a Vote of Credit, put down a gross Vote, of Credit, deduct the Appropriations-in-Aid, and ask for a net Vote of Credit. That, I think, is rather contrary to common sense. A Vote of Credit is simply a way of liberating supplies from the Exchequer, and is in no way a balance-sheet. Or we might pay the Appropriations-in-Aid into the Exchequer. That would swell both scales of the Budget accounts, because Appropriations-in-Aid are not normally paid direct into the Exchequer, and to pay them in and get them out again would derange comparisons with previous and subsequent years.
  4.0 P.M.
  Therefore we propose, when we come to Estimate the Appropriations-in-Aid under these respective Votes more exactly than we can do at present, to ask the Committee to pass Supplementary Estimates, appropriating them so that they may be used in reduction of the Exchequer issues of the Services upon which they accrue. We take, therefore, not only the total Vote in the Army and Navy Estimates, but we take also the Appropriations-in-Aid and bring the actual Appropriations-in-Aid before the House in the form of Supplementary Estimates. I have tried

  281
  to explain this very difficult matter to the House in order to show that the question of financial correctness is not being altogether lost sight of even at the present time. I have tried to explain to the House the difficulties that the Treasury have in the matter; to take the House into our confidence; and I hope that I will not have wasted the time of the House in so doing.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be very undesirable indeed that the statement of the Under-Secretary for War should be delayed by a purely technical discussion on financial deportment this afternoon, and I will therefore say what I have to say in the fewest possible words. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has dealt with a great many possibilities which were before the Treasury. I think at this moment the House need not confuse its mind by attempting to follow all those possibilities in detail. The points which are material for our immediate consideration are very few and very simple. During the South African War we tried to conduct our military finance by means of ordinary Estimates. I am quite certain that that was a mistake. It did not lead to accurate Estimates. The Departments put a great many guesses before the House of Commons which were not subsequently realised. When you have not information, and cannot pretend to have it, in sufficient detail to make your Estimates accurate, it is better to tell the House of Commons frankly so at the beginning, and to take your money, as the Government now propose to do, by a Vote of Credit. That is, at least, treating the House of Commons with frankness and with confidence and not assuming to perform a task which in fact you find afterwards you were unable to do. If we once accept that principle, that you cannot frame accurate Estimates for a great War like this, it is not worth while dwelling on the point, which, however, is of equal importance in considering the matter, that, even if you could, it would be undesirable to do so because you would thereby give to the enemy detailed information which it is undesirable to disclose; and the more, therefore, of your Estimates laid before the House of Commons, the more damaging the disclosures made to the enemy.
  I assume, therefore, that the Government will not find their decision to proceed by way of Vote of Credit seriously challenged. But there are two things the House of Commons cares about. The
  282
  first is that, in agreeing to proceed by Vote of Credit, they shall not lose their opportunities for discussion. The Government have provided for that by presenting token Votes, rather than dummy Votes in the ordinary form, which will give the House of Commons the opportunity of orderly discussion of the usual kind on each class of Votes which arises on the Army or the Navy Estimates. The second point which it is important that the House should seek to preserve is that though money is voted, not in the usual way, but by Vote of Credit, the audit of the spending of that money is as effective and as comprehensive as usual. That the House will have found to be provided for in the arrangements explained by the Financial Secretary and embodied in the White Paper which is lying in the Vote Office at this moment I think I ought to say—I feel under an obligation to say it in these matters when I might be supposed to be speaking as an impartial critic—that the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Treasury did consult me as to the form the Votes should take. I was obliged to tell him that I had no authority to speak for my party, and could only speak for myself; but after hearing what he had to say, I expressed my preference for the form of voting Supply by Vote of Credit, the course which the Government have now adopted. I believe that the House of Commons will find that this preserves the essential features of their control—the right to discuss, the proper audit—and that, at the same time, it prevents any improper disclosure being made to the enemy by the form of our Votes.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): In rising to present these Estimates, I am confronted with certain difficulties, not purely of the financial kind just alluded to by my right hon. Friend, but difficulties which I think will at ones be apparent to the House. It has been the practice of my predecessors in opening this Debate to dwell upon many matters of interest ond importance connected with the Army—upon its numbers, its organisation, its distribution, their constitution by arms of the Services, and the purposes to which it is expected that Army will be put. Right hon. Gentlemen standing at this box in the past have expatiated in detail and at length upon these matters, when the chief interest has very likely lain in the distribution and organisation of the Forces of the Crown,

  283
  the differentiation, perhaps, between the Regulars and the Territorial Forces, and the size, it may be, of the Expeditionary Force, and how many troops will be left at home when that Force shall have left our shores. All that is denied to me to-day. There have been occasions in the past when the length of the speech introducing these Estimates has been, I think I may say, in inverse ratio to the size of the Army intended to be maintained by the Estimates. I propose to maintain, if I may, that paradox. Heaven help hon. Members if my speech were to follow any other ratio! I have reason to think that I may be able to carry out my idea, because be it remembered when I speak here to-day I speak not only to such hon. and right hon. Gentlemen as are kind enough to listen to me, but I also speak words that may reach and certainly would reach—if they were sufficiently indiscreet!—the Chief of the Staff of Berlin. That hon. Members may be very certain of! More, I am debarred from dwelling at all upon the size or distribution of our Forces, for if there be one thing of which we may be more certain than another, it is this: That the enemy wishes to know, more than anything else, the numbers of the Forces by whom he may be opposed in the future. I saw the other day in a newspaper a quotation from the German newspaper the "Berliner Tageblatt," in which the latter said:—
  "We know the enemy's strength at present, but not his strength in the future."
  They were despondent on that account. It is possible, and not difficult, to make a fair computation of the size of an Army under conscription. It is not so with ourselves, under what I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the Strand Division described as "the happy voluntary principle under which we live." We may have a large or a small number in proportion to the number of men in this country who are of military age and physique who have joined the Colours, but unless we tell the exact figure to the enemy he has no means of ascertaining it. I trust there is no one who has information of those figures who would be so rash or so irresponsible, or so lost to a sense of the gravity of the situation and of the value of the information which he might be giving away, to divulge it. Therefore, as I must be reticent, so I hope to be brief. But there are matters of great interest to this House, and of great importance,
  284
  which, I think, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will wish to discuss, and which it may be possible to discuss in this House. If I may be allowed to do so, I should like to divide my subject into two—questions of the Army here at home, and questions relating to the Army overseas. It will not be quite possible to adhere to that course strictly, because certain branches of the military departments and War Office touch them both, so that there is an intermixture.
  To begin with, questions relating to the Army at home. At the outset, as the House is aware, we met with considerable difficulty in providing accommodation for the troops which, on mobilisation, flocked to the Colours. We had the greatest difficulty in finding that amount of comfort, and even of the necessities of life, which men, who, from patriotic motives, had given up good homes and high wages to join the Colours, had a right to expect. But I think, and I hope the House will agree with me, that we have to a large extent been able to overcome those difficulties. At the outset we had recourse to a certain number of different expedients. For instance, commanding officers were instructed to provide from local resources equipment and clothing, and such things as blankets and mattresses, knives and forks, crockery, boots, etc., for the troops under their command. It does not require very much imagination to see how inconvenient, if not worse, it is that a number of the authorities under the War Office should be competing in the same market for the same article; consequently, that system had only a short run, and by great exertions the Department at home has been able to provide those necessaries, I think we may say, in a comparatively short space of time. Then we also had difficulties in the housing of the New Army. It was hoped at first that they might be put into huts, but huts could not be built in time. Nearly all the contractors became very much behind time in their contracts, and so the troops had to be billeted. The billeting of troops was never so good, from the Army training point of view, as I am sure the House will understand. When huts were getting on the extraordinary rainfall upset all our calculations, and men were sometimes put into huts, which had roofs on, before the work was actually completed in the hope that they might be kept dry; but I am afraid that was not always a success, and billeting again had

  285
  to be resorted to. After many vicissitudes and variations of that kind, it may now be said that we have very large numbers of troops in huts, comfortably housed, and it is hoped that before long the accommodation required for all will be available. I would like to say that the utmost resource has been displayed by the Departments, and among the troops themselves the very best possible spirit has been shown. Instances have been very rare indeed in which officers and men have not accepted the really hard conditions with which they have had to put up in the best possible spirit. Another gratifying feature has been the help which households of all kinds in villages and towns have given to our troops, and, further, the admirable—really the excellent—conduct of the men themselves in billets.
  The House will expect me, no doubt, to say something on the subject of recruiting. I can only assure the House that recruiting has been very satisfactory. Of course it varies from week to week, and, possibly, if at the present moment a little more energy were put into recruiting it would not be out of place. But, on the whole, there has been no cause for discontent, still less for any disquiet. But we want more men. Every man will be needed in this great life and death struggle in which we are engaged. The time approaches when we may have to make inroads—actual inroads have already been made—upon employment in important industries upon which large numbers of the population depend. Importat issues must be involved in the denudation of the labour market of large numbers of men of military age and physique If I might address myself to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, I would appeal to them to help the Government to organise the forces of labour, so that where one man joins the Colours, either another unfitted by age or disability, or a woman, may take his place. I would ask them to assist the Government also in granting, only for the period of the War, some form of relaxation of their rules and regulations, especially in Army work. I will give as an illustration, and as an inducement, if I might, that in the works of many firms, not so much the armament firms as the clothing firms, the Factory Acts, regulations and rules have been largely abrogated already, only for the period of the War, of course, and for Government contracts, I would sincerely ask hon. Members below the Gangway whether
  286
  they could not prevail upon the trade unions of this country to adopt a measure of a purely temporary kind for the relaxation of some of their more stringent restrictions.
  Apart from the question of relaxation, would it be possible for hon. Gentlemen who represent labour in this House to get such a union, for instance, as the Shop Assistants' Trade Union, to help us in a trade where women's work seems to be more desirable than men's, so that nearly all male labour, and certainly all labour of males of an age and physique fit to join the Army, should be dispensed with, and replaced by women's labour? I do not say it is a possible thing to do; I only throw it out tentatively, in the hope that something may occur to hon. Members so that they may be able to assist us in this matter. We are anxious not to dislocate industry any more than we can avoid. I believe that, with careful and good organisation, a person fitted to take his or her part in doing real service to the country at this time of great crisis, may be adapted to do the work for which he or she is best fitted. Many of the men are anxious to serve, and some are only restrained by the urgent representations of their employers that they cannot be spared; some of them have already joined the Colours without the permission of their employers—many, of course, have. In the case of the armament firms some have, by the instruction of my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for War, been brought back from France or Flanders, as the case may be, in order to keep the works going in this country. The Secretary of State for War is considering the possibility of issuing, at the termination of the War, a medal to certain technical workers in the armament firms who have served us faithfully and well in the manufacture of those articles, with which, owing to their zeal and skill, the Army in the field has been able to be supplied.
  May I turn now to questions concerning the Army in the field overseas? I should like the House to take note of the fact that troops have been brought from many parts of the world—India, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They have been transported over those long distances in ships by the Admiralty, without, so far as we know, a single casualty. When the numbers come to be known I believe it will be seen to be one of the most extraordinary feats in the history of transport. I am reminded of an incident I read a year

  287
  ago in a memoir of the great Napoleon by his private secretary, M. de Bourrienne. He says, dealing with his voyage in the "Orient" from Toulon to Egypt:—
  "It is scarcely possible that some accidents should not occur during a long voyage, in a crowded vessel—that some persons should not fall overboard. Accidents of this kind frequently happened on board the "Orient."
  Then he goes on to describe how greatly distressed Napoleon was, and how he instantly made the ship be laid-to, and exhibited the greatest uneasiness until the unfortunate individual was recovered.
  "One dark night we heard a noise like that occasioned by a man falling into the sea. Bonaparte instantly caused the ship to be laid-to, until the supposed victim was rescued from certain death. The men hastened from all sides, and at length they picked up—what?—the quarter of a bullock, which had fallen from the hook to which it was hung. What was Bonaparte's conduct? He ordered me to reward the sailors who had exerted themselves on this occasion even more generously than usual, saying, 'It might have been a sailor, and these brave fellows have shown as much activity and courage as if it had.'"
  What a contrast that is between the position then and the position to-day. It is not the splashing overboard of one man to-day, but the swift destruction of hundreds by an enemy who delivers his shots, or his blows, only as he rises at that moment to the surface of the water.
  Another matter in which the Admiralty has been most successful, and has rendered us great service, has been the provisioning of our troops abroad, both in articles of food and munitions of war. I would express to them our very great thanks, but I would also say that credit is in a large measure due to the food inspectors under Dr. MacFadden of the Local Government Board, and particularly to the Quartermaster-Generals' Departments, both at the War Office and at the Front, and the Army Service Corps, to whom I should like the House to give that tribute of praise and thanks which I think is eminently their due. I do not know whether it is worth while quoting from any articles in the Press; I have had a great number sent to me. There is, however, an eloquent tribute to the Army Service Corps in the "National Review," which is an organ that does not often find itself able to attach praise to the present Administration. The writer of the article (Mr. T. Comyn Platt) says:—
  "Not a day passes at the front that the British soldier does not have his full meat rations and many other luxuries besides. For instance, he gets his fresh bread every day, not new, I admit, for it is all baked at the base; still it is never more than a day old. Then he has fresh meat, three times a week, and on other days the very best tinned beef and bacon that can be supplied"
  288
  The writer describes the organisation from the centre brain at the War Office to the least important cog in the great wheel of supplies—the precision of ships that unload their cargoes on the quays of certain French towns, the forty-wagon trains that leave every night for the railheads, the vast organisation of motor lorries, carts, horses and men, by which the supplies are distributed to the trenches. I have a large number of such articles, but I thought this one the House might like to have read out. An army in the field cannot be kept without horses. The operations of the directors of the Remount Department have been admirably carried out. Those operations have been upon a scale of enormous magnitude. A great strain has been placed on the Remount Department already, and an even greater strain may possibly have to be placed upon them when we have our new and larger Armies in the field; but I am assured by the Quartermaster-General, and I believe, the House will be glad to have that assurance, that, owing to the timely arrangements made for purchases abroad, as well as to the great flow of horses offered in this Kingdom for voluntary sale, all doubt as to our ability to meet our requirements for horseflesh may be laid aside.
  I now come, to the Flying Corps. I think it has been proved beyond doubt that the British design of aeroplane has proved itself superior to that of any other nation, either the French or the German. That is due to the Royal Aircraft Factory and those concerned in it. The Royal Aircraft Factory owes its origin to my Noble. Friend Lord Haldane, who initiated it and established it, and the fact that so much progress has been made in the design of these aeroplanes is largely due to my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Secretary of State for War, Colonel Seely, who did admirable work in regard to aeroplanes. The workmanship and material put in make our aeroplanes last almost twice, if not quite twice, as long as any of the other Powers concerned. Coming to engines in aeroplanes, they are almost entirely French, and I would express our acknowledgments to the French Government for the very admirable assistance they have afforded us. But we are gradually, I may say that we are now actually, becoming self-supporting in the matter of aeronautical material. I wish to lay stress upon that fact. The first British engines are now in use. They

  289
  have not reached the front, but they are in use. I had the advantage of seeing the director of this branch to-day, and he informs me that it will not be very long before a number of British-made engines will be in use in France. The motor trade and the shipbuilding trade have both responded to our demands and our requests, and are now manufacturing aeroplanes. On the subject of recruiting I can only say that it has been extraordinarily good, and the class of men we are getting into the ranks is extremely good. They are not only of a very high class, but there are plenty of them. With regard to the officers, there is a very large waiting list of gentlemen who are anxious to join the commissioned ranks. I may be allowed to say here that in the operations, so far as they have gone, the British pilot has proved himself on every occasion, I believe without exception, to be absolutely superior to the German pilot.
  May I now come to the Territorial Force, which is my special care, and for which I am directly responsible to the Army Council. As the House knows, it was no part of the duty of that Force to undertake foreign service, but in spite of the very large additions we have made to that Force, the overwhelming and preponderating proportion of its members have taken upon themselves that obligation. Of the class of material it is unnecessary for me to speak. All I need to say is "by their deeds ye shall know them." I know that the Commander-in-Chief in the Field attaches the highest value to the units of this Force under his command. The Territorial Force has supplied large numbers of candidates for commissions both to the new Armies and to the new units of the Territorial Force, and owing to the growth and enormous increase in the size of the Territorial Force it has been found desirable and necessary to appoint an Inspector-General to assist the Director-General of the Territorial Force to report to the Army Council. His reports to the Army Council already show what a great amount of industry and efficiency animates those troops. I think we may fairly say that recent events have placed beyond doubt the value and the efficiency of the Territorial Force. I should not like to leave this subject without expressing my thanks, and the thanks of the House, if I may, to the County Associations who have done so much to bring about this much dsired effect. The County Associations have (1) clothed and equipped their
  290
  own units, and they have also performed additional duties; (2) they have assisted the Army Ordnance Department in maintaining the equipment of mobilised troops; (3) they have assisted in many cases in clothing units of the New Army; (4) they have made arrangements for temporary accommodation, and in some cases for the subsistence as well of the New Army and of the Reserve units of the Territorial Force; (5) they have paid family allowances and taken care of dependants, and they have done that upon a scale which was entirely unexpected; (6) they have also assisted recruiting. For all these matters we owe much to the self-sacrificing efforts of the County Associations and their staffs.
  I should not like to conclude without saying a few words upon certain aspects of the medical treatment of the wounded in France. I do not think there is very much that I can add to the narrative which I gave to the House in November last of the methods adopted by the Royal Army Medical Corps in bringing the wounded from the front to the clearing stations, thence to the base hospitals, and finally home here. Important as those functions are, the prevention of disease is even more important, and this is rightly regarded as the primary function of this corps. I think I am right in saying that this is the first war in which we have been engaged in which an organised sanitary service has existed. We owe the establishment of this service to my Noble Friend Lord Haldane. Since its establishment we have been gradually perfecting its organisation during the last five or six years. When we look back to the fact that during the Napoleonic wars only 3 per cent. of the deaths among our troops were due to wounds, and 97 per cent. due to sickness or disease; when you also remember the fact that during the Crimean War more deaths occurred from disease during the first three months than during the whole of the rest of the campaign, it is impossible to lay too much stress upon this preventive function of the Royal Army Medical Corps. How has this function been carried out? I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Arnold) for the very interesting and able report which he made to me after a visit which he paid to Paris, during which he got a great many figures. All the evidence which my hon. Friend brought, and which comes to me officially, goes to show that by far the greatest amount of sickness

  291
  amongst our soldiers at the present moment is due to the wet and the cold. Frost-bite and rheumatism are, I am sorry to say, very prevalent. We have issued from the War Office, through the Army Medical Department, a small leaflet to officers and non-commissioned officers, telling them how to prevent frost-bite amongst their men. My hon. Friend reports to me that, assuming the conditions of exposure of officers and men to be identical, frostbite is three times as prevalent among the men as it is among the officers. I do not suppose it is possible to assume that the conditions are quite identical, but you may be certain that the exposure of the men is not three times as great as that of the officers. My hon. Friend presumes that this result is due to the officers having better boots, leggings, and equipment generally. If that is so, it proves that there is a certain amount of preventability of frost-bite, and I hope by the steps we are now taking that this disease may be prevented to a larger extent then has been the case in the past.
  Coming to the question of enteric fever, I am glad to say that cases of this disease are luckily rare, and they have occurred almost entirely among the unin-oculated. The evidence is accumulating in favour of making inoculation compulsory. This is one of those subjects which ought to be settled without prejudice. My hon. Friend for Holmfirth who gave me this most interesting report holds strongly that inoculation against typhoid ought to be made compulsory. It is for the House to say what they think upon this matter. I can give the figures if hon. Members wish to have them. I gave them in answer to a question to-day, and they have been published in a leaflet to all soldiers with a prefatory note by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War impressing upon all soldiers the great importance of inoculation.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Does every soldier get one?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, it is sent to every soldier.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: Is it put up in the recruiting offices?
  Mr. TENNANT: Very likely. I have not time to go in detail into all the preventive measures taken by the Royal Army Medical Corps, but I should like to mention the sanitary squads, the water purifying
  292
  sections, and the travelling hygiene and bacteriological laboratories to which I drew attention in my speech in November. This is an entirely new feature, and these branches in particular are doing extraordinary and valuable work. Lastly, the Sanitary Commission sits at the War Office to advise the Secretary of State upon all matters relating to the health of the troops both at home and abroad. What I have said relates to the Army abroad, and it may be asked what are we doing for the health of our troops at home. Owing to the almost entire absence of the Regular Army Medical Service engaged upon field operations, certain difficulties have arisen, but thanks to the patriotic eagerness of the medical profession we have been able to obtain a high degree of efficiency. I cannot claim that complete efficiency has been achieved, but day by day the ideal is being approached. The new Army Medical Corps for the New Armies are now in course of formation, and I believe they will be able to do excellent work should the occasion arise.
  I hope that in the observations I have made hon. Members will not think that I am claiming complete efficiency either for this branch of the Service or for any other department of this gigantic machine over which my Noble Friend the Secretary of State presides. I do not expect, and I do not think we ought to expect, perfection. In human affairs wise men do not expect perfection, but in this respect I would repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not very long ago, just after that master hand had relinquished the seals of office on 10th September. He said:—
  "My tenure at the War Office was a brief one, but no one who has ever had the honour, as I have had, to preside over that Department, can possibly exaggerate the degree of efficiency to which it has been brought under the administration of recent years."
  If that was true then, have the five months which have followed it made it any less true to-day? I should like to be allowed to say of my colleagues at the War Office, of the members of the Army Council, of the directors and officers in their Departments, of the clerks and typewriters, even down to the messengers, that each and all have worked early and late, with a single-minded devotion to duty throughout those long and anxious months in a manner which, at any rate to emulate, was a severe test of endurance, and to watch was an inspiring example. I think it might interest the House if I were quite briefly to make certain comparisons between our

  293
  Estimates to-day and those of 100 years ago. In 1815, the year of Waterloo, the number of Forces voted, including Militia, was 246,988, and the total of the Estimates was £6,721,880. The men were less in numbers than the strength—not the establishment—of the Territorial Force in peace time, and the money, less, according to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said two or three months ago, than we spend in a week. So perhaps it is not surprising that Lord Palmerston, in introducing the Army Estimates for the year 1815, occupied two and a half columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT; and he wound up by saying that he would not enter upon further details because it might be tedious to the House. I hope that I have not been that.
  It has not been possible for me to make a review of all the operations in the field, or of the truly marvellous achievements of the British Army during the last six months, nor am I able to make any forecast as to what may be in front of us. The variations and vicissitudes of the great struggle in which we find ourselves engaged may call for even greater sacrifices from the nation as a whole than any we have yet had to make, although those have in many instances been heavy enough; but I do not believe there is a single man in this House whose is despondent, nor do I believe that there is a single man in this House who is not determined that this matter shall issue in one way, and one way only. The Allies must dictate the terms of peace. When that consummation may be achieved no man can say, but, whether it comes sooner or later, I venture to say that the efforts made by this people in the struggle of the Titans has been an effort worthy of our past, worthy of the traditions of which we are the guardians and the custodians. The gallantry of our soldiers in the field, from the great Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief down to the humble private in the ranks, has been such as to quicken the pubes and to dim the eyes of even the least sentimental among us, and their exploits—the bravery of our troops, and their endurance amidst circumstances of hardship, difficult to describe and impossible to exaggerate—have been worthy to rank with the most glorious deeds recorded in the annals of the past of any army at any time. It is my privilege to be the spokesman in this ancient and famous deliberative Assembly of such an Army at such a time.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am sure we shall all join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon the way in which he has discharged a very difficult task upon a very difficult occasion, an occasion which will certainly be historic, and which, as he has reminded us, has no precedent, but which I hope will not soon be repeated. The task which the right hon. Gentleman had to face was to put as concisely and as clearly as he could the case of the War Office before the House, and we shall all agree that not only has he succeeded in that duty, but, over and above it, he has shown in the remarks with which he concluded his speech that he faithfully represents the spirit of this great nation in the conflict in which we are for the moment engaged. The right hon. Gentleman spoke at the end of his speech of his privilege in representing for the day the British Army. He referred, in terms which were eminently fitting but with not one word more than of simple truth, to the glorious record of British arms, one so glorious that few people believed it could be equalled and still less that it could by any possibility be exceeded. May I add one very simple word on my own behalf?
  I remember when I was in South Africa discussing with General Botha his experiences of that great campaign. I asked him what fact stood out most prominently of all in his recollections of the Boer War, and he told me that above all the experiences which he had gained and which had impressed themselves upon him there was one which stood out, and that was the personal character of the British private soldier. May I add one word to those very eloquent sentences which fell from the right, hon. Gentleman, and pay a well-deserved tribute to the British rank and file for their conduct in the campaign which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, has been one of exceptional severity and of tremendous hardship. We have read reports of occurrences which we have all regretted and deplored, and of which no doubt we shall hear more at some other time later; but this can be said with literal truth. The British private soldier has come through the whole of this campaign, not only in France and Belgium, but also in the other parts of the world where British arms are engaged, not merely with credit but also with abundant proof, that his heart is as brave and as true, and that his hands are as clean as have been those of all his predecessors. That is no small thing to be

  295
  able to say of a vast Army such as we now possess, an Army which has been subjected to so much trial and difficulty, but it is a tribute which I venture with great respect, very inadequately, to pay, because I am sure that it is deserved, and that everybody who listens to me will not only approve of it, but feel, and rightly feel, that if it had fallen to his lot to do what I am doing he would have been able much better to express what is in everybody's heart.
  I would like to say one word as to the attitude of the Opposition on this occasion. The Leader of the Opposition some few days ago laid down what is the general position of the Opposition in regard to general politics, and I need hardly say that in regard to the Army and all connected with it the same rule will most strictly apply. If we make suggestions or criticisms they will not be made either for the sake of making them, or, still less, in order to find fault. They will be made in the same spirit in which our share in these Debates in and out of Parliament has been conducted ever since the commencement of the War. We have throughout asked only of the Government that they shall do two things: One is to prosecute this War with the steadfast determination to bring is as speedily as may be possible to the only end that any patriotic man can contemplate, a successful one; and the other is that in order to achieve this great result they will give, unhampered by any opposition here, the fullest measure of support to our Commander-in-Chief and the troops in the field. These conditions I know will be cordially and generously responded to by the Prime Minister and his Government, and so long as that is the case our attitude will be, as it has been, one of abstention from anything which can even by our most vehement critic be construed into an attitude of hostility or of opposition. We shall do nothing calculated in the smallest degree to hamper the Government in the discharge of the tremendous duty which rests upon them.
  The Under-Secretary of State told us that it was impossible for him now to review the general position, but I think we may with advantage and with pride on this occasion when we are voting the money we require for our Army very briefly review the position in which we find ourselves. The fighting in France and Belgium is a great historic fight which naturally attracts more attention than do other
  296
  combats, but the operation of our arms are not confined alone to France and Belgium. We are fighting in Africa, we are fighting on the Persian Gulf, and we are fighting in Egypt. I am not sure that covers the whole list. I hope and I believe, although these other scenes of war to which I have referred do not fill so great a place in the public eye at the moment, that this House and the country which it represents will not be forgetful of the fact that, though their deeds may not be so frequently chronicled, our soldiers there, are as completely and as fully discharging their duty to their country as our soldiers are anywhere else, and that they are fighting there the same cause as our soldiers are fighting throughout France and Belgium, the cause of the Empire. May I pay a passing word of tribute to the part played recently by General Botha? General Botha had to face rebellion in his own country before he could proceed to carry out the actual operations upon which, happily, he is now engaged. I am confident that we all have a profound admiration for the manner in which he has successfully dealt with that rebellion, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude for the public spirit which has led him to command the troops of the Union. I am confident we may look forward to the ultimate success of his arms, not only with a great feeling of certainty, but also with a great feeling of sympathy, inasmuch as his work has been made more difficult, and his operations have been made more laborious by the rebellion which was to him, I know, a matter of bitter disappointment, but which happily now has been dealt with, and which I think we may regard as a thing of the past.
  5.0 P.M.
  The right hon. Gentleman in his speech dealt with recruiting, but he did not tell us about two matters in regard to which I think I may ask for information without transgressing the rules which he laid down. I need hardly say that nobody here on this side of the House, and so far as I know nobody in the country, would willingly say anything or do anything which would be likely to hamper our troops by giving information to the enemy. I confess, and I believe the opinion is shared by a great many other people, that I think more information might, with advantage to the community as a whole, have been given without doing any harm to our cause—more information, for instance, in regard to recruiting. The right hon. Gentleman told us something about

  297
  recruiting, but he spoke in very general terms. I think it would have been better if we had known more of what is going on in these campaigns on the other side. I read, not very long ago, a remarkable article in the "Times" newspaper by the military correspondent of that paper—one of the most distinguished military writers now living—in which he dwelt upon the desirability of taking the country at large more into confidence as to what is going on. I think he made out a very clear case, and I wish very much the Government could see their way to act upon his advice. But on these matters we private individuals cannot decide; we may have our own views, which I have ventured to express, but we cannot decide. The Government who know the facts alone are able to judge the prospects, and they only are able to decide what is likely to be the effect of divulging information which they alone now possess. I hope that the effect of this reticence will not be unsatisfactory on the country, and I am bound to say I think if it does not have an unsatisfactory effect it will be enormously to the credit of the people that it should be so, because it is impossible to conceal the fact that the desire for this information is very widespread. It does not arise from any feeling of curiosity; it does not arise from any desire to be taken, as it were, into partnership with those who are responsible at this moment, but it is, I think, a very natural craving on the part of the people who, after all, make what we are doing to-day possible. I therefore think they should know a little more definitely and a little more fully what is going on, and what is the object which you have in view, than they do at present.
  But we are told by the Under-Secretary that we are not to have that information, and the right hon. Gentleman added upon this point a statement which was, I am sure, the result of knowledge which he and the Government possess, namely, that there is this difference between a country where you have got conscription and a country where you have voluntary service. In a conscript country you can, with fair accuracy, estimate the number of the troops; but you cannot do this in a country, he said, where you have the voluntary system. I hope the Under-Secretary is correct. But I have a shrewd suspicion myself—and it is one shared by a good many other people—that our enemies have a fairly accurate knowledge of the number
  298
  of troops we are raising. What you have really to do, if I may venture respectfully to say so, is to make an account of—as it were to balance up—the advantages and disadvantages of taking people into your confidence. On the one hand, as the Under-Secretary tells us to-day, there is a risk of telling the enemy something they do not know—a risk which certainly ought to be avoided. But, on the other hand, there is the risk of discouraging your own people. If I had to choose between the two risks I would far rather run the one of giving the enemy a certain amount of knowledge than run the risk of discouraging your own people. But I believe that, notwithstanding the fact that this feeling is strongly held, no discouragement is now-possible in this country. Our people have weighed this great issue and have made up their minds. The right hon. Gentleman told us that more troops may be wanted, and he was good enough to quote some words of mine dealing with the voluntary system. I am not going to discuss that system now. I am only going to state this. I believe myself—and I have been at some trouble to ascertain the views of my countrymen on the subject—I believe that as many men as you want you can get if you make it clear to them that they are really wanted; that their services will be availed of with as little delay as may be possible, and that you can follow the enrolment of the men with the provision of the equipment which is necessary if they are to be made available. I am a firm believer—and who is not in this country—in the voluntary system.
  But let me point out very briefly to the Government the difficulties which arise as a consequence of that system unless you are able, as I hope you may be, to adopt certain precautions. It is an inevitable consequence of the voluntary system if left to itself—and it is a result which has been experienced in this very war—that the proportion of men you take from different parts of the country and from different districts is altogether irrespective of the claims of those special districts on the men for other purposes. Say you have two areas a few miles apart; one is sending 12, 15 or 20 per cent. of its available population into the Army, while the other is not sending any men. The result of this is a great inequality in the bearing of the national burden. Although the Government are unwilling to give the figures, I hope they will examine them for themselves. They have got them. I asked them

  299
  if they would give me a Return, which I should be very glad to have, dividing the country into certain areas. I do not care how it is divided so long as you have something smaller than county areas, and giving the number of recruits with the Colours from each of those areas. Of course the Government could not consent to give that Return, because the result would have been to disclose the whole numbers. But the Government have these numbers before them, and I hope that, in issuing their orders to recruiting officers in the future, if it be necessary to recruit a considerable number of more men, they will have regard to those parts of the country which have done their share or more than their share, and will direct special efforts to be made in those parts where hitherto recruiting has not been so vigorous, and where at present, we are informed, there are still men available to be taken. This is specially the case in regard to our great national industry, agriculture. In some agricultural communities a very large number of the men have gone; in fact, there are none left who can now be spared, and it is obvious if you leave the voluntary system to work out its own result and do not assist it by some method such as I have indicated, the consequence may be, as indeed it already has been, to make an undue demand on some parts of the country while other parts are not doing their full share. I hope, therefore, that if there is to be a new recruiting campaign, if it be necessary to make a demand for still larger numbers of men, the Government will endeavour so to direct their efforts that all districts may share the burden with a reasonable amount of equality.
  I should have been very glad if the Government could have told us something to-day about equipment and Artillery. I believe it is a want of training and material that delays recruiting more than anything else. The right hon. Gentleman told us something of the sufferings of the men in the huts and so on. I have seen something of that myself on the spot. I have seen something of the discomforts which our men have had to endure at home. But although there have been very great discomforts, it has been extraordinarily difficult to get men to complain. You have even to suggest to them that there has been some discomfort. Men do not complain of these things; they take them as part of the day's work. As the
  300
  right hon. Gentleman has said, their behaviour has been magnificent, and my own limited command of the English language does not provide me, at any rate, with words which adequately express one's feelings in regard to the behaviour of these men. It has, I repeat, been magnificent. That discomfort has not been the obstacle. What has been the obstacle has been the knowledge that the men cannot get on with their work; that they cannot begin their training and complete it. I confess I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to tell us that this had been expedited, that the equipment is overtaking the supply of men, and that, in future, these delays will not occur, because I am quite certain they are a greater obstacle to an increase in the present number of recruits than any other difficulty with which you have been confronted.
  The right hon. Gentleman paid a well-deserved tribute to the men who have come to the Colours, to the soldiers of the Regular Army, to the Reservists, who have flocked to the Colours in a way which show how strong is our hold upon them, and to the Territorials, who deserve all the right hon. Gentleman said of them. But he left out one branch to which, perhaps, naturally he thought it not necessary to make special reference, and it is a branch of the Service which I think deserves mention; it is the National Reserve. These men are all men with settled employment, they are men of a certain age, and they have come forward and performed the thankless task of guarding our railway stations, bridges, canals, tunnels, and so on. Their action in so doing has been most creditable, and it has shown that they have shared in the national spirit. The right hon. Gentleman told us something about Home defence. I wish he could have taken us a little more into the confidence of the Government on this subject. I have endeavoured to follow carefully the various announcements which have been made, and I honestly confess I do not know at this moment in what position we stand in regard to Home defence in the event of invasion. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have told us more about the defensive forces of the country—I mean the forces for internal defence—under whose command they are, who is responsible for their general direction, and what the policy is to be, because, undoubtedly, there is at present a good deal of confusion. We have got, I think, a National Volunteer Force which is distinguished

  301
  some by uniform and some by wearing a brassard. I do not want to say a word against this Force, because every man is animated by a spirit of loyalty and devotion to his country, and is giving his services with the best possible goodwill. But I do think we should hear from the Government something more definite about it, because there are a great many people in the country who share the view which I hold very strongly, that, after the revelations of this War, after the bitter lessons of this War, after the unmistakable experiences of the War in France and in Belgium, it is not fair to ask our countrymen to take any part in national defence wearing only a brassard on their arm, and to tell them that their lives will be respected and that they will be treated as real belligerents. I do not profess to know exactly what the position of affairs is or what has been done about them, but I venture to say there are thousands of men in the country too old for active service, or not able to pass a medical examination, who are fully capable of taking their share in Home defence. You can get as many as you want; you can get them without pay; they do not want pay. They recognise it is their duty to defend their own homes. They do not ask to be paid, but they do ask two things: first, that they should be put under the direction and control of military officers who will know what to do with them and how to lead them, and, secondly, that they should be properly organised, in local corps if you like or in small corps, if you like—in all these matters they are perfectly content to leave themselves entirely in the hands of the Government and the officers selected to command them—but they wish to be utilised as a military force and to be given the opportunity to train themselves for that purpose. I believe this is a great opportunity which ought not to be lost.
  The fact that we are an island has been of the greatest advantage and a blessing to us, but it has also been, quite naturally, in some degree, a drawback. People have hugged to themselves the conviction that they were quite safe and need not bother. This War has taught them a lesson, and has aroused in them a new feeling. They realise that, even with our magnificent Fleet and the great Army we now have, there are possible risks of invasion, and they are ready to do almost anything that the Government asks them to do, if they
  302
  would only give them the opportunity. We ought to know who is to be in supreme command. There ought to be no doubt about that. Surely that is not information that can be of any advantage to the Germans. Surely it cannot be of any advantage to the Germans to know that there are thousands of able-bodied men in this country ready to give their services, many who are not able to go abroad, who would be willing to form themselves into a military force for Home defence. That is not information which can be of any possible help to our enemies, whereas it is information asked for by our own people themselves. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman is speaking in one or other of the Debates which will arise in the course of these Votes being taken he will tell us something more about it, for in his speech to-day he practically made no reference at all to it. Especially may I impress upon him that I hope he will be able to tell us in whose hands is to be given the chief command of the whole country, or, if it is not fair to mention the name, if he will tell us whether there is to be a chief command under whose direction the complete Home defence is to be.
  Mr. TENNANT: Sir Ian Hamilton commands the Central Force.
  Mr. LONG: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that Sir Ian Hamilton will be responsible for the whole internal defence of this country in the event of invasion?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. LONG: Not one area only?
  Mr. TENNANT: No. Sir Ian Hamilton is Commander-in-Chief of the Central Force, and, as such, the defence of this country is entrusted to his care.
  Mr. LONG: I cannot put it any plainer. I take the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I was assured only a week ago that Sir Ian Hamilton's command covered only a portion of the country, that it did not cover the whole country, and that there were independent commands outside him. I now understand that to be incorrect. I am very glad to hear it. I do not want in any way to press the right hon. Gentleman on the subject now, because it is impossible for him to carry all these things in his head, but I do ask that we may have some definite information upon this subject. There is a suggestion which I wish to make to the Government: it

  303
  bears upon recruiting. There may be some good reason why it should not be adopted; but I am confident that as regards the country districts it would be advantageous. Many of us are quite unable to understand why, in the present state of things, the Government maintain the distinction of recruiting and the raising between the battalions and the New Armies and the Territorials. They are raised for the same purpose, and neither of them contributes to the Reserve. It is quite true that the Territorials are not enlisted for foreign service, and that they have to volunteer afterwards, but everybody knows that every man who enlists, either in the Territorials or the Regular Army, or the Reserve battalions of the old Regulars, is not only ready to go abroad; has but one desire, and that is to go. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."] Of course, there is a certain number who join merely for Home defence. At present you have two recruiting offices side by side, both recruiting for different purposes. What I suggest is that you should have one recruiting office controlled by one authority, and that you should distribute your recruits as you want them for the purposes for which they enlist into the different forces. I believe it would mean economy and a simplification of machinery, and would avoid the difficulty which exists now in regard to recruiting. Men have no special wish to join the Territorials. I have had a good many come to me after enlistment who have found that they have joined a Territorial battalion when they wished to join a Regular battalion. You have extraordinary difficulty in arranging transfers, for there is a great deal to be done. If you were to concentrate your recruiting offices and your distribution the process would be much simpler and the results would be more satisfactory.
  I want to impress upon the War Office and the Government very strongly an improvement in conditions as regards noncommissioned officers and men in the Army at the present time, not merely in regard to pay. Of course it involves pay because the moment you give a man a "step," as it is called, it naturally brings in its train an increase in pay. But I beg the Under-Secretary to bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary of State, in whom we have the greatest possible confidence, and of his colleagues in the Cabinet, because it is a matter which presses specially upon our soldiers at the Front. At the present
  304
  time there are a good many cases, especially in the Army in France and Belgium, in which officers have been promoted for distinction in the field to the rank of brigadier. That promotion would in ordinary circumstances vacate the command of the regiment from which the officer is taken. The senior officer in the regiment, would then become colonel of the regiment, and so on. The War Office have adopted a system which ought to be condemned, and I am convinced it would be condemned by this House, altogether regardless of party, when they appreciate its true meaning. The spirit of the people at this moment would desire that the troops at the front should have everything done for them that can possibly be done to improve their position and to show that we are conscious of and appreciate the great work they are doing for us. This is what has been done: The colonel in command of a regiment is promoted to the rank of brigadier, but the War Office attach to that rank the word "temporary," so that he is only a temporary brigadier. The next senior officer becomes the officer commanding the regiment. Everybody knows perfectly well that there is all the difference in the world between the officer commanding your regiment and the colonel of your regiment. The officer commanding the regiment has all the responsibilities of the colonel; he runs all the risks—that is to say, he may have been an admirable regimental officer with someone else over him, but when appointed to the command on active service he may develop some weak spot in his character which may come out at an unfortunate moment. He runs the risk of failure, but he has all the responsibilities to bear and all the burden of looking after his officers and men, but he gets no promotion. That is an injustice which ought to be remedied.
  It has been said in some quarters that this promotion is desired for a pecuniary reason, and that it is evidence of a mercenary spirit on the part of these officers. I cannot conceive of anybody who knows anything of the British Army, from the Field Marshal down to the drummer boys, who would ever make a charge of that kind against a British soldier. I do not care what his rank is; the last thing he thinks of is the question of pay and how he is to be rewarded. The one thing he does think of is doing his duty. When you talk to these men in France or Belgium they are profoundly grateful to this House for all that it has done. They are grateful for

  305
  the kindly words written in the Press and spoken in speeches, but do you wonder that they hunger for the small recognition which is meant by actual promotion given to them when they are on active service? Remember that it goes right down. You promote the senior major to the colonel, and the senior captain becomes a major, and so on—it goes right down to the lower commissioned ranks. One of the small things that can be done is to ensure that these men shall be promoted. What is the objection? I am not raising this question here without having discussed it with the soldiers at the War Office. The objection is—that is the reason I raise it here—that it would leave at the end of the War a large number of these senior higher rank officers for whom provision could not be made. I venture to say here, what I said to the distinguished soldier with whom I discussed it, that that is a problem for the War Office to settle when the War is over, and I am quite confident that if it means extra expenditure this House would cheerfully bear it. It is a very small matter if looked at from the point of view of expenditure. I am convinced that whatever may be the difficulty of dealing with these officers afterwards, it is the duty of the War Office now to give them the substantive rank to which they are entitled.
  I know that there is an old rule in this House, and a very excellent one, that you should never use your position in this House to get advantages for yourself or your own friends. I am not sure that I ought not to take the House—it will forgive me for doing so—into my confidence, and frankly admit that my son will be one of those who would benefit if this change were effected. But I have no scruple in making the recommendation because this happens to be the case, because I am sorry to say that he has been so many years a captain that he is now one of the senior ones, and, therefore, I do not think it would be possible to construe it as an act of favouritism on my part, nor do I think I could be justly charged with using my position as a Member of Parliament to advance the interests of my own kin.
  From officers we come to non-commissioned officers. Here are cases which I beg the Under-Secretary to take note of and to deal with at once, because they are pressing. It happens in peace time that a non-commissioned officer is guilty of some offence. For this offence he loses his stripes. He goes back to the Colours. I
  306
  will give a concrete instance. There are plenty of them. A, joins a battalion, serves with it eleven or twelve years, and is promoted to the rank of sergeant. He is guilty of an offence. In this particular case the offence with which he was charged was insubordination to a senior non-commissioned officer, by whom he was put under arrest. He broke his arrest, and in a moment of folly, got drunk. He lost his stripes. In despair at this degradation he left the Colours and went to the reserve. Three months later the War broke out. He, of course, rejoined his regiment, served with the utmost distinction, and was the other day very badly wounded and disabled for life by the loss of one of his arms. Like the officers to whom I referred, it is not the money that this man wants, but recognition by the country. What he and many others who are in a similar position ask for is this. If they are recommended by the commanding officer of their regiment, and by their company commander as well, they ask that they may be reinstated to the rank they held, and that their offence may be wiped out. It is not a very great deal to ask, but it would be welcomed in the eases where this has occurred, and it would be welcomed by the Army as a recognition by the Government, by the War Office, and by this House of the fact that services such as they have rendered and are rendering deserve something more than the application to them of the usual hard and fast rules which are good enough, it may be, for peace time, but which ought to be broken through at a time like this in order that commissioned and non-commissioned officers and privates may have some clear indication and proof given to them that the services they have rendered are entitled to some special reward.
  With regard to pay, the War Office have recently re-arranged the pay of the officers. I do not believe that they know exactly what are the effects of their own regulations. I am informed, and I think my information is correct, that a Territorial officer who has left his battalion or his regiment and comes back to it for the War gets an allowance for his kit, but one who is serving them at the time, and may want a fresh kit, does not get the allowance. The allowance is given to regular soldiers and to Territorial soldiers, but the amounts paid differ. When you come to the actual pay, I can show the Under-Secretary that in some cases this rearrangement of the pay has resulted in

  307
  taking off a penny a day. That is not a great deal, but it is something. Then they are told that that is compensated for by no longer charging them in respect of furniture. It has constantly been urged here that you should treat these officers, non-commissioned officers and men rather more generously in these respects, and I urge that the War Office should have special regard to the position of the married man—the married man in India, for instance, or at home, not the men serving at the front so much. Married men who are sent to India to replace regular battalions which are in France, and men who are serving here at home, are called upon to make special deductions from their pay in respect of their wives. The result of that is that the married man side by side with the unmarried man is in a worse position. These are small things. They may seem to many hon. Members to be even insignificant, but I can assure them that they are very big things to the men who are serving with the Colours, and they would welcome such a generous re-arrangement as would put these men on an equality, and so show them that we are as good as our word, and that we are not content merely to speak soft words and to indulge in commendation of the services which these men are rendering, but that we are prepared to do everything in our power to improve their position, and to secure for them certain advantages to which they are entitled, and which can easily be secured if the War Office will listen to what I believe to be the opinion of the country.
  The Under-Secretary referred to huts. I regret very much that the War Office did not adopt a suggestion made to them from outside at the beginning of the War that they should take advantage of the knowledge and experience to be found in every camp and in every big town, by asking them to appoint a local committee to help them in regard to these questions. It has been to me perfectly extraordinary, the way in which the War Office has ignored local opinion and local advice in the selection of sites for camps, and in the letting of contracts for houses. The Financial Secretary the other day told us that some gentleman—I forget his name—had been specially selected by the War Office to advise them in regard to the buying of timber, because he was a great authority on soft timber. Certainly the War Office have become the proprietors of more soft
  308
  timber than any I have ever come across in the whole of my experience. The right hon. Gentleman at question time told us that the huts at Portsmouth were now watertight. This is what I complain of. I do not want to use strong language, but I think there is something very nearly approaching to a scandal in some of these cases. In scores and scores of cases you will be told, if you ask, that these huts are now all right. But why are they all right? Because they have been made all right in consequence of repeated complaints made to the War Office and made in this House. If you had taken advantage of local knowledge and experience, and had local committees, I believe all these difficulties would have been avoided. Local committees would take very good care that huts were properly erected. They would take care that timber of an unsatisfactory character would not be allowed to be used. I saw huts being put up for the War Office. I wrote to the War Office that they were building these huts of timber full of knots, and the knots would come out and the timber would shrink. The very first time fires were lit in them the timber shrank like a shirt made of bad flannel does after the first washing, and the result was that the unfortunate occupants had to live in draughty places with the rain and the wind coming through.
  These are small things, perhaps, but they are very big things for the men who are fighting for us, and our men ought not to be asked to endure this if it could be avoided, and that could have been avoided if you had taken advantage of the local advice and experience which was at your disposal. I cordially agree with what the Under-Secretary said. We owe an immense debt to the Secretary of State and his staff and to the Quartermaster-General for the marvellous work that they have done during all these months. It is impossible, adequately, to describe the work that has been done by Sir John Cowans as Quartermaster-General and by the Quartermaster-General at the front in regard to supplies of our troops, and I think the nation owes to him and his officers a great debt of gratitude, as I agree with the right hon. Gentleman we do to the whole of the staff of the War Office. If we find fault in regard to this question it is not because I want to blame the War Office or any individual. I know they have been working at high pressure day and night, and in many respects they have

  309
  been most marvellously successful. But if they would have been content to take advantage of the assistance which was forthcoming, and not to keep so very closely within their hands all the administration, most of these difficulties would have been avoided.
  Mr. TENNANT: The construction of huts was done by the local commands. It was not done by the central authority—the choice of place and that sort of thing.
  Mr. LONG: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure? Does he mean, for instance, that the huts of a place like Bordon were done by the officer commanding at Alder-shot, or that the huts at Codford were done by the general officer commanding the Southern district?
  Mr. TENNANT: Not the buildings. I meant the choice of sites.
  Mr. LONG: The War Office is a very big place, and it has an immense deal of work to do. I am the last to challenge any statement made by a Minister here, but I think there is some misunderstanding somewhere. I will not say more than that now. This is the sort of thing I mean. In my own county the War Office decided to put camps. I saw the beginning. I at once wrote to the War Office, and I said, "Do not take my word for it, but get half a dozen people in the country, and they will tell you that after October that site will be a swamp." It was a swamp when October came, and it has been a swamp over since. There are huts on it. It is an act of madness to put huts on a site like that. Any one of us could have told the War Office, as we did, that as soon as winter began, and during the whole of the winter months it would not be a suitable place to put troops. Moreover this was land of an exceptionally valuable character, and you destroyed land very valuable to farmers. You destroyed the property of individual owners, and up to this day you have paid them no compensation. I am informed by one of them that when he wrote asking for compensation, he was told this was done under one of the numerous Acts of Parliament which had been passed rather hurriedly last August, and that while he had no right to compensation, if he liked to make an appeal, something might be given him as an act of grace. That is all nonsense. If, for the public good, you destroy an individual's property, you must pay him a fair price for the damage you do. I only mention these matters because
  310
  every one of them would have been avoided if you had had at your command a local committee. There are many other things which could have been avoided, and which I am not going into now.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us something about the supply of certain articles of clothing. I come from a part of England where they make clothing, and I have lived long enough to know the difference between good cloth and shoddy. I am sorry to say that I have seen a very large amount of shoddy in the cloth used for the clothing of some of our troops. That could have been avoided. There were a large number of overcoats bought for the troops which were hopelessly unsuitable, because when they get wet they cannot be dried very easily, and that, I understand, is one of the characteristics of what is called "shoddy." I am only indicating cases in which there has been something amounting almost to scandal, all of which could have been avoided if the War Office had availed themselves of the experience and advice offered to them. The Under-Secretary was wise and prudent when he declined to take the House into his confidence as to what may be in store. We all hope that this great war may end speedily, but in order that it may end speedily we should be wise to contemplate its possible prolongation. We shall be wise, I am confident, to lay all our plans so that all men may see that, whatever may be the duration of it, we are determined to see it through to a successful termination.
  Therefore I ask the War Office to adopt some of the suggestions which I have to-day ventured to make. I beg of them to say whether they cannot adopt the suggestion I have made in regard to officers, non-commissioned officers and men. I do not blame the War Office for these things. They have different things to consider, and I recognise all that, but I do not believe that they recognise the spirit of the nation in these matters. Many will ask themselves—"What will be said hereafter when these matters have to be considered in the cool light of day?" I ask them to do everything they can for the soldiers who are fighting for us, and to take advantage of all the assistance they can get in order that they make the best provision for them at the least cost. There is no question of wasting money or throwing it away. I ask the War Office to spend it well in the interest of the

  311
  soldier, whether abroad or at home. Do all you can to assure him that we regard his services, as beyond all praise. We should not be content merely to say so, but we should give proof of it, in order that the men who are fighting in distant fields may realise that they have not only our gratitude and respect, but that we are determined to probe those cases to the bottom, so that we may be able to give them every material advantage it is possible for this country to provide them with.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I want to call the attention of the House to a matter which relates somewhat to recruiting. I wish to call attention to what I know to be a great injustice that has been done to one lad, at all events, and probably his case is only symptomatic of what has happened in a great many others. Under Section 13 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907, and the rules laid down in regard to it, it is provided that a recruit can sign for foreign service or simply for Territorial service as originally understood under the Act for service in this country. The story is this: A lad of eighteen years of age joined the Scottish Horse in the spring of last year. By and by he received a document of which I have here a copy which was sent to me by the kindness of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. This young lad changed his mind and objected to go abroad. He was an only son. I do not object to only sons going abroad as well as others, but still it is necessary that we should be careful to fulfil our conditions to this young man, whatever those conditions may be. I wrote to the Colonel of the regiment and pointed out that this young lad, according to the civil law, was incapable of making a binding contract. I do not know how that might be affected by military law. I said that all these young people ought to be allowed to consult their parents, and that the parents ought to give consent. The Colonel replied in a very long letter which evaded the point of the question altogether. He said that if he allowed this young man to evade foreign service, a great many others would claim to be exempt. I wrote back to say that I did not think a young lad like that ought to be held to his bargain. I got no reply to that letter, and I wrote to the War Office. My right hon. Friend sent me the form of contract which is signed by these young men. It says:—
  "I do hereby agree, subject to"—
  312
  I ask the House to mark this:—
  "the conditions stated overleaf, to accept liability, in the event of national emergency, to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (2) (a) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907."
  This is the condition:—
  "On undertaking the liability to serve abroad in time of national emergency, an officer or man of the Territorial Force will be required to sign an agreement, on Army Form E 624 in the presence of the officer commanding the Territorial unit to which he belongs and unless notification to the contrary is given to the Commanding officer, the liability will continue as long as the officer's or man's engagement in the Territorial Force lasts."
  There is allowed to each young man what lawyers call a locus penitentia. He is allowed to change his mind so far ass foreign service is concerned. I wrote to the colonel, pointing out that evidently, in his previous letter, he had forgotten this condition on the back of the document which the young man signed. It was a long time before I got an answer, but ultimately he wrote stating that he had been waiting to see the commanding officer of So-and-so's regiment, in order to see how matters, stood if the young man was fit for service. He stated that if the lad was fit for service and was of ripe age, he could not withdraw. That is not true. It is absolutely untrue. The commanding officer is evading the whole question. Then I understood that the lad had been discharged, but I have heard since that that is not so. I pressed the question again, and my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary called upon this colonel to make a report. That was six weeks ago, and the report should have been made by the middle of January last.
  Mr. TENNANT: It was called for on the 16th.
  Mr. HENDERSON: In a simple matter like this the colonel should have replied in a week. Last week I got a report, and again the question is evaded. It states that Private So-and-so was interviewed privately, and that the lad stated that his age was nineteen on 8th December last. I say that he was eighteen when he signed the document, and that was last spring. This confirms the statement as to his age. The report says that he signed the service form of his own free will, and under these circumstances it is not possible for him to be relieved of duty. This colonel overrode the rights of the youth. The young man had a right to withdraw, and I challenge you to deny it. If you do not bring that colonel to book, I say you ought to do so. The young man had a right to

  313
  change his mind, to avoid foreign service, and to remain in the force for Home service. Is there anything which has contradicted this order? Is there any condition under which this order is abrogated? I do not deny that the young man agreed to serve in the first instance. Now the colonel brings pressure. I believe the colonel has done very well, and has been very successful in his recruiting. I grant that he has served the country well, but still that does not justify him in breaking the laws of the country. That is the point I put. I am perfectly certain that, however much you may think that the lad's parents might have allowed him to go on foreign service, he has the right to withdraw. The colonel puts the thing aside, and will not do his duty. As to sending these boys across to the front, of course I am not a judge, but, so far as I can judge, I think it is a very great mistake. I have myself seen about half a dozen of these young men who have come back with their nerves completely shattered. They have not been touched by shot or shell. How can you expect a lad of nineteen to stand up in the nerve-racking War which is going on just now? You are only wasting material.
  An HON. MEMBER: It is in all the armies of Europe.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. HENDERSON: That is all the worse for the armies of Europe. I know of one of these young men who came home entirely broken down. A big shell exploded within fifty feet of him. He was not touched, yet he was put completely off his balance, and was sent home. I may be wrong, but at all events this is the position with regard to that young fellow. He has gone into the Territorials under Rule E. 624. That contains the condition that he may withdraw from foreign service if he notifies his commanding officer. He has notified the commanding officer, and fulfilled that condition to my certain knowledge, yet the colonel would not do his duty and forward to the War Office the withdrawal of this young man from foreign service. We ought not to compel a young man against his will, having regard to the conditions under which he signed, to go abroad. There is another matter to which I wish to call attention. The Territorial portion of the Royal Army Medical Corps includes a number of officers who were in the Territorials before the War. These men have been serving for
  314
  two or three years; they have been working during that time, and now they are not allowed anything for a fresh uniform, although their old uniforms are worn out. That is what I am told. New officers joining are allowed £50 for uniform, but those who were in the Force before, and were doing their work, are not allowed a single farthing and have to provide the uniform themselves.
  There is another question. I do not know whether it belongs to the War Office or to the Foreign Office; it is in reference to prisoners of war. A great deal of suffering and trouble are caused to the parents and relatives, mothers and wives of officers who have been wounded and are missing. One officer I know was wounded in the middle of August and his people heard nothing of him until last month, which was nearly five months. As I understand, and I have made some inquiries, the rule is that the Germans allow no communication from a wounded prisoner so long as he is in a field hospital, or otherwise in the area of the War. I know that to be the rule from the inquiries which I have made both at home and abroad. Sometimes a letter has got through owing to the help of some nurse or some doctor, and on two occasions to my knowledge by the assistance of a German officer, it has been got through and posted to friends of the prisoner. But when the prisoner gets in the German hospital he is allowed to communicate at once. I have it from three officers who were in hospital in Germany. I have letters from them all. They wrote within three days of arrival in hospital in Germany. There was a time in this country when the rule obtained, particularly in the principal military hospital, of following the German example, and not allowing any communication of a wounded prisoner to go through. I am very glad to say that the matter is not so now, and that there is no difficulty in a wounded prisoner in this country communicating with his friends, just the same as there is no difficulty in a wounded prisoner in Germany doing so, so long as he gets to hospital outside of the fighting area, though there may be delay. That is a fact for which I can vouch from my own knowledge. I think that that is an unfortunate position, which might be remedied. It is not sufficient that no restrictions should be put on men writing. The moment a man is taken prisoner, be he wounded or not, there should be some communication from the hospital where he is to his friends by wire or otherwise.

  315
  The man may be ill, or may be so badly wounded that he will be incapable of making any active exertion, and he may remain in that position for weeks. Then what I would suggest is that the War Office and the Foreign Office, if they can manage it, should adopt this course, and I feel sure that Germany, notwithstanding all the bitterness, would follow the same lines. Every soldier carries an indentification plate upon him, and when a wounded prisoner is taken the newspapers both in Germany and in England ought to publish that man's name or his number, as being simply a wounded prisoner in hospital. The value of that would be that the relatives would be saved a long and miserable period of waiting and imagining for weeks together when a wounded prisoner cannot communicate; it would be a very simple matter; I am told that in all the hospitals in France in the fighting area, and certainly in the hospitals near it, a strict register is kept of every man who is sent to that hospital. If his identification number, and where possible, his name, were published in the "Times"—never mind his letter: let him write when the can—then all his relatives would know that he was not lying in the field and neglected, or that he had not been done away with in any other way. If we adopted that course I believe that the Germans would adopt the same course. I cannot see what information can be conveyed to the enemy by the mere statement that a man is a wounded prisoner. We need not even say in what hospital he is. So long as the number or name were published, his relatives would know that at all events he had a fighting chance in hospital, either in one country or the other. I know that our War Office and Foreign Office and those of Germany are not on speaking terms, but still this might be done through some neutral agency who would bring about this great boon, and people's sufferings would be ended, and they would not have to wait for weeks or months, during which no trace could be found of the missing man. A little good sense, a little administration, a little organisation could effect this thing, so that the moment a man went to hospital his number or his name would be advertised and his people would know what had happened to him.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not propose to deal with the first part of the speech of the hon. Member which has reference to a grievance of a personal character, though
  316
  I would say to him very respectfully that I am not sure that he was very well advised in bringing the matter forward. In reference to the latter part of his speech, which dealt with prisoners of war, I am very glad that attention has been drawn to the matter in this House. I think it very important that it should be discussed, and that the full facts as to how we treat German prisoners of war should be known to the whole world. I hope very earnestly that the War Office will take steps to publish as widely as possible everything which we do, to clear away the misconceptions which may exist. I had an opportunity of seeing something of our treatment of prisoners of war, and I am quite sure that we have nothing whatever to be ashamed of in the way in which they are treated. The more that is known about it the better. None of us can discuss with any knowledge what exactly the Germans do. We have heard stories, I hope many of them exaggerated stories, as to their treatment of our prisoners. I am afraid that at any rate in some of the places of internment in Germany our prisoners are not well treated. I am quite ready to believe, indeed I am forced to believe, by their conduct in other matters, the report of their ill-treatment, and that it is due to what I can only describe as calculated callousness. I do not think that that is the whole thing. I have been very much struck from the enquiries which I have made with the prevalence of the belief—I am not talking about the Government or the military Powers, but about the general population—that we do not treat our prisoners well. We know, at least anyone that has been into it knows, that that is utterly untrue, but the belief exists. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has shown that even he is not aware of all that we are doing in that respect. He was very anxious that the moment that a German prisoner was taken his name should be ascertained from his identification disc and should be published. The hon. Member really, I think, underrates the difficulties which lie in the way of identifying anybody. To begin with, the plate may not be there. I do not know about German soldiers, but unfortunately I know that in many cases the discs are not kept by our soldiers.
  Mr. HENDERSON: They ought to be.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I merely take the fact from my own personal knowledge. I know that they are not in many cases. Very often it is found that the identification

  317
  disc is not kept. Apparently the question of identification and publication of a name is surrounded with difficulty. Many of us are accustomed to complain of the great slowness in the publication of casualty lists. Perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, it might be done more quickly, but anyone who has been into it and who has tried to publish lists, will realise that the difficulties are enormous. Take the case of a private, it may be in a Scottish regiment, who has one of those names which are widely spread in Scotland. There may be a dozen or twenty privates of the same name, very often in the same regiment. If you publish the name and get the number wrong, then instead of relieving anxiety you may be imposing anxiety of a very poignant character upon a number of people. It is not so easy as the hon. Member imagines, but I will tell him what we do. We have set up in this country a prisoners' information bureau, which, if I may be allowed to say so, is admirably managed. The business of that bureau is to collect into lists every week the names and the numbers, and everything that is known about every prisoner, wounded or unwounded, whom we take. That is sent over once a week to Germany. I do not think that anything more could be done, and it is far better than having it published in English newspapers. It is sent to the German authorities, and they can publish it in every newspaper in the country if they like. I have no doubt that they do publish it, but the lists we send over are infinitely more detailed and are produced infinitely more rapidly than those we receive from Germany. That is the real and actual fact, and I think it is very important that we should not underrate the work being done in this direction.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I do not underrate it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member has done so in some respects, whether he meant to do so or not. Indeed, I rather doubt whether many Members of this House would be able to give any intelligent answer as to how we are treating German officers and prisoners who are in our hands. I appeal to the Government not to allow what I cannot help thinking is the rather excessive worship of secrecy, affected both by the naval and military administrations in this War; I appeal to them not to carry it too far, because I think there is not the least need to conceal
  318
  anything as to our treatment of German prisoners of war, and I think the whole world should be allowed to know exactly what we are doing. On the question of the medical service, the right hon. Gentleman said, very truly I thought, that we had a right to congratulate the country on the extremely admirable way in which the whole army in the field is looked after in this War. There were, undoubtedly, in the earlier stages of the War, some difficulties, but, so far as my knowledge goes, the medical services, the hospital transport, the hospital trains, the hospital ships—one of which the Germans tried to destroy the other day—I believe have never been anything like so excellent as they are now, and as to the personnel, it would be an impertinence on my part to praise it. In regard to the question of innoculation, undoubtedly, I think, some of our Colonial troops would have a right to complain if we did not innoculate the whole of our troops, as I understand the Colonial authorities have innoculated the whole of theirs; it is not fair that they should be exposed to the danger of infection which might arise through any defects in administration.
  But while I think the administration is very satisfactory and very creditable to the Department, may I venture to claim some small fraction of praise for the voluntary aid associations? I think their work has been excellent and has been admirably carried out. I sometimes think that their functions are perhaps a little misunderstood. Their main function, or, at alt events, one of their great functions, is to provide a natural outlet for the patriotic benevolence of the people of this country. I think that is very important. People complain that such associations are only doing what the Army authorities are already doing, but still it is a great advantage to be able to say to the people of this country, "If you wish to show in a practical way your sympathy for the troops, you can give your money and services to this organisation, and thereby do something more for the soldiers than can be accomplished through ordinary channels by citizens." These associations are undoubtedly useful in meeting sudden emergencies, or unforeseen and exceptional difficulties that may arise. The right hon. Gentleman will bear me out in paying a tribute to the immense value of their services in providing motor-ambulances at a particular stage of this War. The question of immediate communication between

  319
  the sick and wounded and their friends is not a, very simple matter to deal with. Not long ago, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there was difficulty in regard to British soldiers brought to this country; they were landed at a particular port in this country, and were put into trains for various hospitals which happened to have room. They were sent off, and no one knew what had become of them, and it was difficult to find them sometimes for a long period, their relatives knowing nothing about them. That is one of the matters in which I think these voluntary agencies have done something. It was suggested by the Government that postcards should be provided, to be sent immediately on the arrival of the men at the hospital.
  But I have a grievance in connection with that arrangement. We provided the postcards, and we do think the Government might take them post free. It really is a most astonishing state of things that postcards can be sent by a soldier in France post free, and, I believe, if he manages to get his postcard posted at the dock at Southampton it still goes post free, because he is not then taken to have arrived in England; but when he is taken to hospital from that time forward he has to pay postage. That seems very hard indeed. The society, however, comes in and pays the postage for him. That appears to me to be perfectly ludicrous, for the duty clearly lies upon the Government to inform the relatives of where the soldiers are. This is accomplished for them by the agents of this society, yet they are still required to pay the postage. Soldiers in hospital in France can send their letters and postcards post free, yet when they come to a hospital here, though still on active service, in the real sense of the word, until they are discharged by the military authorities from the hospital, and exactly in the same position as when they were in hospital in France, they have to pay their own postage. The French take a much more generous view of these matters and carry all such letters post free without any question at all. I venture to bring that matter to the attention of the House, because it is one which has some importance.
  I desire to make one other observation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to relax the censorship on letters sent from wounded soldiers in France—at any rate from the base hospital.
  320
  I do not say anything about the clearing stations; there may be some objection to allow freedom of communication in that case; but at present I believe—it certainly was so very lately—a wounded soldier is not allowed to write in his letter the name or place of the hospital; he was allowed to write the number of the hospital in which he was being treated. The result has been really to produce very painful cases indeed. I know of a case where the persons concerned got a letter from the officer saying that their relative was lying wounded in hospital—simply that. They did not know where to look for him; they searched, and before they found him he was dead. That is really deplorable. I know another case of a friend of mine, whose son, in one of the regiments, wrote him a postcard:—"I have been moved from Boulogne to Rouen." The Censor struck out the "Boulogne" and "Rouen," and the letter read: "I have been moved from blank to blank." The Censor did his work so badly, that they were able to read the names he had struck out. That seems to me to be a perfectly needless rule that should be relaxed, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the authorities to see whether that cannot be done. It really cannot be a matter of secrecy that a soldier should write that he has arrived at such and such a base hospital from another hospital. I only mention that in passing, in the hope that the Government will see whether anything can be done. Then there is the question of facilitating the visits of relations to wounded soldiers. I merely mention the matter for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. It does seem to me to be a very bad thing that, whereas the rich person can, of course, visit his relations in hospitals in France, the poor relation is very often found in the difficulty of not being able to do it. I do not know whether anything can be done. I quite recognise the difficulties, and I hope the subject will not be lost sight of.
  There is one other matter. There are advantages in removing patients as soon as possible from the French hospitals to this side of the Channel, and the relations desire, naturally, that it should be done as rapidly as possible. I only venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to watch carefully that this is not done too much and too rapidly. In the natural and great anxiety of the relations to get the wounded soldiers to this side of the Channel, there is danger of their

  321
  being removed before they can really bear the journey. I hope that will be carefully watched. Speaking of the medical service as a whole, I should like to say that I think the Government have done wonderful work, and I hope that they will not weary in well-doing. Things are extremely good, yet still there remain matters which require attention. I do not want to be thought ungracious, in the circumstances, or to dwell on any defects; I do not want to dwell on them; I can only say there are some improvements which I hope will be carried still further. I think it is of immense importance, at least, that, the services of women should be used as much as possible, both for the sick and for the wounded. I think, often, that we do not perhaps in this House consider what claims the women who are in this country have to our consideration to everything being done to enable them to find some employment at something which will enable them to get rid of the anxiety which they are often called upon to bear. Therefore I am very anxious that everything should be done to give them employment for the benefit of the Services.
  I am sure that the more you can get nurses into hospitals, and the nearer you get them to the front, consistently with military requirements, the better it is both for the soldiers and the women, and for the doctors and for everybody concerned. I thank the doctors most warmly for in the earlier stages initiating the reform of allowing nurses to go to what are called the clearing stations. I think it is a great improvement. I am told they have now two nurses to each clearing station. I do not know whether that is right, but if only two, I hope that they will be able to have even more. I am sure it would be of enormous value, and I am sure that their presence has been of incalculable benefit to the men. I do not think that on the whole we are bound to express in this House our very warm thanks of what the whole of the medical services have been in this War. From the heroism of the Royal Army Medical Corps on the field, which has been past all praise, to the services of the orderlies in the hospitals, everything has been dictated by the highest patriotism and the highest heroism, and this House would not be doing its duty if it did not record on this occasion—as on any other occasion—its appreciation of the services that are being rendered by the medical profession.
  Mr. HODGE: I desire to associate myself with what has been already so well said from the two Front Benches as to the calibre of our rank and file at the front. In addition to that we are all, I think, extremely proud of the chivalry of our officers at the front. Coming in contact, as I have done, with wounded soldiers who have come back from the front, it appears to me, considering the conditions they are fighting against, that they have been too chivalrous. I have no desire to enter into a general criticism of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State. There seems to me to be only one carping note in it, and it would have pleased us on these Benches better if, instead of indulging in insinuation, he had told us exactly what he wanted from us. I happen to represent a trade which is largely engaged in the manufacture of the munitions of war, and I say, without hesitation, there has not been a demand made by an employer that has not been granted so far as doing everything that was possible in the provision of our soldiers with the necessary equipment and munitions of war. Unless in a very exceptional emergency, Christmas Day is a day when the works are absolutely and entirely idle. Last Christmas in those, great armament firms when they made the request to our men that they should forego their usual Christmas holidays the men without hesitation and without a grumble worked. Not only was that the case, but let the House realise that in those establishments the men work a twelve-hour day for six days in a week, and when urgent demands have come either from the Admiralty or from the War Office that they desire more munitions of war the men without hesitation have worked right through the week-end, not once or twice, but on every occasion upon which they have been asked. I think that consequently the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made was very ungenerous so far as those men are concerned.
  Again, I know as a positive fact, so far as many of the firms are concerned, which are doing work not only for the Admiralty, but for the War Office, instead of putting all their available men on Government work the greater portion of them are working on material that is being produced for private firms, and then men are asked probably to work eighteen hours out of the twenty-four on armaments, and when that is done day after day, and week after week, the physique of the men cannot

  323
  stand it, and the men naturally say, "Why don't you take the men from your private work and put them on to Government work?" The workmen are not always the sinners, and I think, that in defence of the class I represent, I am entitled to make this defence. I do not think that there is any body of men in this country who have been more patriotic than the trade unionists have been, because they realise that in what they are doing they are as much serving their country as the men at the front. From the War Office and the Admiralty instructions have been given that in these great armament establishments the number of men who have offered themselves for the front has been so great that no more of them are to be taken, because the making of the munitions of war and equipment is as essential as to have men at the front, because it is no good having the men there is you cannot equip them. I think, therefore, before statements are made by a responsible Minister he ought to assure himself as to his facts.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that those who are working in supplying munitions of war, and supplying food and supplying clothing, are doing their level best for the good of the country and to end this wicked and unprovoked War as soon as possible. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman myself to throw any aspersion on them at all.
  Mr. TENNANT: Hear, hear.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: As far as I heard what he said I did not understand it so, and I am perfectly certain he did not mean it so.
  Mr. TENNANTassented.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Everybody in this House knows perfectly well that there is not a man of those working in those factories but would at this moment, if he had the chance, put on his uniform and go out to the trenches and fight for his country, but they cannot be in both places, and it would be fatal for us in any way to denude the great factories of this country of those men who understand their business, because you could not replace them with men who did not. I entirely agree with what the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) said about the missing. I think that everything possible ought to be done about
  324
  the missing through the American Embassy. The Prime Minister promised me he would have a sort of committee so that we should know not only about the missing, but also as to how our prisoners, both officers and men, are treated in Germany. The Germans know perfectly well how we treat their prisoners here, and in the circumstances of the case, according to the atrocities—and I hope they are not all true, although some of them are true—that our men have experienced in warfare, we are treating those Germans in a good British, chivalrous manner, and no matter what they do there I hope we shall not have reprisals. There is, however, a very sad part of this War, to which the Noble Lord referred, and the saddest part of it, in my humble opinion, is this question of the missing. There will be a very large number of missing that we shall never hear of. It has been imperative after great actions to dig great pits, great graves, and fill them in with friends and foes of different nationalities alike, and those we shall never hear of. That is a very sad episode to-day of this War, and anything that can be done to find out about those that are alive and missing will, I am sure, be done by the Government and the Cabinet. It should be done, if I may humbly suggest, in a more vigorous way than it is being done at present.
  There was a point mentioned by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) with regard to the promotion on the filling up of places, both of officers and men, of the ranks above them. That has been necessitated by wounds, invaliding, or death. I hope that the War Office is going to give those people their substantive rank when the War is over, because they are the men who are pulling us through, and who are laying down their lives and risking their health, and doing everything that mortal men can do to end this War and save the country. Even if there are too many brigadier-generals, or sergeant-majors, or too many sergeants when the War is over, then let us settle in this House to have too many, and to pay them and give them their substantive rank. It is not for the pay, but for the honour of the position, and I am sure that the House will sympathise with the sentiment which my right hon. Friend brought forward. There was a question about the medical department. Never in history of any war have the medical people behaved in such a splendid way as they have in this War. They have been unselfish, gallant, they have lost their lives,

  325
  they have taken out the Red Cross motors even though they were fired at and shelled, and they have still remained in order to bring the wounded in; and not only that, but they have been chivalrous to the wounded of the enemy, which I do not think we can claim for the German nation. Do also let us pay our debt of gratitude to the great medical authorities at home who have taken the place of Army doctors, while many of them have thrown up very large practices, and they have also shown that good British spirit which has been so evoked in every class during this terrible War. There was one point also brought forward about the question of voluntary enlistment. There is nobody in this House wants to see compulsion of any sort, or conscription, but I have been a good bit about recruiting, and I have had men say to me, "Lord Charles, what you say is right and correct, but I am a married man and I have £3 (or it may be £4) per week, and how do you think I can go out and risk my life and leave my family when I can point to twenty young fellows about me who have none of those ties at all?" I must submit to that argument, although I do not want to see compulsion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman below me that we ought to be more careful in our leaflets. We ought to have leaflets in regard to which there can be no misunderstanding. We have had some very great misunderstandings about both separation allowances and pensions. Let the men know exactly what allowances they will get if they join the Service. If there has been a mistake—and we are all liable to make mistakes—let it be broadly published that it was a mistake, and let the men know thoroughly what allowances will be made if they give their lives for their country. I will not detain the House longer now, but I should like to speak again when the question of the Censorship is brought forward.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I should like to associate myself with what the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford) has said about temporary rank. Officers are put into responsible positions, such as that of commanding battalions, sometimes with only the title of captain. They are treated as captains in every way, except that they are given the whole responsibility of a full colonel in command of a battalion. The same thing goes all the way down; it ought to be looked into, not only as regards the commissioned ranks, but also as regards the non-commissioned
  326
  ranks. Lance-corporals act with all the responsibility of sergeants. They ought not to be treated in that way. Men who have earned their promotion ought to get it. There ought to be no cavilling about it by saying that there are so many officers wounded or prisoners of war who may come back again. Some of the battalions at the front have lost 75 per cent. of their numbers, and an even greater percentage of their officers. The men who are put in command ought not to be told that they cannot be given their proper rank, because the other officers may come back later on. I associate myself with most of the statements made by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) in regard to the wounded, and I should like to add my evidence in regard to the excellent work done generally in that respect. But it is very necessary that there should be more women employed. The hospital orderly is a very good man for certain work, but there is no doubt that a nurse is a much better person for attending to the wants of a sick man. To limit the number of women is a great mistake. I know that there are other reasons beside those which have been suggested. One very grave reason is the shortage of Army trained nurses. There are not sufficient Army trained nurses to put more than two, I think, at each of the advance stations. If there could not be another Army trained nurse, I would rather have a third female, although not so efficiently trained, than a hospital orderly. Many of the hospital orderlies are very good indeed. They have done splendid work at the front, often risking their lives in getting the wounded away from the trenches; but very often, and especially in some of the base hospitals, they are now under civilian doctors, who are probably very much better doctors than the Army doctors, but who do not know how to enforce Army discipline.
  The result is that at one time, at Boulogne, the discipline was somewhat slack, and the orderlies were not quite what they ought to be. I heard this from wounded officers, and can give proof of it. I think that more attention ought to be paid to the strict enforcement of discipline in the case of the Army Medical Corps. It is very difficult to instil it into men who have been there only a short time, and who have not had to do the same amount of drill and disciplinary work that other soldiers do. I believe there are cases where they refuse to salute officers. It

  327
  would be a very serious thing if, when they are abroad, they did not salute French officers. On that point I would suggest that a request might be made to English officers, when abroad, to salute French officers of the same rank when they pass them in the street. That is the universal custom on the Continent. French officers can never understand why English officers cut them, as they think, because when passing they do not salute. There might be an Army Order suggesting that when abroad officers should salute each other, whatever rank they were. A French officer when he is not saluted has to slink away; he takes it as a rudeness to him. I did not take the speech of the Under-Secretary for War as casting any aspersion at all on the wrong classes, or on working men's organisations. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be appealing for further help in certain cases where there were details which could be arranged. I am quite sure that he recognises, as most of us do, that the working and artisan classes have behaved as well as, if not better than, any other class in the country. Certainly we owe them a debt of gratitude. I believe that one hon. Member sitting below the Gangway said that the two classes who had come out well in the War were the working class and the middle class. When one goes about the country it is perfectly marvellous to see the way the working classes have come forward and made sacrifices. It is true of every class to a certain extent; but it is a much finer thing to make sacrifices out of a small income than out of a large one. I am sure my right hon. Friend was not in any way casting aspersions on the working classes, but that he was rather, like Oliver Twist, asking for more.
  Mr. CURRIE: During the last few weeks, I have had a correspondence of a most friendly nature with the right hon. Gentleman opposite representing the War Office, and this correspondence, at his request, was made public. He recognised that my importunity arose from a desire to forward the good work of recruiting. I wish to acknowledge not only the extreme courtesy extended to me, but the very satisfying manner in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with a large number of cases which I brought to his notice. On one very important point, the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance which I see is referred to in the White Paper published
  328
  the other day, namely, that without delay some machinery would be established for the settlement of cases where certain moneys due to soldiers' mothers have been the subject of a difference of opinion between pension officers and pension committees. I have not the least doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will see that that assurance is carried out. In fact, I should not be surprised if he were able to tell us that the machinery had already been established. Many people are awaiting with the greatest possible anxiety an opportunity of bringing under review the decisions of certain of the pension officers. A more important matter awaiting decision is that of an investigation into the methods in use in the Army Pay Office, and, I suppose, the Army Record Office also. These methods are certainly under suspicion. I do not know whether they are good, bad, or indifferent, and, because I do not know, I am really anxious to find out. There is no doubt that most business men in the country are not altogether satisfied that many of the business methods, such as book-keeping, in use in the Army Pay Department are as modern as they might be.
  I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if he would refer this matter to a committee of civilians he might possibly receive from them assistance which would have the effect of silencing badly informed criticism. If the methods are good, a report to that effect from a committee of civilians would be valued highly in the country. If they are bad, such a report would have a still higher value, because it would enable us to get rid of a system which has, it seems to me, created a good many of the difficulties as to which I was corresponding with the right hon. Gentleman. I know quite well that if one asks for a committee of civilians to examine into business methods and book-keeping questions one is apt to be told to send for a chartered accountant. I do not think that that is what is wanted in this case. The suggestion I made was that the matter should be referred to the particular class of civilians—a very restricted class—who really have practical experience in very large pay systems—the men who are charged with this responsibility in such places as railway offices and the larger shipbuilding yards. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that my suggestion on that point had a distinct value. If he has had time to consider it,

  329
  I should be glad to know if anything has been done. There are many of us here who could draw pictures of the most distressing cases; it would be easy to move the House by so doing, but I know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman has already deeply at heart the interests with which he is charged. He knows that I do offer these criticisms not in any carping spirit, but with the desire to assist him in the solution of some of these difficulties. Before passing from that point, I should like to say that, not only in the correspondence to which I have referred, but also in the recruiting work in which I have taken part, nothing has moved me more than the extraordinary patience which women at all times have shown, although one cannot fail to realise that every one of them is under a load of anxiety which might well appal the stoutest heart.
  7.0 P.M.
  Reference has been made to voluntary enlistment. Lord Rosebery and the Lord Chancellor have both referred to that point in such a way that we are justified in thinking that it must be under the careful consideration of the Government. No one wants compulsion of any kind, but if it is necessary to consider the question of compulsion, I should like to enter a plea that one or two points be not overlooked when that consideration is given. I think it very easy to misunderstand and to overrate the feeling against compulsion on the footing that we are told that it is necessary. I think a broad, general distinction should be drawn between the compulsion which men apply to themselves and the compulsion which is placed upon them without their being consulted. That distinction would weigh very heavily with the classes—I will not say classes, because I hope, in any case, it would apply to all classes—to whom conscription would apply. But I cannot help thinking that the distinction I have named is of a very practical kind, and one which will weigh with the public in making up their minds if they are told that compulsion is needed. The law that one votes on oneself is regarded in a very different light to that applied when one is not consulted.
  In the second place, I think if any larger number of men than is mentioned in the Estimate under discussion comes to be called for, that, apart from one's views or prejudices as to conscription, it will be necessary for the Government, merely I from a desire to prevent undue dislocation
  330
  of industry, to apply a very large measure of Governmental regulation—whether conscription or not. Thirdly, I think it important to bear in mind that it is very easy to misunderstand the general views of the working classes as to what is called the tyranny of conscription, because it really does seem to me a mere playing with words to say that conscription is of necessity tyrannous, whereas voluntary enlistment, assisted by certain methods, which are called moral suasion, but which I think are very much the opposite, is not. I cannot think that any form of compulsion which the Government should think of adopting could compete in point of degree of tyranny with the many appeals that will possibly be made if larger numbers of men are required to be raised, and of the two kinds of tyranny, or compulsion, or whatever the word used may be, I should infinitely prefer the one to the other. In the meantime, the country has some time in which it can think the matter over. I am anxious that that time should be used in considering it from these points of view.

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES), 1915–16.

    PRESS BUREAU.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "the action of the Press Bureau in restricting the freedom of the Press and in withholding information about the War has been guided by no clear principles, and has been calculated to cause suspicion and discontent."
    The words of my Resolution rather suggest an ultimatum, or hostile action. But I assure the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who are responsible for the Press Bureau that the country, of course, is very grateful for their efforts, that the country generally realises that we must have at the time of war a control and censorship of the Press, and that if the country is not contented at present it is only because we believe that there might be some consideration and a certain amount of compromise and concessions, especially in the later stages of the War which we are now approaching. The country having settled down to regard a state of war as one which must be borne, and which it is willing to face, some of us think that more use might be made of the Press Bureau to give us information that we should value, information which we could regard as responsible and reliable. At the same time, it is felt that it would be better if the Press Bureau were otherwise

    331
    managed, if there were less rumour which is disconcerting, disquieting, and false about, and if we as a nation really were better acquainted with the position in which we stand. On the personal question, I think we must feel extreme gratitude to the two gentlemen who in succession have had the directorship of the Press Bureau, and who have added to their laurels by the work they have done. I am glad that they have survived the hard work which has been put upon them in their office. I trust that before long we shall no more have need of a Press Bureau. Let me at once point out, that we must realise that no great restrictions on the Press are possible without a certain amount of inconvenience, inequality, and, I believe, injustice. These have been very patent all along, and the difficulty with which we bear these injustices and inequalities is due to our not realising why they are imposed upon us. For instance, why is a certain item of information allowed to be published in the provinces and not in London? Why is information allowed to be published on the Continent and then not in England—especially when it is information concerning our own troops.
    If the main object of the Press Bureau is to withhold from the enemy information that is important or valuable for him to become acquainted with, why allow the information to go to the public for two or three days on the Continent and in America, and keep it entirely away from the British people, who perhaps are more interested than any others, because their soldiers are concerned? There is a case which makes it quite obvious that the principles of the Press Bureau are not fairly applied, or if they are fairly applied, they are being applied for objects, and in a way which is unintelligible to us outside. In this connection, let me say that I believe that if we could only have a statement issued daily, or, at any rate, two or three times a week, as to the progress, experiences, successes—yes, and reverses, too—if any!—of our troops at the front, it would be a very great consolation to the country. I believe a communiqué on the lines of those issued by the other Powers at war at regular intervals, official statements which would be regarded as reliable and certain, if issued by the Press Bureau, would be of the very greatest help in consoling, encouraging, and strengthening public opinion. I have come to the conclusion, and I believe my Friends in the
    332
    House will have done so also, that there are certain objects and principles which the Press Bureau has in view which are unintelligible or unacknowledged. Let me refer to the fact that undoubtedly we have suffered naval losses, mostly, I believe, of a not very material kind, from time to time, which have not been recorded in the public Press, and which have not been allowed to be made known in any way except that the officers and men whose lives are lost are notified to the public. I will not pursue that matter further, except to say that it seems to me that the very fact, which is now well known and indeed acknowledged, that all our losses have not been stated, does in itself cause an amount of uneasiness, alarm, apprehension and even mystification as to the progress of the War in the minds of the public which is very undesirable indeed. The Solicitor-General on a previous occasion stated quite clearly that he would not allow statements to appear in the Press which would cause alarm to the public, and though he qualified that subsequently, yet there is no doubt there that with the object of preventing the spread of news which might be taken as cause for alarm, the Press Bureau does stop information of that character very much.
    There are two ways of looking at that matter. We do not want to get unduly alarmed, and we do not want to get unnecessarily apprehensive, but we do want the public to realise the extreme gravity and seriousness of the great struggle in which we are engaged. I believe the fullest statement is necessary of our position: that a clear statement from time to time is essential if the nation at large is to realise the actual military position. On the previous occasion to which I have referred the Solicitor-General went further than to say that it was undesirable to allow news which would cause alarm to go out. He went on to add that he should not permit attacks to be made upon the Ministers of this country which would lessen the confidence which the country had in those who were carrying that nation's burden. That principle is a very curious principle and a very dangerous one—very dangerous indeed. The seriousness about it is this, that it has not been acted upon in any intelligible manner. There have been attacks upon at least two Ministers lately, attacks of a kind which I can only call extravagant and absurd. There have been attacks upon the Lord Chancellor in well-known London

    333
    newspapers, who have reiterated day by day their objections to the views held by the Lord Chancellor, terming him little better than an agent of Germany. Of course that is very ridiculous, but also as certainly there are people who are very much upset by it. I have letters from my own Constituents calling my attention to it, and asking me what I thought of these very serious charges against the Lord Chancellor. To my mind they are perfectly ridiculous, but they are causing alarm in the minds of the people who look to our Cabinet as a Cabinet that ought to be absolutely united and determined in their intention to carry this War to an absolutely triumphant conclusion. How can you allow attacks of this kind—and I might parallel them by similar attacks, certainly on the First Lord of the Admiralty and, to a certain extent, on the Home Secretary—to go on, and say that you are really using the Press censorship for supporting the feeling of the country in favour of the Ministers responsible for its chief affairs?
    In this connection I will give one credit to the Press censorship; they have not censored any attacks upon themselves; they have allowed a great number of their own failings and inconsistencies to be brought to light. At any rate, they have that respect for the right of criticism that they have allowed their own shortcomings and inconsistencies to be made public. I will take another incident which has attracted a good deal of attention, and which, as it does not affect the military conduct of the War in anything but an extremely remote way, I may, I think, fairly bring up. About two months ago our Foreign Office decided to send a Mission to the Vatican. I regret it was not possible to consult Parliament on the subject, but generally, I think, that Mission was a wise and very useful step. It was duly announced in the papers that Sir Henry Howard was to be sent to represent the King at the Vatican. Very well. The day after that announcement had been made orders were issued by the Press Bureau to say nothing at all about it, and for something like forty-eight hours, I believe—
    Mr. SPEAKER: How is this connected with the Army?
    Mr. KING: Because the Press Bureau is under the War Office. It is entirely under the War Office as a department of it, and I suppose that as the Press Bureau has
    334
    been set up by the War Office, the War Office could criticise it, alter it, or abolish it altogether.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Gentleman was discussing the Mission to the Vatican. That surely has no reference whatever to the War Office. It is not relevant to the Estimates we are now discussing.
    Mr. KING: The operation of the Press Bureau, which is under the War Office, was to prevent any discussion of this for forty-eight hours. It was the War Office that intervened.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I may say it was not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It might have been the Foreign Office. The hon. Member makes this statement. Is not the Press Bureau equally under the control of the Foreign Office and of the Admiralty?
    Mr. KING: I was just going on to say it was not, but as there are some doubts about this question of the Vatican and the restriction put upon all discussion in the public Press, I pass from that subject at once. I go on to another which is obviously a question connected with the War Office, not only through the Press Bureau but directly. I refer to this extraordinary way in which the Press Bureau has allowed statements with regard to the military intentions of Roumania to be put into the public Press. On the 13th of last month an article appeared in the "Times" newspaper declaring that in a month's time the Roumanian Government would enter the War, joining the Allies. The announcement was made without the smallest amount of qualification that Roumania would take part in the War at the middle of February. It is quite obvious that an announcement of this important nature must obviously have come under the Press Bureau. It was made with a circumstantial and full amount of detail; it was a statement which was made in all the various papers, and we cannot for one moment doubt that this was a subject which came under the Press Bureau. Not only was it a constant topic in the papers after the 13th January, but so late as 19th January the "Times" had a very important article describing what one might expect to be the campaign in which Roumania would engage as our Ally, under the title "Roumania's Theatre of War." Since that

    335
    time there has evidently been something going on we do not quite understand. For some reason or other news about Roumania has been absolutely censored, so that we have practically no information, and, though Continental papers have published a démenti of the statement that Roumania would soon intervene, that démenti has not been allowed to be published in this country.
    Anybody trying to follow these events must feel a certain amount of mystification and even bewilderment as to the lines on which the Press Bureau is really going. There may be other reasons of State why Roumania's intervention on behalf of the Allies should be confidently assumed, but from all the appearances that we have, and especially in view of the fact that we are now lending Roumania £5,000,000, the statement being in the papers only the week before last, and no explanation being possible or being yet given of that fact, I really think that something in connection with the news about Roumania ought to be made clear. Are these various statements really controlled by the Press Bureau? Is there any line of policy or any rule governing these matters? I have, I think, said enough. It would be very easy to say a great deal more on this subject, but I do not intend to do so. There will be others, no doubt, who will take part in this Debate, and we all look forward to the explanation of the Solicitor-General. Let me say, in conclusion, that I am sure the House and the country at largo are willing to be extremely patient, and to forego a great deal of the news which they think they might have, but they do want reliable news. They do want news as early as other nations have it. They do want to have news which will tell them, not only one side, but the truth. Our discouragements as well as our successes ought to be recorded. And there ought to be nothing that will make us feel ashamed after the War that we have looked the whole of this great issue fairly in the face at its various stages, and that we have met each change of fortune with the courage, the patience, and the confidence in that ultimate victory which we believe the whole nation desires to share. I have great pleasure in moving this Amendment.
    Sir W. BYLES: I have been asked to second this Amendment, and I do so with great sincerity and earnestness. I do not propose to say much about it, because I
    336
    have already spoken more than once on this subject. I have not forgotten the warning of the Prime Minister the other day when he reminded us of the great gravity of the situation and deprecated petty criticism. I would be the last to offer any observation which would have the appearance of harassing the Government, for I recognise the tremendous weight of their responsibilities, and I am anxious only to give them the most thorough and loyal support. But I do not think that my right hon. Friend will regard an entirely friendly criticism of this Department of administration as being a violation of the warning which he gave us. I do not like censorships at all, especially a censorship of the Press. I believe in publicity. I think it is through publicity that we get at the truth. I think without publicity truth is apt to get hidden in a well. I am the more concerned about the limitations imposed on the Press because this is not by any means the only one of our liberties which have been recently assailed. We look upon the House of Commons, for instance, as one of the greatest of the liberties of which we boast. We look upon the free Press as another guarantee. We look upon the Law Courts, our independent judges, trial by jury, as other safeguards. Those are all precious safeguards, but, since the Defence of the Realm Act, all have been subject to limitations. Such limitations, I admit, may be necessary in war time, but I venture to suggest to the House that, however necessary, they are dangerous, and that we should at least realise what we are doing. Referring to the censorship, I would like to ask whether any of our misfortunes and disasters are concealed from the nation. I hope not; but everybody here knows, and everybody outside knows, that some months ago there was a report that we had lost a capital ship in the North of Ireland. We have all heard endless stories about that—as many versions, I suppose, as there were about the Russian troops in this country. But can anybody tell us what really happened? Either the ship was lost or it was not lost. It seems to me that, whether it was lost or not lost, the nation ought to know. After so long an interval I think it is time we were told the truth.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will see the inconvenience of discussing Admiralty matters upon Army Votes, particularly as no representatives of the Admiralty are here. I would remind the hon.

    337
    Gentleman that upon Army Votes the topics he discusses should be limited to such matters as can be replied to by representatives of the War Department.
    Sir W. BYLES: I was referring to the censorship of the Press Bureau, and the fact that information interesting to the public appears to have been withheld.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can refer to that matter, but not in this Debate. The Question now before the House is the Army Estimates. The original Motion is that I should leave the Chair, and upon that the House may discuss the Army Estimates. Anything relating to the Army Estimates can be discussed. The Press Censorship can be discussed, but it is really inconvenient and not proper to discuss matters which are closely connected with the Admiralty upon the Army Estimates.
    Sir W. BYLES: I am indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for your instruction, and I will not violate further the Rules of Order. What I would ask for is a little less parsimony in the news which the Press Bureau permits to be published. Without any injury to the Services the Government, the Admiralty or the War Office, I think we might have rather less economy of statement. I do not understand that the object of the Press Bureau is to set up a dam and only allow small rivulets to trickle through it. I rather desire that we should have a free current of information. I would like to ask who are the "Eye-Witnesses" we have with the Army at the front. I believe there are seven of them, but who are they, and why are they "Eye-witnesses"? We have at least a dozen highly qualified and competent gentlemen in Fleet Street who are war correspondents and experts, and who understand the limitations of their duty. They are honourable men in an honourable profession, and yet they are refused permission to approach the trenches, while these other gentlemen, apparently because they are Members of Parliament, Privy Councillors, or baronets—[An HON. MEMBER: "And knights!"]—are allowed a free run. I think I ought to make an exception in favour of Colonel Swinton, who is doing his duty with great intelligence and confidence. I suppose there are few hon. Members here who remember the letters of Dr. Howard Russell during the Crimean War or the brilliant, stirring, and dashing descriptive accounts we had from Mr. Archibald Forbes of the Battle of Tel el
    338
    Kebir. If we had only such articles now, England would be ablaze with national feeling, and we should have no anxiety about recruiting. I know the blame does not attach to my hon. and learned Friend who is about to reply. The strictures upon news are imposed upon him and his Department by the War Office and the Admiralty. There may be one possible explanation to suggest, and it is that it happens that both these great Departments are under the control of very able Ministers, neither of whom has been trained in a Radical school, and possibly neither of them understands the principles of liberty which are the very foundation of England's greatness.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Although I do not agree with all that has been said by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, I agree that it is necessary that this Motion should have been brought before the House. I believe the lines upon which the censor has been exercising his function have not been in the interests of the Press, certainly not in the interests of the public, and equally not in the interests of the Army itself. I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal in what the Solicitor-General laid down on 12th November last. I do not want him to give any information to the Press or the public which does not come within the terms which he laid down on that occasion as to his functions. On 12th November the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not allow the publication of any news where such publication would afford any assistance to the enemy. Obviously, that is correct, but the hon. and learned Gentleman also said that he would not allow the publication of news which would unduly depress our people. Now I totally disagree with that, because I do not think the British people are likely to be depressed by being told the truth. He further laid down that he would not allow the publication of news which would disclose the movements and operations of our troops or our fleet or by any means directly or indirectly imperil the national safety. I entirely agree with those lines. Nobody wants to give the enemy information which will imperil our national safety. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to add that he would protect Ministers and his colleagues from attack.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I never said I would protect Ministers.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew that statement?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It is fairer to say that it was explained.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will accept the suggestion that is was explained, and that he is not in any way going to protect his colleagues or Ministers, or use the Press Bureau to protect them in any indiscretions they may permit. I suggest that in regard to one case, that of the speech made by the Aga Khan, he did protect a Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech at the Queen's Hall, and later on the Aga Khan made a speech attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, and although it was allowed to be telegraphed to India, it was not passed for publication in Great Britain. I suggest that the speech of this gentleman occupying an important position in the Mussalman world was not allowed to be published in this country although it was allowed to be published in India, and that this was done to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the consequences of an indiscreet speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not indiscreet!"] If it was not indiscreet, why was the speech of the Aga Khan not allowed to be published in this country? The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made on the 19th September, and it contained a comparison between the German Kaiser and the great founder of the Mahomedan faith, and the Aga Khan at a meeting of Indians in London made, a very strong speech dealing with the matter, and that speech was forbidden publication in England, although it was allowed to be carried out to India. It was quite right to send that speech to India in order to reassure our Mussalman population with regard to statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why was it not allowed to be published here? With regard to Ministers, I find that the movements of some of the Ministers are not allowed by the Press Bureau to be published. One Minister's movements are forbidden to be mentioned in the public Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is it?"] I will not say who it is, but what I wish to do is to suggest to those who control the Press Bureau that they should be exceedingly careful how they prevent the public knowing what they have a right to know about the movements of Ministers. I have a very large number of instances
    340
    where the Press Bureau has forbidden certain things to be mentioned, but they do not relate to the conduct of the War. I have, however, one relating to the War, and I would like to ask the Attorney-General why he suppressed the announcement that the Turkish Army captured Tabriz on the 6th of January! The Press here were not allowed to mention that fact before the 13th January. Turkey knew that they had taken Tabriz, and so did Germany and Austria. I do not say that this is an important matter, but I want to know on what grounds, and whether it was in accordance with the principles laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman that this news was not published till the 13th January. Would it have afforded any assistance to the enemy? Obviously the enemy knew all about it. Would it have depressed our people? I do not think we should have been unduly depressed if we had received this news on the 6th instead of on the 13th. Would it have disclosed the movements of our troops to the enemy? I think this was an absolutely senseless censorship of the Press Bureau with regard to that particular event. What I want to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that the people of this country do not in the least mind knowing the truth with regard to any bad news. Mention has been made by the hon. Member who sits for Salford (Sir W. Byles) of the loss of one of our battleships.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon and learned Gentleman was present when I called the attention of the hon. Member for Salford to the fact that he was not entitled to discuss that matter upon these Estimates. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory of my ruling on the subject.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course I will not refer to that again, but I think I am quite entitled to refer to the fact, which is known to everybody, that we have in the course of the War had certain reverses on land of a minor character. Obviously, every Army must have reverses. The German Army have had them, the French Army have had them, and we have had them; there is no doubt about it. Why should we not know of them? There are many Members in this House who have had a great deal to do with recruiting throughout the country, and, as one who has recruited a great deal, I am convinced that if the country were allowed to know the whole of the facts recruiting would be much more brisk than it has been during

    341
    the last two months. We read in our papers day by day of small successes here, and small successes there. Here trenches have been taken and there trenches have been taken. Here the Germans have been thrown back, and there they have been thrown back. Yet, when, as is well known, we have been thrown back in different places, it is all glossed over, and the public are not allowed to know. The consequence is that people outside the House who perhaps have not the same access to information that we have say that all is going perfectly well, because victory after victory appears in the daily papers. They are not, shall I say, encouraged to recruit, and they do not feel impelled to recruit as they would feel impelled if they knew the tremendously hard struggle our people are fighting in France.
    We are entitled also to know a little more with regard to the heroic things of our own heroic regiments at the front. There can be no object, months after the event, in keeping from us the names of the regiments who have done so well at the front, regiments which have made heroic charges and which have stood out against the Prussian Imperial Guard. We heard of the charge of the London Scottish, and what was the result? The London Scottish in the next few weeks recruited enormously, and they could have got one, two or even three more battalions with ease. There have been the deeds of the Coldstream Guards, and of others of those gallant regiments of the line. I know the gallant deed of one of our local regiments was published in the local Press. What was the result? Men flocked to the Recruiting Office in the county town because they wanted to recruit the regiment which had done so gallantly and information with regard to which had leaked out. I venture to suggest that people all over the country are crying out for the news of their own local regiments—the Lancashire regiments, the Surrey regiments, the Scottish regiments, and so on. Above all, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks it good for us or not to tell us the truth. I am convinced that Great Britain is prepared to stand any amount of misfortune and depression so long only as it knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I do not propose to discuss at any length the general question of the Press Bureau, nor even the principles that may be said in the main to
    342
    govern the operations of that office. I strongly believe that for good or ill, from the day we allowed the First Lord of the Admiralty to stand at that box and announce the definite appointment of this Press Bureau without the consultation of this House, the freedom of this House as a deliberative or critical assembly on this particular office was lost. I want to address myself to just two points. In former discussions of this department I have called the attention of the existing chief of the bureau to evidences of discrimination in the exercise of the censorship. I have never yet had a reply to any of the specific instances of what certainly appeared to be unfair discrimination which I mentioned in the course of my criticism, but I propose to ask the Solicitor-General to-night to give me a definite answer on another and very recent instance of what appears to be very unfair discrimination in the exercise of the censorship. Quite recently, within almost a matter of days, the whole of the Press representatives of this country were suddenly expelled from Dunkirk, and the representatives of two English journals were imprisoned in what I believe to be an extraordinarily arbitrary and even brutal way at the instance of the military officer acting for the Censor simply because they did not clear out of Dunkirk early enough. If my information is correct, and I put it to the Solicitor-General if it is not a fact, despite that instruction under which the whole of the Press representatives with one exception were cleared out of Dunkirk at almost a moment's notice, the representative of one London paper, in behalf of whom discrimination seems to have been exercised on previous occasions, was allowed to remain in Dunkirk ten days after the rest of the Press representatives had been expelled. I am informed that the representative of that journal is even to-day in a position to forward Dunkirk news, not indeed owing to direct presence in Dunkirk, but to residence in the near vicinity of Dunkirk, and that facilities are offered to him by means of motor transit to enter Dunkirk from time to time. Is it or is it not a fact that the representative of one paper was allowed to remain in Dunkirk ten days after every other Press representative had been expelled?
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Will the hon. Member give us the name of the paper?
    Mr. SHERWELL: Certainly. The paper to which I am referring is the "Daily

    343
    Mail," and my information is that the representative of the "Daily Mail" was allowed to stay in Dunkirk at least ten days after the rest of the representatives had been expelled. I desire, as a critic of this office from the beginning, to say that the arrangements have been enormously improved under the direction of the Solicitor-General; both in personnel and in other ways the administration of the office is very much better than it was when we had occasion to criticise it before. There is one point, a practical point of extreme importance to working journalists. I refer to the extremely late hour at which communications are issued by the Press Bureau to the London journals. It is a matter of common knowledge that in these days of very large circulation many London papers have to go to Press at a very early hour. Why does it come about that again and again important communications by the Press Bureau do not reach the offices of these London newspapers before 10 or 10.30?
    Sir W. BYLES: And then they are written on both sides of the paper.
    Mr. SHERWELL: It is obvious if a message is received at 10 or 10.30 that it cannot possibly receive adequate publication or anything like full editorial comment. I have a number of instances of this which have happened within the last few days. I will not enumerate the whole of them, but I will mention one or two in order to emphasise the point I am making. Last Friday night there was a French official communication given out from France which was published in all the French papers on Saturday, and, owing to the intervention of Reuter's, some of the English newspapers were able to publish it on Sunday morning, but that French communication which had been issued in France on Friday evening was not issued by the Press Bureau to the London newspapers until last evening. There was another communication connected with the fighting on the banks of the canal that was issued, according to the Press Bureau stamp, at a quarter past ten last night, 7th February. There are other cases with which I will not trouble the House, but I do put it to the Solicitor-General. The representatives of the Press in this country have, as he knows and we all know, played the game in splendid fashion since this censorship was established, and have most generously and very freely and readily
    344
    responded to the invitations and requests of the Press Censor. Is it fair to the journals and to the readers of the journals that important communications of this kind, which are of vital moment to the public of this country, should not be issued from the Press Bureau until too late for insertion or comment on that night? Even a communication with reference to the recent German new decree relating to the submarine menace was issued at a time which made it impossible for the London and other newspapers to make any comment upon it. The Solicitor-General will probably tell me that the fault is not with the Press Bureau, but with the War Office. Is it not for the Solicitor-General, voicing the sentiments of this House, to represent to the War Office or to the other offices concerned that it is of vital importance that information when received should immediately be transmitted to the Press Bureau for communication to the Press of the country? That is a practical point of great importance to the working journalists of the country, and I sincerely hope that it will receive attention at the hands of the Solicitor-General.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I so thoroughly realise the difficulty of the position the right hon. Gentleman occupies that I almost hesitate to offer any criticism. I can fully realise what it must be to carry on the useful work of the Department, which he directs, surrounded by strenuous and competitive journalists, but it seems to me that at the present time the Department which he controls has become to us at home one of the most important in the country. The majority of us have personal ties and interests in the War. We all of us have a deep national and patriotic interest in it, and the one thing we pray for is news. The one thing we do day after day is to devour every newspaper we can get and to go from place to place to discuss the absorbing topic and to get the last news we can obtain. Therefore, the Department which he controls is one which can bring untold happiness or unhappiness to those who are obliged to stop at home. Consequently, I think a few criticisms are justified, and there are one or two points I should like to bring forward and on which I think we should all be happy to hear some explanation. During the whole of these Debates there has been no truer word spoken than that which fell from the Leader of the Opposition when he pointed out that the only thing we have to fear and the only thing that could create fear

    345
    and panic in this country, was that the public should get the idea that they were not being told the whole truth. I sometimes feel that there is an impression that we are not being treated with that entire candour to which we are entitled, and which indeed would make for the public good. Let me give an example which occurs to me. A short time ago there was an announcement in the newspapers—given considerable prominence—of the capture of a town on the French frontier near the Sea by the French and Belgian troops. I will not give its name unless it is required. It was announced as a gallant deed and a victory, and we were pleased. About a week after—I happened to be particularly interested in what is going on in that quarter—I gathered that a place near was being bombarded by the Germans from the town recently captured. We had been told of the capture, which had been hailed as a victory, but we had not been told that the town had been recaptured by the Germans. It is little discoveries of that sort, made accidentally, which shake the confidence of the public and make it fear that things are being kept back which it ought to know, and which if it did know it would bear with courage.
    There have been one or two really mysterious actions on the part of the Press Bureau, which we should be glad to have explained. A short time ago in this country, a spy named Lody was put upon his trial. Reports of the trial were allowed to appear in detail: there was even a verbatim reproduction of the cross-examination of the witnesses. Great public interest was excited, and full reports appeared in all the papers. The man was convicted and executed—very properly executed—on 6th November. On the same day the Press were informed that they must not publish the fact. On 10th November the embargo on publication was removed, but at the same time intimation was conveyed to the newspapers that articles or cables on the subject must be submitted to the Press Bureau before publication. What conceivable object was there in that? The trial had been followed by the pubilc. The conviction was known, and the sentence was a matter of public interest which, I respectfully submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman who controls the Press Bureau, should not have been kept back for an hour, and certainly not for a matter of four days
    346
    Then again, take a little outbreak which occurred amongst some German prisoners interned in the Isle of Man. The matter was trivial, but it excited a good deal of public attention, for nowadays there is but one absorbing topic, and the only thing we care to talk about is the war. This emeute excited a considerable amount of attention. One of the prisoners was killed. The incident occurred on the 19th November, and on the same day the Censor issued a prohibition against anything being published in respect of it. An inquest was held, and the prohibition was extended to the proceedings there, the embargo not being released until the 22nd November. What object was there in connection with the War in keeping this matter from publication? It was known that the emeute had occurred, and yet details and confirmation were withheld until the 22nd November! Again, take the question of the intervention of Turkey. At one time there was grave doubt whether Turkey would take part in the War. The Censor, on 11th September, prohibited the publication in the newspapers of any reference to the suggested neutrality of Turkey. With that I can sympathise. The matter was no doubt a difficult one, for published comments might have influenced the negotiations or decision one way or the other. But later on, hostile acts were committed by the Turkish fleet on Russian ports, and as a result the Turkish Ambassador in London was handed his passports, and war against Turkey was officially declared on 5th November. Yet it was not until 13th November that the embargo was removed and the publication of comments allowed. It seems to me mysterious that, although war was declared on 5th November, the Press was not allowed to publish the fact until eight days later. It really passes one's comprehension. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment, called attention to the case of Roumania. This country had granted a large sum as a loan to Roumania. Why was that fact allowed to be published? This is not a case of keeping back information. It seems to me that the Press Bureau, in this instance, allowed something to pass which should not have appeared in the papers at all. If there was any necessity that an advance should be made to Roumania, why for goodness sake talk about it. I cannot understand why the fact was allowed to be made public.
    These are only a few of the criticisms I have ventured to offer on facts which have

    347
    come within my experience. It appears to me to be a matter of some importance. Like a great number of Members in this House I have taken my share in addressing recruiting meetings all over England, and I can claim some little experience of what moves the audiences. I say, without hesitation, that that which moves enthusiasm, and brings recruits to the Colours more than anything else, is the authentic recital of deeds of heroism, individual or in the aggregate, told within a reasonable time of their happening. If the recital of these deeds at the time may be said to prejudice, directly or indirectly, the movement of troops or the plans of commanders, by all means let them be kept secret until the danger has passed. But after the battle has been fought, when the thing has been done, such instances as the charge of the 9th Lancers, and other brilliant feats which reflect credit on British arms, fire the imagination and patriotism of the people, and they ought not to be suppressed for an hour longer than is absolutely necessary. If you want troops under your voluntary system you must tell the public of the deeds of glory which their friends and pals are doing at the front. To suppress them is, I will not say criminal, but at any rate it is the most disastrous thing you can do to the cause of recruiting which we most ardently desire to see successfully carried on. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept these criticisms in the spirit in which they are offered. We appreciate the fairness with which he carries out his task, but I would again remind him that his department has an intense interest for all of us in the country. Fair criticism, at any rate, is healthy. I hope that which I have put forward is just, and I shall look forward with interest to his answer.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: This question of the censorship is most difficult and delicate, and for my own part I would rather see reticence kept than give away information to the enemy. I should like to see more descriptions published of the gallantry of our soldiers in the field. But it was a mistake to deal with the action of the London Scottish in the way it was done, and that regiment did not like being made invidious, seeing that other regiments were out there before them. But let us know all we can of the gallantry of our Forces. It encourages our people. This is a weary war and a wicked war, and we want all we can have to cheer us
    348
    up. Our people want to be told of the gallant acts of the soldiers. The public want as much information as they can get, and the Press are anxious to publish as much as they can. But, quite unintentionally, information may be given which may be fatal to our operations in the field. Let me give an instance. A short time ago, in a leading article in one paper—and, as hon. Members know, leading articles are not liable to censorship—an account was given of the guns of the enemy, and there was a little remark to the effect that, for the last eight days, the artillery of the enemy had been firing at short range. That was fatal, for the very next day the enemy got the range accurately, and they knocked down the lines of the Allies. This disclosure of information was no doubt quite unintentional, and it might have had very serious effects on the campaign at the stage at which it had then reached. I only mention this to show how difficult censorship is. The censorship of leading articles should be quite strong, if any remarks are made of any sort on naval and military operations during this War. A small piece of information may reveal a very great deal to the enemy. It is very like a picture puzzle. A small piece of the picture puzzle may disclose the whole plan.
    This has occurred before. In the Peninsular War the Duke of Wellington had to retire because of a small sentence being published which revealed to his enemy his whole plan of campaign. That shows how careful we should be in this matter, not only with a view to ending the War, but so as to save the lives of our gallant men as far as we can. Pieces of information should not be given away, even unintentionally. It is not a pleasant thing for our Allies in this War to feel that the enemy is being told what is happening. At first the French published a great deal more news than they do now. I believe they publish hardly anything at all now. There has been a suggestion that we ought to let our own countrymen know what forces we have at the front, and the number we propose to send out. I can give a very strong argument against that. We are the one unit in the War which foreigners know nothing whatever about. They do not know how many men we have at the front, how many guns, or what ammunition. For goodness sake do not give them the information! As my right hon. Friend said earlier in the evening, you can always tell the number of units in a conscript country,

    349
    but the enemy do not know what the British unit is, and it is very much to our advantage to keep him in ignorance both of what the unit is and what it is going to be. I quite realise that the public desires to know all it possibly can, but still I would rather see the Censor continue reticent than allow him to give information which would disclose our plans in this wicked War.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I have listened with close attention and with some anxiety to the speeches that have been made in this Debate. I am fully conscious that I am responsible to this House for the discharge of the duties of an office of great difficulty and of great importance. I must own that if I felt that the criticisms that have been made to-day in some of the speeches against my discharge of my duties were well founded, I ought not to continue to hold that office any more. Let me say at once that, as I understand this Motion—the terms of which I trust the House will think, when they have heard my answer, are both unwarrantable and unwise—it is based upon the charge that my office has withheld information about the War. I have never withheld for five minutes any information that I had about the War. I have published instantly every item that it was within my power to publish, and I am quite satisfied that nothing has ever issued from my office that is not literally and absolutely true. I can conceive nothing more dangerous at the present moment, when our enemies are seeking by every means in their power to inspire the neutral Press with disbelief in our official statements—I can conceive nothing that would give them greater satisfaction than to hear that the English House of Commons had said that the action of the Press Bureau had been "calculated to cause suspicion."
    The great Departments through whom I receive information publish to the world all those matters relating to the War that come within their cognisance, excepting those which the heads of those Departments think, in prudence, should be concealed. I must say that, when you remember that the present Secretary of State for War bears upon his back a heavier burden of responsibility than has ever been carried by any Secretary of State for War in the whole history of this country, I do think it is a little hard that he should be expected to be concerned with such trivialities as whether the news of the
    350
    taking of Tabriz was held up for six days or no. The statement that I have disregarded the interests of the Press in withholding information that I could publish until it was too late in the evening for them to publish it in their daily paper, is a statement that any person connected with the Press would know had no foundation in fact.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Does the Solicitor-General deny the fact, which I stated, that the times at which these messages are issued from the Press Bureau are as stated by me?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I have not the least doubt that the hon. Member stated them accurately. That is nothing to do with the question whether I am responsible or not. Anybody connected with the Press would know that I have, from first to last, done everything that was in my power to secure speedier and earlier communication of these accounts from the Departments. Not only that, it is not easy, when you do not know what is to be said against you, to bring down the answer, but I could have brought down resolutions from some of the biggest bodies of journalists in this country, thanking me for the pains that I had taken to expedite the publication of the very communication—the French communication—which the hon. Member said I had unduly withheld.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Not at all. I brought no such charge against the Solicitor-General. I said somebody was at fault; who was it?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is not as I understand the Motion which is made, charging a particular officer with negligence and misconduct.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Not at all.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: To say that it is not the office but somebody else, appears to me to be hardly just when you are attacking the action of a particular body represented by a particular man. Let me say a few further words about some of the things that have been said to-day. It has been complained that I have no right to exercise my censorship in such a manner as to withhold from the public matters that would unduly depress, and yet it was the publication of matter that did unduly depress that was the very subject of complaint in this House against a predecessor in my office. It was precisely

    351
    because there had been an account which had been published of the retreat of our forces, in terms that unduly depressed—unduly, that is to say, out of relation to the true facts. Is not that unduly? That is what I meant by unduly, and what I mean now. I say that the publication of matter of a nature that is calculated to unduly depress the people of this country is a thing that it is one of the very first duties of my office to prevent. The idea that I desire, or that anyone in my office desires, to keep information of disasters from the public of this country is one of the greatest mistakes and misunderstandings which any hon. Member of this House could ever entertain. Why, of course, everybody knows that the people of this country can bear disaster as a brave, strong people should, but it by no means follows that at any particular moment it is wise that all the truth with regard to every disaster should be made public. There may very well be circumstances which render it extremely undesirable that knowledge should be conveyed to our enemies of the exact effect of a particular operation which they have had in hand.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is a matter which is not for me, it is not a matter I can control; I have no more power to control it than any hon. Members who have joined in the complaint. It is a matter that has been placed by common consent, and I believe with the general approval of this country, in the hands of the men who have the conduct of these great affairs. It is they, not I who decide—and they and not I with knowledge that I do not possess, nor do hon. Members here possess—whether a matter should be made public or not. Those are matters which are outside the ambit and sphere of my jurisdiction altogether. But there are things which I do, which, if I did them as I have been said to have done them, would appear to me to be disgraceful. In the first place, it is suggested that I used my office to shield my colleagues from criticism. No one has brought forward a single instance of its being done, except the hon. Member opposite, who, unfortunately for him, quoted a case when a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench was responsible and not me.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no interest whatever as to the personnel of these things. I did not know whether it was a right hon. Gentleman on these benches or a right hon. Gentleman on the Government bench. I made no party attack of any kind. I was attacking the system.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: What I do not understand is how a right hon. Gentleman opposite can be shielding his colleagues from criticism. That was the sting of the complaint—that I was shielding my colleagues from criticism.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: They were the words that were used.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: He meant Ministers of the Crown.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The words were
    "shielding my colleague from criticism."
    HON. MEMBERS: The Noble Lord was not here.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, I was.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I cannot help thinking that the Noble Lord, whose fairness I know from experience, can quite have followed what was said in the matter or he would have realised that my view of the matter was correct, and that that was the complaint, as I understood it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That was not the intention.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If that was not the intention, there the matter ends.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was harking back really to the original speech, which had been explained by the right hon. Gentleman, as to criticism which would destroy public confidence in the Government. That was the point.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If it was not meant, of course the sting of the phrase is removed, but it is not surprising that I should feel resentment if I am told, even though the phrase may not have been intended, that I claimed the right to exercise my power of censorship for the purpose of shielding my colleagues from criticism. I referred to the fact that the only instance given was one for which I personally was not responsible, but I do not want to rely on that, because I recognise, and no one can recognise better or with better knowledge, that the early work of the office that I now hold was discharged with

    353
    immense devotion and skill by my predecessor who held it, and it was not for the purpose of throwing on to him the blame—I do not believe there was any blame in the matter at all; I had not the least doubt that it was in the exercise of an extremely wise discretion—but for the purpose of repudiating in the strongest language I could command the suggestion that this office was or could be used for the purpose of doing anything so base and discreditable as shielding Members of the Front Government Bench from public criticism.
    I think when charges of that kind are to be made it is essential that details should be given of them. Hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have obviously not lacked inspiration from the Press. They have been in possession, one after the other, of the private and confidential notices which I have issued to the Press, and if there had been any case in which I have stopped criticism of any Member of the Government they would have been only too ready and too glad to place it in the hands of hon. Members for use here to-day. But no one has been able to produce any such case, and no such case to my knowledge exists from first to last. The next thing that is suggested is that I have exercised my powers partially — I can conceive nothing more discreditable — that I have discriminated as between one paper and another. Not a single instance has been given to support a charge which I regard as of the utmost gravity. From first to last, whatever blunders or mistakes this office may have committed, I assert that they have discharged their duties with the most absolute and unvarying impartiality, and that they have never distinguished as between one paper and another in criticism, in censorship, or in permission to publish matter, and I must say a charge of that description, which I regard—apparently the hon. Member does not so regard it—as one of the most grave and serious nature, ought not to be brought unless there are details and particulars by which it can be supported.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to what I mentioned?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No. It was not among your clients, was it?
    Mr. SHERWELL: I only wished to make myself perfectly explicit, and I want to deal honestly by the Solicitor-General. I specifically stated that in the recent expulsion
    354
    of Press representatives from Dunkirk, one representative of a London paper was allowed to stay, according to my information, ten days after everybody else. I wanted to know if there was any explanation of that.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I could not have believed that there was anybody in this House, except the hon. Member, who thought I had any control whatever over Press representatives at Dunkirk—a power to let them go or call them back. I really did not think it was credible that anybody could have believed that that was within the ambit of my jurisdiction at all.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has it ever arisen that a certain paper, either by directly violating regulations or in some way circumventing them, has published matter which other papers, of their own volition and for patriotic motives, have withheld on the advice of the Censor?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I regret to say that that has happened on more than one occasion, and it is the kind of difficulty that you cannot possibly avoid. It is not my fault, if one paper publishes matter without submitting it to me, and another submits it and it is a matter which, in my judgment, ought not to be published, that one paper has published it and the other has not. I have no power whatever to control and compel papers to submit their matter to me. All I can do is this: I can say, "Here is dangerous matter. If it is published without the authority of this office you will have no defence if proceedings are taken under the Defence of the Realm Act." And, of course, if such an instance as that to which the hon. Member referred was a grave matter in which information has been published of obvious advantage to the enemy, it would follow that the paper would be instantly punished. But I am sure the House will bear in mind that, as between the case on the one side where a matter is clearly prohibited, and the case on the other where it is clearly harmless, there is a shadowy and rather neutral ground upon which it is very difficult indeed to exercise one's judgment, and in which one is bound to exercise it in such a manner as to be quite certain that one is not allowing any risk whatever to the people whom it is our duty to protect. I do not suppose anyone would differ from that view at all. But, in a case like that, one is faced with a grave difficulty if a paper publishes without submission, because the matter may

    355
    be of such a character that, in order to establish that there had been a definite offence committed against the Defence of the Realm Act, it would be necessary for me to call soldiers from the front. It might be necessary to take steps of a far graver and more serious nature than the character of the particular offence permitted. The loyalty of the Press on the whole has been very remarkable, and the Press has submitted with extreme willingness to place all their doubtful matter before our office for the purpose of being guided by the knowledge which we possess as to whether or not the matter should be made public.
    Such instances occur, but that is not doing what the hon. Member who moved the Motion said I had done—that I had discriminated, and that matters had been allowed in the provincial Press and not in London, and that there were injustices and inequalities in the exercise of my office. There is no conscious injustice of any kind. That with fifty-one different men engaged in censoring there may be from time to time differences of view is perfectly possible, and kindred matter submitted to two different people may sometimes receive different treatment. That, I think, everyone will admit, cannot be avoided. It is incidental to the human machine.
    Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman told us a moment ago that this was the work of the Secretary of State for War. As to the work of censoring, I understood him to say that the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty laid down certain lines and principles to be followed, and now he says that the assistant-censors exercise discretion, and that that accounts for the varying practice.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Above all things, I wish to clear away any misapprehensions which may not unnaturally attach to an office which is new and unfamiliar, and whose operations are imperfectly understood. What I meant to say was this: Directions are given from the Foreign Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, and other great Departments, and they are directions which the Censors have to carry out. What I mean is that if you put the same directions before fifty-one different men, the way in which they will carry out these directions upon certain doubtful matters will vary occasionally. That is all that happens. I do not desire
    356
    to dissociate myself from the men who perform the work. The zeal, fidelity, and loyalty with which the men have discharged this thankless task under my direction—many of them without any remuneration of any sort or kind, working from morning till night—the way in which they have done the work will, I think, win the admiration and approval of anyone who is acquainted with what has been done, and I must say it seems to me harsh beyond expression that such trifling and accidental occurrences as happen now and then, and do no harm to any person, except it may be to some newspaper that loses two or three lines of matter, should be made the foundation of a charge of injustice in the exercise of the powers which I hold.
    There are several other definite matters which have been mentioned, and with which possibly I ought to deal. It has been said that there was irregularity in dealing with the situation in Rumania. Surely hon. Members must realise that the political sky changes almost from hour to hour, that the conduct and discussion of foreign relations at this moment are extremely delicate and difficult things, and that if it is desired by the office which at this moment is entrusted with the charge of these affairs that directions should be given which change from time to time, it is a little thing surely for people to submit to when they understand what is the aim it is desired to reach. It has certainly nothing to do with me—nothing whatever. I issue these instructions as they come to me, and I do my best to see that they are obeyed, and to say that I am responsible for the political situation in Rumania, and to say that the people who have, charge of Rumanian affairs may say that what could be said to-day may be unwise to-morrow, is to put upon me burdens which I have no right to carry. What I am responsible for is the fair, just and impartial administration of my duty in accordance with the directions which I receive from the different Departments. If anyone can bring a case to show that that has not been done, I would be glad to hear it stated, because I am satisfied that it would be due to a mistake which I should be too anxious to rectify, and also because it might help me to see the flaw in the administration of this office which I should be glad to amend. After all, in times like these, is anyone to infer that because news of an event is postponed for a few days, and because events which are ultimately published are withheld

    357
    from publication for six or thirteen days, this is because of unfair treatment?
    Then it was said that I repressed publication of individual deeds of heroism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only that, but the War Office themselves sanctioned, and I published on 5th December, a regulation which provides that individual cases of gallantry may be mentioned at once, as well as the unit to which the individual belonged. That has been before the Press people since then, and they must have given information to the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate to-night as to what has been done in the last two months. During the whole of that time there has been no restriction whatever on the publication of those individual acts immediately after they have occurred; nor have I ever censored any such matter unless it was associated with statements, the knowledge of which would be of advantage to the enemy.
    There are sometimes in the course of Debate, incidents which have an element of humour, and I could not help feeling a little, amused when I heard the hon. Member who seconded this Amendment complain of the vapid and ineffectual nature of the material that came over from the front, and of the unsatisfactory nature of the person who discharges the duties of my office, and in the next breath culogise the very man who is responsible for the work. After all, if this office imposes hardships and difficulties upon the people of this country, surely they are only part of the hardships and difficulties which we ought, all of us, to be glad to bear. There are two sides to the account which you have to consider. On the one side there is the possibility that the papers might make their columns a little more full if they had the opportunity of enabling people to be gratified by reading glowing accounts of the events which have just taken place. That is one side of the account. The other side is this: that you may disclose the scheme of the men who have charge of your affairs, and that these men may be misunderstood. You will have their aims thwarted, and you will make even yet longer the long black list of casualties—every name in which strikes like a stab into someone's heart.
    In ordinary circumstances, if this Amendment were accepted by the House, it would mean censure upon the Minister responsible for the office attacked—a burden very grievous for any man to bear in his political life. I trust the House will not think me lacking in respect if I say
    358
    that at this moment such a consideration appears to me slight and unimportant compared with far bigger things that this Amendment involves. If this Amendment were carried, or if it could be said that the House of Commons expressed in any way approval of its terms, I can only say to you from the intimate knowledge I have of what is going on in the German Press that no one would be more pleased than they. For weeks past they have been doing all in their power to discredit our official news. They have been striving by every means to let neutral countries think that you cannot trust what we say, and they would have the added advantage of producing with all the rich embroidery they know so well how to make, the statement that the House of Commons had said that the action of the Press Bureau had been calculated to cause suspicion. You will do that and you will also do something more. You will impair the credit and stability of this office, and by doing that you will weaken the protection, slight, inefficient and imperfect as I feel it to be, but none the less, definite and real, which my office has been able to afford to our men, locked with the enemy in long and bloody fight. For these reasons I beg of the House, without pause and without division, to express their unanimous disapproval of the terms in which this Motion has been framed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would like to say, with all respect and all good feeling to the hon and learned Gentleman, that I am sure he entirely misunderstood the whole tone of the criticism on both sides. I have never listened to a Debate in which a Minister was nominally under criticism in which there was less of personal feeling than was the case here, and I would really ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and any other Minister to bear in mind what is the situation from the point of view of Members of the House who are not Ministers. There never was a position in which the House of Commons, to the ordinary House of Commons Member, was so uninteresting as it is to-day. We feel that we have a certain function to perform. Part of that function is criticism. But we all know that by the terms under which we were pledged, by the very conditions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, we must stop short at the very point where criticism becomes effective, and that therefore, it loses all its value. As I understood the remarks which were made, and I am perfectly sure that the

    359
    hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I am making mine in that spirit, what was meant was not that he had done anything wrong, or that there was any attack on him, but that some things were done in the Press censorship which we would like to see altered and that he, as representing the Government, was the only person to whom the criticism could be directed. I am quite sure that that was the intention, and if everything else was done, I am quite sure that no hon. Gentleman would have wished it.
    From that point of view are not we in a rather unfortunate position? We do think that things are not quite as well as they might be. I do not go any further than that. What do we find? That the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that for most of these things he is not responsible. We knew that before, but what are we to do? This is a War Office debate. Somebody is responsible for the general censorship of the Press. Take, for example, the case referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I do not know whether there is any foundation for it at all, but it would be a very serious thing for a newspaper to find its representative driven out of Dunkirk while the representative of another paper was allowed to stay there. Of course nobody suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, but, if it is true, then somebody is responsible, and somebody in this House ought to be prepared to say that a matter of the kind would not occur again. That, in my opinion, is the nature of the criticism which we all make. I know perfectly well that it is extremely difficult to get even defects of that kind remedied, but I am assured that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes them to be remedied, and I am assured that this House does not in any degree desire to attack either him or any other Member of the Government by anything which it says in regard to this matter.
    I felt from the beginning of this War that, so far as I could judge, as much information was not being given as might be given without damaging the national interests. Take, for instance, one subject that was raised by both the hon. Gentlemen who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion, They dwelt upon the view that nothing could be worse in the long run for this country than that our official news should be discredited. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself,
    360
    in the last sentences which he addressed, pointed out quite clearly that the great object of our enemy is to discredit our news, but they will never succeed if we ourselves take care that there is no ground for it. I am not going to say that there is any ground, but at the beginning of this Session, I expressed in the strongest terms in my power the belief that, though it might easily be necessary not to give information about an event at the time when it happened, nothing could be worse for this country than to do what the Japanese in different conditions deliberately did—conceal disasters until the end of the War. I expressed that view, and the Prime Minister who came after me said that he entirely agreed. I am sure that that is right. I do not say that there has been any concealment but, so far as I am concerned, I say that the one thing necessary is to let the country trust our news and to let the people of this country and other countries feel that the official news of our Government is true and can be relied upon.
    The other general question which was raised was as to the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Member about damaging Ministers who are carrying on the War. He gave, as I was sure he would, an explanation of what he meant which was perfectly satisfactory to me. He admitted, and the Home Secretary endorses it, that the Press Bureau must never in any circumstances be used to protect Ministers from criticism which damaged them. Surely the Whole House accepts that. Otherwise there is an end to the kind of Government to which we are accustomed. Take the case referred to by my hon. Friend behind me. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here; I am not going to attack him in any degree, but I think that it is a case where the natural tendency of power to grow may easily take a direction which it ought not to take. I do not go with my hon. Friend in what he said, and what I have seen elsewhere, about the impression made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that speech. I happened to turn it up, and as I understood him it amounted to this, that since Mahomet nobody had ever claimed to be the vicegerent of the Almighty. I think that that is all that the words mean. No Mahomedan would deny that Mahomet did claim to be the vicegerent of the Almighty. I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant no offence, and, taking them quite

    361
    literally there was no offence in his words. But what happens? His speech dealing with that is published in India which, if there is any ground for concealing this on account of the War, is the place where it ought to be concealed, but it is not allowed to be published in London. I do not say for a moment that that was done to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the question arises, Why was it done? Of course it was not done by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has told us that he received instructions from the Government Departments. I do not suggest that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do suggest that there is danger that a Department should be sending instructions to him not to put in a thing like that simply because it might be damaging to a Minister.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I think it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should know that I have always asserted that the question of stopping criticism is not for any Government Department. That is a matter which rests solely with myself, and I have never exercised such a power.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: How can you draw the line? If the Government Department say that to circulate information is bad for the conduct of the War, how are you going to act then?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If it is a matter of criticism I should exercise entirely my own judgment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What is criticism?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is a different matter.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: All I am trying to express is that where a power of that kind is given it grows. It is exercised by more and more people, and there is a danger that it may be used for purposes for which the Government would not willingly have it used. The really important matter is whether or not it would be possible and right to have a little more news of what is happening in the War. I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will give us credit—and I think we have more or less deserved it—for not desiring to hamper the Government as a whole. The last thing we would do would be to say anything which could by any possibility make the task of the Secretary of State more anxious. Nobody realises more than we do how colossal his task is. What is more—I say this readily—that if it comes to
    362
    the judgment of the Secretary of War as against the judgment of any other individual, I should without hesitation accept the decision of the Secretary for War. At the time of the Ypres battle I, and probably others, desired that the news might be a little more interesting and even a little interesting later. I remember that I rather urged, and I did it on behalf of the whole party, that it would be desirable if we could to get more news, and we were told that the Commander-in-Chief of the French forces said there ought not to be more news. I accepted that absolutely, and I state to-night now that settled it. The English Army is only part of a larger and bigger force, and if they cannot give more information, I certainly accept that. It is not that kind of thing I am going to press to-night. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion made a proposal, not a very big one, which, as it happened, I made privately some months ago, and I am going to endorse what he said publicly now. I think it would be of great advantage if a bulletin, not every day, but every second or third day, were sent from our front similar to the bulletin now sent by the French. That certainly could be done under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, and nobody could say that there could be anything damaging in such a message which comes with the direct approval of the man in command of our Army. I should be pleased if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give attention to the fact that if it could be sent we should be glad to have that carried out. There is only one other way in which to have more news given without danger and certainly without going against the wishes of the French Government. I wonder if the House realises what a tremendous event the battle of Ypres was. We had bigger losses in that battle than in almost any battle in which purely British troops have been engaged. I think that a larger number of British troops, a great deal larger, were actually engaged in the terrible fight against overwhelming odds, out of which we came with tremendous honour. We had a larger number of British troops engaged than had even been engaged in any battle in the history of our country. All the account of it is contained in Sir John French's dispatch. Surely now the country might know more about that.
    I saw in the "Times" the other day an account of the battle of Soissons, given

    363
    by a correspondent permitted to go to the front by General Joffre; and I am quite sure that if permission were given to reporters in this country to go to the front to get what they can of the battle of Ypres and write a similar account here, it would be of great advantage to recruiting. That is the kind of thing that ought to be done. I agree with my Noble Friend that secrets should be kept if their publication would injure the public; but, on the other hand, in a democratic country like ours, when we are engaged in a war which may be a long war, one of the real factors in the fight is the feeling of the people as a whole towards it, and they ought to be informed. I think whoever is in charge should supply news without possibility of damage, and should also bear in mind the great necessity of keeping our people as informed as they can of everything that has happened, and of what this struggle means to them in every direction. I do hope that when I read my words to-morrow that it will not be possible for me or anyone to say that I have been stating that which could make the task of the Secretary of State for War more difficult. That is not stating the case at anything like its value. The head of the War Office has a more difficult task than has fallen to any of his predecessors. We are beginning as a nation to realise what a terrible struggle this is, and we are realising too that we are by no means through it. It is a terrible struggle. The great responsibility of this land war rests on the Minister of War, and I should certainly regret more than anything that could happen to me under such conditions, if I, or the party which I now represent, were to do anything to make the national position or the difficulties greater than they are.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I had not intended taking part in this Debate, but after the speech of the Solicitor-General I would ask the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes. Let me say as a great admirer and supporter of his, as I am sure we all are, that I think he has taken this Debate to-night much too personally and much too seriously. Everyone knows that the Solicitor-General is a gentleman of the highest honour, and any suggestion that he had not acted fairly in this matter would be immediately resented by the whole House. I must say, considering the few opportunities we have for discussion, and considering that there is a censorship,
    364
    I think the Solicitor-General might have spared us those suggestions of increased casualties and stabs in the back, and that sort of rhetoric which he gave us to-night. I think it was hardly fair to the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. In the first place, he will not suggest that any Member in any part of the House or any man outside the House asks that the Government should do anything which by the greatest stretch of imagination could give information to the enemy, which they otherwise would not have. So therefore I think the Government and the Solicitor-General ought to recognise that when Members of this House take part in a Debate of this kind they are actuated by as high motives and by as great dictates of patriotism as any Member who sits on the Government Bench. It is, I think, common ground, that we are all striving for the same cause, but thank heaven, the day has not yet come when even in time of war a Member of Parliament is afraid to make a suggestion even to a strong Government.
    To my mind the whole difficulty which the House has laboured under from the beginning, with regard to this question has been due to the fact that as the Press Bureau was an innovation, as it was bound to be, consequently it was all the more important that the House of Commons should be consulted about it, as it never was. A proposal of this kind, which after all goes a very long way in regard to the general dissemination of news, was one about which the House of Commons ought to have been consulted. At the present moment how do we stand? I suppose I ought to know as much about these things as most hon. Members, but at present, even I do not know the powers of the censorship. The Members of the House of Commons have never had placed before them a document stating the powers of the censorship. So far as we can understand it, the censorship is an issuing house of statements which the departments wish to have published. That is its first duty, I think.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If the right hon. Gentleman would kindly look at the answer I gave on the 26th November, 1914, he will find, I believe, a full and perfectly exact description.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It is all very well to refer to a reply to a question, but with great respect to the Solicitor-General, the censorship was instituted a long time

    365
    before he was handling the questions with regard to it, and I think in a matter of this kind hon. Members should not be compelled to hunt up answers to Ministers. I think we ought to have had at the commencement a White Paper, telling us exactly what the powers of the censorship are, and how, in their opinion, they ought to be exercised. To-night the Solicitor-General quoted from a paper of instructions to the Press Bureau.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I quoted from a communication from my office to the Press.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Then I misunderstood, as I thought he quoted from instructions given to his Department.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted from instructions to the Press generally, and it is a public document which we cannot complain of. I repeat, that in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons at the commencement should have had more information of how the censorship was to be worked and of how the whole thing was to be met. Speaking generally, and considering everything, including the novelty of the thing, and that we have never had a censorship in this country in living memory, I think the censorship has worked very well, but I am bound to say that if they had started at the commencement with the idea that the Press of this country were as patriotic as they were themselves, and as anxious to help them, and if they had from the very first day appointed a committee of experienced journalists, I think they would probably have avoided some of the pitfalls. I am glad to say that the position has now been considerably rectified, and that they are having the advice of men which has been of some assistance to them. What is the effect of this Debate to-night? Let me say in passing that busy though they are, I think it would have been more complimentary to this Debate and to the House of Commons if some official of the War Office and of the Admiralty had been present during the Debate, because they are concerned, and I think they ought to hear what Members have to say on the subject. I think that any suggestions put forward to-night ought to be considered by those who are responsible. We know of course that the Solicitor-General has no power, but perhaps he will carry on the suggestions.
    366
    I desire to support the suggestion that has been made to-night, and on previous occasions, with regard to the giving of information as to the brave deeds of the War, and I think that the Government ought to consider that matter. We never get any indication that any suggestions made by Members are going to be considered, and probably we will not be more successful to-night. It is obvious as the result of this Debate, representing as we do the public outside, that there is a strong desire for more information about individual regiments and what they are doing at the front. They will not trust the Press, and there may be difficulties about correspondents, although I do not see why, but why cannot they have a second eye-witness who would describe after the event, when there could be no possible point of giving information to the enemy, say a month afterwards if you like, the great deeds of different regiments at the front. It would have an enormous effect on recruiting, and it would let the public know what is going on. They would follow it with interest, because their information at the present moment is very little indeed. It is impossible to carry on a great war of this kind in camera. Great charges and great battles have been taken part in by some of our best regiments, and we know nothing about them until some months afterwards, probably when the casualty lists are published, or some indication is given with regard to wounded soldiers. I know a case where one of our bravest generals wrote to the person in charge of one regiment at the front, in which he said within a few days the whole of Britain will be ringing with your glory. It was three months afterwards before even the event was mentioned at all in any paper.
    What I suggest is this, and I hope the Solicitor-General will consider whether he cannot pass on the suggestion to the proper quarter, is that if necessary a second official eye-witness should be nominated by the Government, who would, no doubt, see that he was the proper official to be appointed, and that he should write separately, after the battle had been fought, an account of the brave deeds of the different regiments at the front. He need not do so until he has convinced himself by investigation that no information will be given to the enemy, and that no harm will possibly be done. I believe, if the Solicitor-General would carry out

    367
    that suggestion, it would give great satisfaction to the public generally, and for the life of me I cannot see why such a suggestion is not adopted. Let me say in conclusion, that I think the Solicitor-General took this Debate too seriously. If he had inquired, he would have been informed that my hon. Friends never dreamed of putting the Motion to a Division. It is the Parliamentary form of raising a discussion, of which we have not too many opportunities. I can assure him that no one has any lack of confidence in himself personally, or even with his Department, but we are anxious to have a little more attention than we are getting, and I think it would be generally for the benefit of the Army, and I am sure give great satisfaction to the public who have friends at the front, if the suggestions made were carried out.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Perhaps the House will allow me for a few moments to take part in criticising those who have criticised. I might at the outset pay a tribute to the tone and temper of the last two speeches. While I disagree with the point of view of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), and also with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel), I realise that those two speakers have somewhat raised both the tone and the temper of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite criticised the Solicitor-General for having taken seriously some of the criticisms which had been directed against him. But were not some of those criticisms very serious? When it is alleged against any Minister that he has shown partiality to this or that paper, is it possible for any honourable Minister to regard such a criticism as other than serious?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: What I understand to have been stated is that in the course of the procedure of the Department one paper submitted something and had it passed, while to another paper it was denied. That is no suggestion against the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. KING: I used the word "injustice," but I never made any accusation against the Solicitor-General or anybody else of acting intentionally with injustice.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I am only too glad to accept a withdrawal of that kind. The statement made was that I allowed matter to be published in a provincial
    368
    paper but stopped it in the London Press; that the principles of my office were not being fairly applied, and that I had been guilty of injustice. If by that nothing is meant, there is nothing more to say.
    Mr. H. SMITH: I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), and I am perfectly clear in my mind as to what he said. He was speaking on a Motion, not in criticism of the War Office, not in criticism of the Government generally, but in criticism of the Press Bureau, and he chooses that Motion of criticism of the Press Bureau, which obviously means the head of the Press Bureau, to inform the House of an alleged partiality to one paper.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Apparently the hon. Member has fallen into the same error that the Solicitor-General most clearly fell into. I do not think that he or the Solicitor-General is allowing for the fact of the situation to-day. The Press Bureau is the only channel or medium for the communication of news between the battlefield and the British public, and, in default of any other opportunity or any other person, we are bound to raise, on an occasion such as this, all questions of discrimination in the exercise of the Press censorship. If the Solicitor-General or the hon. Member opposite can induce the Government to put before us the people who are actually responsible, we will address our criticisms and inquiries to them. I claim that I merely, alluded to a definite fact and asked for an explanation of that fact. The Solicitor-General happens to be the only Member of the Government to whom I can address a question of that kind.
    Mr. H. SMITH: I accept the hon. Member's explanation. But it is not true that the Solicitor-General is the only Member of the Government to whom he could apply. He could apply to the War Office. He knows perfectly well that the action of the military authorities in Dunkirk is not controlled from the Solicitor-General's desk in Whitehall. The hon. Member says that the Solicitor-General is the only Minister he can criticise. I submit that he does not do justice to his own intelligence. That was purely and solely a War Office matter. It had nothing to do with the publication of news or the censoring of the British Press. The hon. Member knows that if any British Minister was responsible for that action, he must seek that Minister in the four walls of the War Office and not in the office of the Press

    369
    Bureau. In spite of the hon. Member's repudiation, I say that, having regard to the attack which he, perhaps unconsciously, made, and having regard to what an hon. Member on this side said, but has since withdrawn, the Solicitor-General was justified in taking somewhat seriously criticisms which appeared to me and to other Members of the House to be indeed serious.
    The House may or may not remember that I spent four strenuous months at the office of the Press Bureau. While those months were particularly strenuous, I was fortunate in that I was never at any time responsible in any way for the policy of the Bureau. I was responsible merely for the organisation and the formation of the machinery. Therefore I may speak with a more open mind than others who were more particularly responsible for its policy. I have always shared to a great extent the regret of hon. Members that it was not possible to give to the country more news. To a very great extent I still share that regret, but I cannot share the criticism of hon. Members who share with me that regret. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, my right hon. Friend below me, and all critics of the Press Bureau, have invariably prefaced their criticisms by the statement that they would not ask for the publication of anything likely to do harm. Who is to be the judge? The right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State for War? There is another remark always made by these critics. I hope I am not disrespectful to my right hon. Friend, but he adopted it to-night. He said that if it became a question of accepting the views of, I think, the whole House of Commons on the policy of publication as against the views of Lord Kitchener, he would at all times accept the views of the Secretary of State. We arrive then at this position: no Member of the House desires to publish anything likely to do harm, and every Member present would prefer to leave these matters at all times to Lord Kitchener in preference to either the individual or the collective opinion of Members of this House. If you hold those views, how can you criticise the man who directs the policy of publishing or withholding military news? It is not the Solicitor-General, and the House knows it. It is not the Press Bureau; the House has over and over again within my knowledge, and within my hearing, been told that categorically. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat
    370
    down objects to reading the past answer of the Solicitor-General as to the policy of the Press Bureau. I really think he would be wise, before he or his colleagues criticise the Press Bureau again, to very carefully read every word of that answer, when he will—
    Sir H. DALZIEL: What did I say which was in criticism of the Press Bureau? I ventured to make a suggestion that we should have special accounts of the deeds of different regiments. I should like to know what I said that was criticising the Press Bureau?
    Mr. SMITH: If I misunderstood the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, then I very much regret it, but I am speaking within the memory of the House.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: What did I say; give me one case?
    Mr. SMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am within the memory of the House, and I really think that the nature of his criticism, that the whole of his speech, was one long criticism. For instance, take the very case he cites for the publication of more news. Is that not criticism of the Press Bureau? If it is not criticism of the Press Bureau, it does not seem to me to be relevant to this particular Motion. If hon. Members elect to make their charges about the publication of news under the protection of a Motion which criticises the Press Bureau, surely they cannot object if it is said that that criticism entails criticism of the Press Bureau! However, I do not want to be drawn into a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly thought he was criticising, and I say, while I share the regret that news is not to be given out, cannot be given out more, I am equally certain with the right hon. Gentleman and others that the Secretary of State for War must be the judge, having regard not only to his own experience, but to his direct information, and the direct communication he is in with General Joffre and General French. I am convinced that we must leave the final decision in his hands and in his hands only. I am convinced of this: If you are going to criticise the publication or withholding of news, then you must criticise the Secretary of State for War and not the Director of the Press Bureau. It is really—and it is with great respect that I say this—quite useless for hon. Members to pay lip service to the Secretary of State for War for his efficiency, knowledge, and

    371
    capability, and in the same breath to pour out their voluble criticism against the very Minister whom they have been praising only the moment before. If you criticise the withholding of news, you criticise the Secretary of State for War. If you praise the Secretary of State for War, then you praise the man who is responsible for withholding or publishing military news.
    The other observations I have to make under this head are as to the grave danger of the publication of news. It is almost impossible if you are going to give the Press increased powers, to give them almost carte blanche permission to publish what they like, to stop dangerous news from getting into the papers. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth gave us a very striking instance in the leading article that he mentioned. I can give hon. Members in my own knowledge and experience of the Press Bureau—I can submit cases to them privately—some extraordinary examples of the serious injury which has been done by too free a pen having been allowed a free course. Only the other day, since I left the Press Bureau and since I have been engaged in other duties in another sphere altogether, I learnt of the injury done by the publication of a picture in one of our illustrated war papers. I am not permitted to discuss it now, even if it were advisable, because it is a matter which relates to the Admiralty, and I can only bring to hon. Members the effect of the publication of this particular picture to the effect it had in the highest quarters of those who are responsible for the movement of our troops and the absolute control of our grand Fleet. I can show hon. Members the picture, and leave it to their discretion as to whether they themselves would have passed that picture for publication. I am convinced there is not one who would have seen the slightest harm in the picture, which looks the most innocent one in the world. But I can say that its publication is regarded by those in the highest quarters as one of the most dangerous pieces of news which had ever been allowed to be published since the beginning of the War—at any rate, relating to Admiralty and Naval matters.
    I only mention that in order to illustrate my argument that it is better to suppress a thousand things for a few hours about Tabriz, Mohammed, and so on, than to run the slightest risk of publishing either, a leading article, an article
    372
    by a military expert, or a picture showing one of our battleships near to an easily recognised piece of land. It is much better to err a thousand times on the side of overprecaution than to run the slightest risk of publishing anything that is dangerous. I would ask hon. Members who criticise the Press Bureau—there are very few, I must say, who do so criticise it—to realise the gigantic task of the right hon. Gentleman; to realise the vast machinery which is set up by our British Press—of course, realising at the same time the hearty co-operation, patriotism, and loyalty of the Press, to which I certainly pay, and always have paid, my humble tribute—realising all that, I say there is no hon. Member who has not had to do with the Press Bureau who can appreciate how difficult and how vast is the task for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible.
    I must make one further reference to the comment made by the hon. Member for Brentford as to repeating the allegation which has been made in this House that the Solicitor-General has ever been in the habit, or has on certain occasions shaped his policy with the desire to protect Ministers, his own colleagues, in the House. It would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, after the explanation given, is inclined to withdraw that charge. But the charge has been made before, and I think it has been repeated. It has been justified, not by bringing forward any particular instances or examples. So far as I remember, no such instances or examples have ever been brought forward. That seems to me both very uncharitable and bad debating, because if there are instances why are they not brought forward, and if there are no instances why is a charge levied? I believe that this charge is justified to some extent by the speech delivered in this House by the learned Solicitor-General, which I myself did not hear. I am not here to defend the speech of the Solicitor-General, nor am I able to-do so, for I forget the precise point of it. But it was delivered by the Solicitor-General after perhaps many hours at the Press Bureau. I am not here to defend him; he is quite capable of looking after himself.
    But that speech was explained very shortly afterwards, and the explanation was entirely satisfactory both to his colleagues and to the Press. I would like to add, as a result of my own experience of the Press Bureau, under the hon. and

    373
    learned Gentleman, that the allegation that he at any time shaped his policy or has been influenced in shaping his policy by a desire to protect his own colleague on the Front Bench is as grotesque as it is untrue. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember I had a discussion with him on a Sunday afternoon on a particular point, and the charge is so grotesque to me that I can only say that I criticised the hon. and learned Gentleman, not for keeping back news because it might injure the party, but I criticised him—if at all—for publishing what in my humble opinion was apt to be dangerous, but which he thought necessary, and which he preferred to publish because keeping it back would have laid him open to the charge that he was protecting colleagues and Ministers. I can quote certainly one instance of that in which I entirely and respectfully disagree from the judgment of the hon. and learned Member, but it was a case near the line. He supported it not only on its merits, but particularly because he said that, so long as he was at the Press Bureau, he would never allow any man to say of him that in taking up that office he shielded or protected his colleagues. I can repudiate that calumny, and I think it may come with stronger force from myself than from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think it is only fair it should be brought to the notice of the House, and I can assure hon. Members that whoever repeats that particular charge is doing so without any knowledge of the facts of the case.
    There is one other point only for which I ask the indulgence of the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Hume-Williams) recited various instances—I will not go into them in any detail—in which the Press Bureau was responsible for keeping back information from the public. It will be in the recollection of the House that he recited a case of the execution of the spy Lody, the riots in a German Prisoners' Camp in the Isle of Man, and some news about Turkey. I am not going into the details of any of those cases. I would ask who really is to decide this? Is it possible that the House is not prepared in a crisis such as this to trust the War Office, or the Admiralty, or the Foreign Office to decide this question? At normal times I have held no brief for this War Office, this Admiralty, or this Foreign Office. I have not criticised very often, though I have listened with great pleasure to criticisms
    374
    of Ministers who represent all these Departments; but I have never done any of those right hon. Gentlemen the injustice of thinking that they are fools. I do not believe that if the Foreign Secretary issued an Order as to Turkey he would issue that Order without thinking or foolishly. I think that it has been done as part of the central policy of the Foreign Office, and I give the War Office credit, in asking the Press to keep back for a day or two the execution of a spy, of doing it as part of a settled policy, and after due consideration, and that for issuing a notice the Secretary for War will take full responsibility in another place if challenged. The same with the Admiralty. How can you set up the views of even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, or the views of any hon. Member of this House as against the views of the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty upon any of those questions on which they know they are bound to be criticised sometime or other by the Press or by this House?
    In a crisis so grave as this, with Ministers such as you have at the head of the great Departments, you must be satisfied to leave the decision of those problems, whether great or whether they appear to you to be small, to those who are responsible for the safe conduct of this War, and the safety of our soldiers in the trenches, and our sailors on the ships. I take finally the view, although it may not be the popular view, that it is a grave danger to issue too much to the public. I believe that there is no popular demand for the issue of more news. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will qualify that by saying that I think the public would like to have more records of heroic deeds at the front; but I say, speaking generally, this criticism of the Press Censor, though it is really a criticism mainly directed, or ought to be directed, to the great Departments—this criticism, I say, has not the support of the public behind it. I believe it to be very largely a Press-manufactured criticism. I do not believe it has the public behind it, and I believe it is infinitely better to err on the side of safety than to give to the Press or the public particulars which may be of danger to the public interest, at a time so grave as the present.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: This Resolution, which began its career under smiling circumstances, seems to have got into some stormy weather, and at present has no

    375
    friends. Those who have made speeches in support of it have been anxious to explain what they meant, and that the Resolution is so much verbiage, to which no importance need be attached. My hon. Friend has been telling the Solicitor-General that he really ought not to take this Resolution seriously—that it means nothing, and that it is only a way of paying compliments. That is not the way this will be understood outside. The terms are on the Paper, and if the Resolution is meant in the flippant way in which my right hon. Friend says it is meant, this becomes an abuse of the forms of the House. If the Resolution were adopted it would be taken very seriously by Germany. It is all very well to tell my hon. and learned Friend not to mind; it is always easy to bear attacks on other people. But this Resolution, and speeches made in defence of it, are clearly an attack on the Press Bureau. It was an allegation that it was acting without principle, that its proceedings were suspicious, and that they were calculated to cause discontent; and to suggest, like my right hon. Friend, that it was only a way of scattering bouquets, is really asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to believe too much.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not mind my hon. Friend attacking my speech, but let him speak of facts. What I say is that there are few opportunities for private Members to raise this question at all. My right hon. Friend was lucky in the ballot, and he had to draft a Motion in order to get a debate. I do not think it is fair to suggest that anyone who takes part in the Debate on the Motion is necessarily in sympathy with the terms of the Motion.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think we may leave my right hon. Friend to settle that point with the Mover of the Resolution, and I hope he may be able to congratulate him on the felicity of its phraseology. At any rate, the attack has now broken down. I support the view of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, that this agitation against the Press Bureau has no backing outside. It has been engineered for months by a particular section of the Press, and not by the Press as a whole. It has moved no one outside. So far as I have been able to judge public opinion, in going about the country at recruiting meetings, the Press Bureau has never been mentioned. I have never heard at
    376
    any public meetings I have addressed any reference to the Press Bureau. The public is prepared to trust the men at the head of the Admiralty and the Army They recognise that the Press Bureau is an absolutely essential feature of modern warfare. To carry out the proposals made here to-night might be good for the Press, but it would be very bad for the country. You might as well give up the War altogether and ask Germany to dictate her terms to this country. I am afraid my hon. Friends do not follow the discussion with as much care as they have displayed in drafting this Resolution. It must be the lot of censors to come in for censure.
    The Censor has always been censured and always will be, and if this present Censor was not censured, he would not be doing his duty to the country. The hon. Member for Kirkaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) said you ought to have practical journalists at the head of the Press Bureau, and he says that things would have been worked more smoothly if the Bureau had been controlled by journalists. I will take two prominent journalists, Lord Northcliff and Mr. Cadbury. I wonder if the proceedings of the Press Bureau would have been conducted differently by them or by the proprietors of the "Daily Chronicle" or the "Daily Telegraph" than it has been conducted by my hon. and learned Friend? It is not necessary to defend every exercise of the prerogative or discretion of the Censor. Undoubtedly there has been some failure in discretion, and I think the greatest was the publication of the despatch which referred to the British Army as a broken army. The group of papers responsible for engineering this attack in favour of more liberty for the Press, desires to send out photographers and descriptive writers, but that is not an argument in favour of relaxing the censorship, but in favour of making it stronger. This agitation has not always been conducted by patriotic methods. I have in mind an observation made by the particular newspaper conducting this campaign, in which they said:—
    "The Government can make their choice. They can give the news and get the recruits, or they can withhold the news, and go without the recruits."
    If that had appeared in a newspaper in Germany, containing so clear a threat to the Government to alter its policy, I am sure the German Government would have taken drastic action. Here was a deliberate statement that unless the Government altered its policy they were not going to be allowed to get their recruits.

    377
    But can it truly be said that the censorship has stopped recruiting? How can that statement be justified? Six months ago this country was the least military country in the world, and some parts of it hardly ever saw soldiers. But to-day the country has become one great arsenal and armed camp and training ground. I cannot understand how men who go about with their eyes open can maintain the statement that the censorship has interfered with recruiting. War is a soldier's business, and the less journalists and politicians interfere with it the better for the conduct of the War. Whatever is allowed to appear in our newspapers becomes known in Germany within twenty-four or forty-eight hours, and therefore the Censor in sanctioning the issue of news has to bear in mind that in sanctioning information to our public he is also sanctioning it to the German public. That being so, who has to decide? Is it to be a committee of editors or the men who have to bear the responsibility and who have to stand the racket if things go wrong? Whether so meant or not, this attack on the Censor is an attack upon our generals. It may not be so intended, but that is what it comes down to. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to say whether General French or Lord Kitchener have ever asked for a relaxation of the censorship in the way which has been suggested to-night?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The hon. and learned Member says "No."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Why should they ask?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kirkcaldy, prepared to set up his opinion against those two great generals? I will take the strongest point made against the Censor, and that is the refusal to allow the publication of the magnificent deeds of our Army, deeds which have added innumerably to the treasury of British valour. This does appear to be a stupid and shortsighted exercise of the discretion of the Censor, but there is another side to it, and I would set against that argument a quotation from a speech made by General Smith-Dorrien, whom this House will admit was entitled to have his opinion respected. He said on this very subject, as reported in the "Daily Express":—
    "No matter how gallant the work that, had been performed they heard nothing about it. It was absolutely necessary to keep everything important
    378
    from getting into the papers—the gallant deeds, how performed, and what such-and-such a regiment had done. That is why our men had to go on performing those deeds without their relations at home knowing anything about them."
    That is the opinion of a practical soldier, and it is as striking in its way as the opinion given by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). Here you have the opinion of these practical men who are taking greater risks than any of us holding that view, and how can you set up against them the opinion of laymen and of journalists, however skilful, against an authority of that kind? I believe it is the general view amongst the men who ought to know that if the German Army and the German higher command had known the true strength of the British Army at Ypres we should never have been able to maintain that defence. It was only because we were able to mislead the German Army as to the strength of our force that that most heroic defence was successful. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this attack represents only a certain section of the Press, and a few hon. Members in this House who have been influenced by the Press. The public outside has no sympathy with these attacks upon the Press Bureau, and I hope my hon. Friend will continue to take his directions from the generals and the admirals, and treat the journalists and politicians with the contempt which they deserve.
    Mr. LYNCH: In the course of listening to this Debate I have noticed that the arguments of those who defend the Press censorship would apply to the censorship, no matter how badly it was conducted. The arguments used would mean that Parliament must entirely abrogate its function, and no matter how the censorship was carried on, that Parliament must cease entirely to intervene. Then again, in the course of his reply, the Solicitor-General at first loomed as a very important personage, but, as he proceeded to develop his line of defence, he seemed to recede into an almost mythical character. He apparently had no power at all; all the real essential power resided in the great Secretaries of State, and yet, in the course of his defence, and also in the course of that defence by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith), he seemed, after all, though I do not know that even his office is known to Parliament or sanctioned or approved by Parliament, to have exercised great powers of discrimination and of judgment.

    379
    I thoroughly agree with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) that the Solicitor-General seemed to put too much heat into his reply. He seemed to put something of a personal passion into a matter where he was not accused of any dereliction of duty, but where it was suggested that his office might be carried on with greater judgment, and, if ever I had doubts as to his judgment, they might have arisen precisely from the amount of heat which he put into a matter which, after all, was simply a question of discretion.
    I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirckaldy Burghs that the Solicitor-General in this office would be greatly aided by a subsidiary commission, perhaps of journalists of experience and of matured judgment, who would aid him in the sifting of news, and who would advise him as to the relative value of news. Again and again in the course of the Debate insistence has been made on the amount of judgment necessary in order to ascertain, or to decide, whether a piece of news is of great value or not, and it seems to me that after all, though the profession of journalism appears to be a very simple thing to outsiders, it is precisely in those qualities of estimating the value and the import of news that the experience of the journalist tells. I think the censorship would be greatly aided by having at its service a commission of journalists well selected. I would also support the suggestion that experienced war correspondents should be allowed to go to the front. There has been a lot of useful work done in the past by men like Russell and Archibald Forbes; but I would venture to say of the war correspondents of the present day that they are certainly not inferior to any of those who have preceded them, even those most illustrious names in journalism, precisely in those qualities of discernment and of tact, and even in the power of illustrative writing. I do not think that any harm would accrue, whereas I think a great public service would be rendered if a small number of well chosen war correspondents were allowed to proceed to the front. I believe that has been already sanctioned in the case of the French Army. It has been sanctioned by the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, at any rate with regard to neutral correspondents, and he again controls the operations
    380
    of the British Army, and it is to his judgment the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army submits.
    10.0 P.M
    The argument as to the danger of publishing news which might be of service to the enemy does not apply to news already known to the enemy. Again and again I have picked up foreign papers, French papers for instance, in which I have read items of news, interesting enough, but of no great strategic importance, and which therefore in the course of a day or two would be known to Germany, but which have not been published in this country until perhaps a week or more has advanced. The impression made upon neutral countries has very great importance from the diplomatic point of view, but nothing gives a falser impression, for instance to the American public, than to find that news with which they are perfectly familiar, which they have had illustrated at full length in their great newspapers, and which they know is perfectly well-known in Germany, is yet withheld from the British public. What is your reason, and what is the conclusion? The reason has been set forth in their own columns. It is that this country is afraid to hear the truth, and that the great authorities who control these matters are afraid of producing panic. I quite agree that is not a fair estimate of the country, but that has been the effect of withholding news, news sometimes of considerable importance, well known to the enemy, news which afterwards leaks out in this country without having been published, and is embellished with all sorts of remarks, ultimately producing an unsettling effect upon the public mind, and far more harm than if it had been published at the very outset. No doubt this Motion will not be pursued to the end, but at the same time it is perfectly legitimate for the House to keep a watchful eye on the Censor, to exercise to the full its functions of legitimate criticism, and especially to press forward for the publication as soon as possible of news which will do no harm to the strategic situation, or news which has already been known to the enemy, and especially news which will heighten the admiration of the magnificent feats of arms which have been exhibited in this great War as heroically, as impressively, and as brilliantly as ever in the history of this country in its great wars of the past.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES.
    Considered in Committee.

    VOTE A.—NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the number of Land Forces, not exceeding 3,000,000 of all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916."
    Whereupon, Motion made, and Question, "That the CHAIRMAN do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Gulland]—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  AIRCRAFT ATTACKS (COMPENSATION).
  AIRCRAFT ATTACKS (COMPENSATION).
  PARCELS TO SOLDIERS (POSTAGE).
  PARCELS TO SOLDIERS (POSTAGE).
  CANADIAN CONTINGENT (SALISBURY PLAIN).
  CANADIAN CONTINGENT (SALISBURY PLAIN).
  MILITARY OUTFIT CONTRACTS.
  MILITARY OUTFIT CONTRACTS.
  CELLULOID.
  CELLULOID.
  INSURANCE REGULATIONS.
  INSURANCE REGULATIONS.
  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  RAILWAY WAGONS.
  RAILWAY WAGONS.
DYE-MAKING INDUSTRY (MODIFIED SCHEME).
  STATE ASSISTANCE.
  STATE ASSISTANCE.
  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
  SUPPRESSED NEWSPAPERS.
  SUPPRESSED NEWSPAPERS.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  OPENED LETTERS.
  OPENED LETTERS.
  GALICIA.
  GALICIA.
  CONTRABAND (COTTON).
  CONTRABAND (COTTON).
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  COLOUR MANUFACTURE (PYRITES).
  COLOUR MANUFACTURE (PYRITES).
  H.M.S. "PARAGON" (PENSION).
  H.M.S. "PARAGON" (PENSION).
  RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS.
  RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS.
  COASTGUARD SERVICE (SHERINGHAM).
  COASTGUARD SERVICE (SHERINGHAM).
  EXAMINATION OF LETTERS.
  EXAMINATION OF LETTERS.
  PEACE OVERTURES TO GERMANY BEFORE WAR.
  PEACE OVERTURES TO GERMANY BEFORE WAR.
  DOCKYARDSMEN'S WIDOWS.
  DOCKYARDSMEN'S WIDOWS.
  POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAYS).
  POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAYS).
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  NAVY LIST.
  NAVY LIST.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (DARKENED WINDOWS).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (DARKENED WINDOWS).
  SIR HENRY HOWARD'S MISSION TO VATICAN.
  SIR HENRY HOWARD'S MISSION TO VATICAN.
  Port Watchers (Wages).
  Port Watchers (Wages).
  Commissionaires (Government Offices).
  Commissionaires (Government Offices).
  Intermediate Education Grants (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education Grants (Ireland).
  Mexico (British Interests).
  Mexico (British Interests).
  Coolie Emigration.
  Coolie Emigration.
  Komagata Maru's Voyage.
  Komagata Maru's Voyage.
  Prisons (Religious Census).
  Prisons (Religious Census).
  Telephone Directory (Changes of Address).
  Telephone Directory (Changes of Address).
  Flax for Ireland.
  Flax for Ireland.
  Agricultural Labour.
  Agricultural Labour.