Sitting of 12 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Northwich Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Sutton District Water Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill (Suspended Bill),
As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, 21st July.
Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukin-field Tramways and Electricity Board Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday, 21st July.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation (Parks, Harbour Tunnel, Gas, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for the Training of Teachers for Elementary Schools (in force from 1st August, 1915) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Special Regulations for Grants in Aid of Instruction for House wives in Economical Cookery [by Command]; to lie upon the Table

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5445 and 5447 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC SERVICES IN INDIA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners, Vol. XIX. Minutes of Evidence relating to the Railway Department, taken at Delhi, Calcutta, and London, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY.
Copy presented of Orders as to Disability Pensions for Soldiers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Return ordered "for the year ending the 20th November, 1914, (1) from each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the number of such banks; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, excluding the surplus fund; the balance in the hands of the treasurer; the total amount of the separate surplus fund in the hands of the Commissioners; the other assets, including the estimated value of the bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the rate of interest paid to depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries; the rate per cent, per annum on the capital of the bank for the expenses of management; the average cost of each transaction; the total amount of Government

635
Stock standing to the credit of depositors; and the total number and amount of annuities in course of payment, including in such Return a summary of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic. c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed, and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Bank, showing for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and the United Kingdom, the number of such banks, the number and amount of depositors' balances on the 20th day of November previous to date of notice to close; the number and amount of accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the officers of such banks; and showing, in separate columns, the particulars relating to such Savings Banks as have been closed during the year; and (2) showing the total number of depositors in Trustee Savings Banks; the total number of deposits; the total number of withdrawals; the average amount of each deposit account; the average sums paid in and drawn out; and the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 347, of Session 1914)."—[.Sir F. Banbury.]

ORAL ANSWER8 TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    DACOITY (PUNJAB AND BENGAL).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has under consideration the desirability of organising a special department on the lines of the old Thagi department for the purpose of putting down the organised dacoities which now prevail in the Punjab and parts of-Bengal, and are believed to be instigated by German agency?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Criminal Intelligence Department of the Government of India, working in connection with the police departments of Provincial Governments, absorbed and represents the old Thagi and Dakaiti Department. I am not aware that any further special organisation is contemplated.

  SIR IAN HAMILTON'S DISPATCH.
  Mr. GREENWOODasked why, seeing that Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatch concerning the operations in the Gallipoli Peninsula, up to the 5th May last, bears date 20th May last, it has been so long withheld from publication?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This question is not one within the discretion of the Press Bureau, and my right hon. Friend has-asked me to answer it. Dispatches are written primarily to inform His Majesty's Government of the progress of the operations from the military and professional point of view, and the date upon which they may properly be given to the public requires and receives special consideration in each case with reference to the nature of the operations described, and the features of the military situation at the moment.

  COTTON SUPPLIES TO ENEMY.
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of raw cotton and cotton waste imported by Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden during the last two months?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety man): No official trade statistics of these countries for the months in question are yet available except those published by the Netherlands Government for May, which have just reached us. These show a total import of raw cotton into Holland during that month of 30,500 metric tons.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the hon. Gentleman's answer on the Adjournment tonight.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Home Secretary how many alien enemies and how many persons of hostile origin or association have been interned or repatriated in the past week?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The number interned during the past week is 1,140 and the number repatriated is 573.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked how many naturalised Germans are now resident in the British Isles?
  Sir J. SIMON: The only figures available are those of the last Census, from which it appears that in England and Wales there were 4,530 males and 1,912 females of German birth who had been naturalised, and in Scotland 245 males and 149 females. The Census reports for Ireland do not give similar figures.

  RETIRED POSTMEN.
  Colonel YATEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that retired and pensioned postmen who offer their services for re-employment for temporary service during the War are informed that they must forfeit their pensions whilst re-employed; and whether he will give orders that pensions once earned are not to be forfeited on re-engagement?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The practice of the Post Office is to pay re-employed pensioners at the full rate for the services they perform and to withhold such part of the pension payments as may be necessary to comply with the terms of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act of 1834. This Section requires that no more of the pension shall be paid than with the salary on reemployment shall equal the salary at the date of retirement.
  Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men asking for reemployment are offered less pay than they were drawing when they left the service, and, in addition to that, have to give up their pensions?
  Mr. SAMUEL: If that is so, such an answer must have been given to an individual man under a misapprehension. He ought to retain as much of his pension as would make up the total pay to the pay which he was receiving on his retirement. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will inform me of any particular case where this has not been done, I will have it inquired into.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give orders that the pension is not to be entirely confiscated? That is the case with the man I am referring to.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Instructions have already been given, and should have been acted upon.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Are they apt to lose their earned pensions for misconduct?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I think not, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will give me notice.

  POSTAL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now report any decision made in connection with the claims for a war bonus being arbitrated by Sir James Wodehouse?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Sir James Wodehouse has awarded an increase of 3s. a week for men receiving 40s. a week or less, and 2s. a week for men receiving between 40s. and 60s. a week, and an increase of half these amounts for women, these increases to take effect as from the 1st of March last. Steps are being taken: to carry out this award immediately.

  WAR LOAN VOUCHERS.
  Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that no-War Loan vouchers were obtainable up to 6th July at the post office at Rathkenny, county Antrim, and that similar complaints are being made in other country districts; if he will explain why the vouchers have not been obtainable in such places; and whether he will take immediate steps to supply them to every post office in the country?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The original distribution of scrip vouchers was eon-fined to Money Order offices. Arrangements-have since been made to supply any of the smaller offices where money order business is not transacted at which a demand is found to exist.
  Mr. MCNEILL: Is that in effect at the present moment?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.

  MUNITIONS.

    MECHANICS IN 9TH CAVALRY RESERVE.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that there are several skilled mechanics in the ranks of the 9th Cavalry Reserve Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe; that since 1st March last the former employers of these men, at present doing extensive work in the making of shell fuses, have been petitioning for the return of these skilled

    639
    mechanics; that the War Office has all that time been aware of these facts and yet have not moved in the matter; and -whether he will take any action?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend is aware that there are skilled mechanics in the unit named. They are being dealt with under the scheme recently arranged with the War Office for the return of skilled men from the Colours.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is experiencing any difficulty in obtaining the discharge of men through the War Office?
    Dr. ADDISON: I can only say that final arrangements were only got in order a few days ago, and it is rather early at the present time to speak of difficulty.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these men mentioned in the question have actually been taken away?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have had the names of seven men in this unit, but the hon. Member must remember that we do not pledge ourselves necessarily to send a man back to the place from which he came. We send him where his labour can best be used.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Are these men still soldiers?
    Dr. ADDISON: These men are invited to volunteer as munition workers, but they remain as soldiers.
    Mr. WATT: These men have volunteered since 1st March. Have they been dealt with?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a question of argument.

    DELIMITATION OF AREAS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Board of Liquor Control have come to any decision as to the delimitation of any areas in Scotland; and, if so, what areas it is proposed to define?
    Dr. ADDISON: The question of delimiting areas in Scotland is now under the active consideration of the Central Control Board, and it is to be hoped that a statement will be made very shortly.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it the intention of the Board of Control to take these areas one after the other so far as the schemes are concerned or simultaneously?
    Dr. ADDISON: We have dealt already with a large number of areas, which have been defined by an Order in Council.

    METAL MARKET.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether he now possesses adequate powers, without recourse to further legislation, for the full control in case of need of the metal market?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is advised that the powers referred to appear to be sufficient. If further powers are needed, he will no doubt draw attention to the matter

    VOLUNTEERS FOR FACTORIES.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions if he has now obtained by voluntary enrolment all the extra men he needs for the factories; whether he can state their number; and how he proposes to remedy any deficiency which may arise in the future or may exist now?
    Dr. ADDISON: A total of 89,266 war munition volunteers have been enrolled up to Saturday last, when the Munitions Work Bureaux closed. It is not possible to say yet what proportion of these men can be moved from their present employment, and it is, therefore, impossible to say whether it will be sufficient to satisfy the demand for skilled labour for the munitions factories. As regards the future, arrangements have been made with the Board of Trade for any further applications for enrolment as war munitions volunteers to be received at the Labour Exchanges.

    STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions if he has now constituted his staff; and whether all the munitions committees in the provinces and in London are in working order?
    Dr. ADDISON: The staff of the Ministry is in process of being constituted. Further additions to it will no doubt have to be made. A number of munitions committees in London and the provinces are in working order and others are in course of formation.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is included in the staff a number of experienced business men, in accordance with the promise made when the Bill was explained by the Home Secretary?
    Dr. ADDISON: A very large number of most experienced business men are on the staff.
    Mr. MACMASTER: At the central office in London?
    Dr. ADDISON: At the central office.

    MUNITIONS BUREAUX.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state whether it is intended to set up Munitions Bureaux and offices in each munitions district; whether these offices will be provided with an expert staff; and whether it is intended to continue the munitions committees already set up, so that they may carry on their work with the assistance of the Bureaux?
    Dr. ADDISON: Local offices of the Ministry are being established in some of the large industrial centres with a view, among other things, to assisting the munitions committees and management boards of national factories in the various areas. They will be provided with an expert staff and they will give all the assistance in their power to the local munitions committees in the areas which they serve.

    FOOD AND REFRESHMENTS FOR WORKERS.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions whether the regulations will be issued by the Board of Liquor Control with regard to the provision of food and refreshments for the workers in munitions districts within the areas already denned; and whether it is proposed to proceed by imposing restrictions upon the existing licensed premises and by providing additional canteens in munitions works or in their immediate neighbourhood?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is informed that the orders of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) with regard to the areas denned by the Order in Council of July 6th will be issued shortly. He cannot state in advance the precise restrictions which the Board propose to impose, but action towards supplying or increasing canteen accommodation for
    642
    workers in transport and munition areas has already been taken by the Board in several cases. This policy will be vigorously pursued, and the Board count upon the cordial co-operation of employers in giving effect to it without delay.

    OPERATIONS IN INDIA.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether the reorganisation of the resources of India in manufacturing munitions is being carried out in conjunction and in co-ordination with his efforts at home; and whether he is now able to make a statement as to the general arrangements which have been made for interworking in respect of the manufacture of munitions of all parts of the British Empire?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the Government of India on the question of the manufacture of munitions in India. Arrangements are also being made with other parts of the Empire, but I do not think it advisable to make any detailed statement on the subject.

    WAR OFFICE AND SUPPLIES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that in August, 1914, the Chancellor of the Duchy, on his own responsibility and initiative, ordered for the use of the Army the heavy howitzers now being used by the Army in France; whether, when the design of these guns had previously been submitted by the manufacturers to the War Office, they were rejected on the ground that very heavy guns were unsuitable for service in the field; whether any repeat orders have been placed other than given by the Chancellor of the Duchy last year; and (2) whether, seeing the operations not only of our Army but of our Allies are crippled, or at any rate hampered, by the failure of the War Office to provide the necessary ammunition for the New Armies, he will say, in view of the loss of life due to this neglect, whether the best possible authority whom he consulted on this question was directly or indirectly responsible for this state of affairs; and whether he can give an assurance that all persons who have proved incompetent and failed in their duty will be dismissed from the public service?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will give the House

    643
    an early opportunity of discussing the conduct of the War; and (2) whether he will take steps to appoint a Commissioner to examine into the causes which made it necessary to appoint a Minister of Munitions more than ten months after the beginning of the War?
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will give a day to discuss the causes which are responsible for the shortage of munitions of war; and (2) whether Lord Haldane's disclosures in regard to the proceedings of a confidential committee of the Cabinet were made with his authority?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In regard to the inquiries contained in these questions, I am of opinion that it is not in the public interest that I should say more than that there is no public information that I can at the moment properly give, and that I am satisfied that, in existing circumstances, any such discussion as is suggested would serve no good purpose, and would be detrimental to the best interests of the nation.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) comes into possession of information not accessible to all Members of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that that is a question that I could in any circumstances answer; certainly not without notice.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that all people who fail in their office in the public service are to be still retained in that office, whether efficient or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet is to understand nothing of the kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is the effect of it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman is to understand what I have said, which is the considered determination of the Government, and which, I believe, accords with the overwhelming sense of this House and of the country.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, having regard to
    644
    the fact that Members of this House are as much interested in the matter raised in my question as the members of the National Liberal Club, he agrees with his colleague that Lord Haldane's statement was inaccurate and incomplete?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman put a stop to the scandal of attacking public men without notice on information which is not available to the whole House?
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this state of affairs does not imply great incapacity and colossal blundering in high places, and does not that state of affairs now exist?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it well that this discussion should be continued in the Press while it is not allowed in Parliament?
    Mr. HEALY: "Reynolds's" newspaper.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of any question which has been put.

  BRITISH EAST AFRICA (DEPORTATION OF MR. L. W. RITOH).
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what Order in Council Mr. L. W. Ritch, barrister-at-law, was arrested and deported from British East Africa in November last; what were the nature and details of the charge; by whom was it preferred; and by what evidence was it supported?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Mr. Riteh was not deported under an Order in Council but under Martial Law, which was proclaimed in British East Africa on the 5th August. He was deported in the interest of the peace and security of the Protectorate, and I see no reason to doubt the wisdom of the course taken.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to state more definitely the reasons, and to say whether there was anything in his conduct to justify the action taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The fact that Martial Law was proclaimed was in itself proof that it was considered necessary to take steps beyond the ordinary law. I do not think it would be in the public interest to state the grounds.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S FUND (INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether surveyors of Income Tax are acting under his instructions in refusing to allow subscriptions given to the Prince of Wales's Fund to be charged against profits in making assessments; and whether these amounts might be exempted, in view of the fact that the money subscribed has relieved the taxpayer of charges which would otherwise have been imposed upon him?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 24th February last to similar questions put to my predecessor by the hon. Members for Sheffield (Ecclesall) and Leith Burghs.

  IMMATURE SPIRITS (RESTRICTION) ACT (AGE OF WHISKY).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give the House any further information regarding the intentions of the Board of Customs and Excise in deciding the age of blends of whisky under the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act; and whether he is aware that at present the Board is classing as under two years blends containing six other qualities of seven and upwards of seven years?
  Mr. McKENNA: Under the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act it is not competent for the Board of Customs and Excise to do otherwise than regard as inadmissible for home consumption blends of whisky containing a proportion of spirit less than two years old. I am considering, however, as I stated at the close of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the 29th ultimo, whether there are certain types of cases of special hardship which call for special treatment.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will that in any way weaken the effect of this Act, to which some of us attach great importance?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman's question refers to the last part of my answer, in which I state that I am considering whether there are certain types of cases of special hardship which call for special treatment. I do not contemplate any general weakening of the Act.
  Mr. HEALY: Shall we have any opportunity of judging the action of the Department by Papers laid before the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: On the Report stage of the Bill.
  Sir J. D. REES: Can it be raised tomorrow on the Report stage?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. There is a Clause in the Bill dealing with immature spirits.

  CONSOLS AND WAR STOCK.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many millions of money were invested in Consols before the last War Loan was proposed; whether he is aware that the income from £150 of Consols is £3 15s. at 2½ per cent.; whether, under the new offer of the Government, the holder of £150 of Cousols will receive £100 of War stock, and, instead of his income being £3 15s. it will be £4 10s.; and if he can state what amount of money it would cost the country if all the money that was invested in Consols was converted into War stock?
  Mr. McKENNA: The nominal amount of Consols outstanding on 21st June, 1915, excluding the amount held by the Government Departments, was … £352,688, 000

  On the improbable hypothesis that the whole will be converted into 4½ per Cent. War Loan the following results would accrue:—

  (1) The Exchequer would have secured from the holders of Consols subscriptions to the new Loan to a total of

  £470,250,000

  (2) The nominal total capital of the National Debt, for which the State is responsible, would have been reduced so far as the converted Consols are concerned from

  £352,688,000 to £235,126,000

  (3) The charge for interest in respect of the converted Consols would have been

  647
  increased from £8,817,200 per annum to £10,580,670 per annum for the period from 1915 to 1925, after which date it would be open to the State to take advantage of any fall in the rate of interest that might occur at any time and effect a reduction in the charge for interest by redeeming the 4½ per Cent. War Loan and replacing it so far as necessary by stock carrying a lower rate of interest.
  (4) The State assumes the liability of repaying £235,126,000 at par in 1945 at latest if it has not voluntarily redeemed the whole or a portion of that amount at an earlier date.

  PENSIONERS (CHELSEA AND KILMAINHAM HOSPITALS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many indoor pensioners there are at Chelsea Hospital and in Kilmainham Hospital, Dublin?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The authorised establishments are Chelsea 558, and Kilmainham 137. At the moment the actual numbers are 548 and 113, respectively.

  PRIVATE SOLDIERS (DEDUCTIONS OF PAY).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether de ductions are being made from the pay of private soldiers on account of payments made last August by company pay sergeants, from which no deductions were made on account of sums disbursed for wives and children of such private soldiers paid directly to such wives, without the knowledge of such company pay sergeants; whether stoppages were commenced nine months after receipt of the excess payments; and what steps will be taken to mitigate the resulting hardship to men who were in no way to blame for the oversight and double payment?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have heard some complaints to this effect, and inquiries into the matter are in progress.

  OFFICERS' PROMOTION.
  Mr. JAMES MASONasked when the "Gazette" will be published containing the promotions to temporary rank of officers
  648
  temporarily in command of battalions at the front; whether these promotions will be retrospective, and will cover not only the cases of majors and captains temporarily in command of regiments of Cavalry or battalions of Infantry, but also the cases of captains temporarily performing duties of command properly attached to officers of the rank of major and of lieutenants similarly performing captains' duties; and whether, in the case of officers now reported killed who were entitled to temporary promotion for the above reason, such promotion will be gazetted and carry with it the pay attached to the higher rank for the period during which the officer was performing the duties of that rank, and the pension of higher rank if killed when performing the duties of that rank?
  Mr. TENNANT: These promotions are being gazetted as they are reported from France. Promotions will be retrospective and will cover the cases of deceased officers. Officers commanding battalions for thirty days or more will receive one step of temporary rank. Subalterns commanding companies for thirty days or more will get temporary rank of captain. Captains will not be given the temporary rank of major, as captains and majors perform practically identical work. Pensions awarded to widows will be given at the rates laid down for the rank to which these officers are temporarily promoted.
  Colonel YATE: Will the widow of a major not be entitled to the pension of a major?
  Mr. TENNANT: The widow of the major will be entitled to the pension.
  Colonel YATE: If you refuse to promote captains to the rank of major, do you not thereby deprive of the increased pension a lot of ladies who may become widows?
  Mr. TENNANT: Captains and majors have always been considered interchangeable. For that reason the step which I previously announced to the House is not considered to be applicable to them.
  Colonel YATE: The pensions are not interchangeable.

  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked if facilities will be given to Army schoolmasters willing to join the combatant ranks to transfer to such ranks for the period of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: No application for transfer to the ranks as warrant or noncommissioned officers in combatant units have been received from Army schoolmasters. Should such be received they will be considered; but the educational necessities of the Army must be safeguarded.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked how many Army schoolmasters now serving have been granted commissions since the passing of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915?
  Mr. TENNANT: No Army schoolmasters have been granted commissions since the passing of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915.

  TERRITORIAL UNITS (OVERSEAS SERVICE).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused in Territorial units by the circulation of the Army form asking men to volunteer for general service overseas; and whether he will take steps to allay that dissatisfaction by giving an assurance that the men shall not be separated from their own units and their own officers?
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask him if he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused to Territorial units by questions in this House and by speeches outside which, while delivered in their interests, do not represent the feelings of the great number of that body, implying, as they do, that the Territorials are unwilling to volunteer for general overseas service, whereas their only desire is to be used in any capacity for which the Army Council may consider them to be fit?
  Mr. TENNANT: These questions of Imperial Service and transfer have been engaging my attention. It is very satisfactory to learn from the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Glasgow University that the members of the Territorial Force are so justly proud of their calling as to resent suggestions that they are unwilling to undertake the full obligations imposed by the exigencies of this campaign. The desire that the unit should retain its corporate existence is fully recognised, and my Noble Friend has now consented to the withdrawal of the liability to transfer as an accompaniment of Imperial Service.
  Colonel YATEasked whether Cavalry Reserve regiments and Yeomanry regiments of the Territorial Force will be permitted to volunteer to serve overseas dismounted as Infantry units under their own officers, as was done in the case of regiments under the command of the late Secretary of State for War?
  Mr. TENNANT: The suggestion in the question will not be lost sight of.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that several hundred men of the G Company of the Royal Army Medical Corps were, without being consulted, transferred to an Infantry battalion; if he is ware that eighty-two Scotsmen so transferred protested that they desired to remain in the Royal Army Medical Corps, but, if the transfer was compulsory, they wished to be sent to a Scottish regiment; and that, notwithstanding this request, they were sent to Plymouth and attached to the 3rd Battalion of the King's Own Regiment; and, under these circumstances, will he arrange that these Scottishmen may be given facilities to join regiments of their own nationality?
  Mr. TENNANT: Instructions have been issued that the men referred to may transfer to Scottish regiments if they like.

  ENLISTMENT OF MEN WITH FAMILIES.
  Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the reports that middle-aged men with families of six and seven children have recently enlisted in the Kitchener Army; if inquiry is made of such men as to their families prior to their acceptance; and if there is any disqualification on this head?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I have not had my attention called to any such cases of enlistment into the New Armies. Although on attestation a man is asked to state what family he has, this is not for the purpose of considering whether he is eligible or ineligible from that point of view for enlistment, but for the purpose of record in connection with any claim that may be made for separation allowance.
  Mr. FELL: May we take it that there is no limit and no disqualification in the number of children?
  Mr. TENNANT: It would be a very inconvenient and a very strange thing to make that a ground of disqualification.

  COLT MACHINE GUN.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under - Secretary of State for War whether the Colt machine gun is the type adopted by the United States Government for the nee of their army and navy and also by other Governments; whether a firm's offer of 20,000 of these machine guns, rifled to take British ammunition, was made to the War Office early last February, delivery to be completed of all the guts in five and a half months under a penalty of 1,000,000 dollars lodged in an American bank; if so, will he say why this offer was rejected; whether the War Office still consider this type of gun unsuitable; and whether he is aware that large orders have already been placed by the Minister of Munitions for these same guns since he was appointed to his office?
  Mr. FORSTER: As far as I have been able to ascertain, no such offer was received. Various offers of contracts for the manufacture of Colt guns have been made at different dates, but they were declined for the reason that the gun was not suitable for our purpose.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first offer was made on 30th December by Major Banks of 10,000 guns, 2,000 for immediate delivery—except for boring—and this was increased on 20th February, and that Major Banks had written on behalf of the American syndicate which was making these guns?
  Mr. FORSTER: As I have already informed my hon. Friend, I am not aware that this offer to which he refers in his question was ever received.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I have got the correspondence in my pocket.

  REGIMENTAL INSTITUTES.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the furnishing of regimental institutes,
  652
  which was formerly supplied out of the funds at the disposal of the institutes, is now supplied by the War Office; and, if not, whether he will give directions that this shall be done in future, in view of the fact that the institutes have no longer the means of defraying this expense?
  Mr. FORSTER: Authorised regimental institutes are furnished by the War Department. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case where this has not been done, I will have inquiries made with a view to remedying the matter.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does my hon. Friend mean that this is a new custom or that this liability was always assumed by the War Office?
  Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say that. All I can say is what the liability is at the present time.

  PARLIAMENTARY SESSION (DURATION).
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Prime Minister whether he can say when the present Session of Parliament will come to an end; and whether he will consider in this connection the advisability of Parliament remaining in permanent Session while the country continues in a condition of grave peril?
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the desirability of an early adjournment of the House; and whether he will consider the advisability of short Sessions of Parliament with relatively short periods of adjournment during the continuance of the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that this part of the Session will be brought to a close before the end of this month, but I cannot yet say at what date it will be resumed. The suggestion in Question 58 will be duly considered.

  TERMS OF PEACE.
  Mr. D. MASONasked what terms of peace the enemy Governments are prepared to entertain; and whether any proposals have been made which include the evacuation of Belgium and Northeast France?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information on the subject.

  INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL
  Mr. D. MASONasked whether, with a view to the prevention in future of a repetition of the present War in Europe, His Majesty's Government will support the creation of an international tribunal of all the Powers of the world with powers to enforce its decrees in the event of a dispute arising between the Powers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the present circumstances any discussion of this matter would be premature.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that 148 Amendments were put down in Committee on the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill; and if the Government propose during the War to alter the procedure of this House in the direction of speeding up the passing of such measures as the Government consider necessary for the due prosecution of the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no present intention of making any alteration in the method of discussing Bills.

  6TH CAVALRY RESERVE.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 6th Cavalry Reserve has received notice that it will shortly be removed from Dublin to Kildare; that it will cost the Government at least £200; that there are several married officers who have taken furnished houses in Dublin; that many non-commissioned officers who have re-enlisted and are not eligible for the front have brought their wives and families to Dublin at their own expense, all of whom will have to incur additional outlay; is he also aware that the accommodation at Kildare is inferior to that at Dublin barracks; and will he give the reason for this change?
  Mr. TENNANT: The move has been ordered in the interest of war training, to enable the unit to be brigaded with two other Reserve regiments. The cost of the move will be small compared with the military advantages that will be gained.
  654
  The accommodation at Kildare is good. Should any cases of hardship to the families of officers or soldiers be represented they would be considered, but no undertaking to compensate can be given.

  SIR JOHN FRENCH'S DISPATCH.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: At what date the dispatch of Sir John French, dated the 15th June, was received in London?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not received the notice of that question.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Why was not the dispatch given to the Press yesterday when it was published in the "London Gazette" last Friday? Is there some arrangement by which the daily Press is to have precedence of the Sunday Press?
  Mr. HEALY: More "Reynolds' Newspaper."

  Ripon Post Office.
  Major EDWARD WOODasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the state of the postal arrangements at present existing at Ripon, owing to the recent influx of soldiers there; will he say what steps the Post Office has taken to relieve the present staff and to meet this influx; what notice, if any, the Post Office have received from the War Office of the time of arrival and numbers of the soldiers now stationed there; what additional accommodation has been or is being provided there to meet this extra press and, if the completion of this accommodation has been delayed, who is responsible for the delay; what steps has the Post Office taken to accelerate matters; and is he aware that meanwhile the congestion at the existing office is causing great inconvenience to all branches of the public?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A temporary branch post office for the use of the troops in Ripon camp will be opened in a few days. I am having inquiry made with regard to the causes of the delay in establishing the new office and the other points raised by the lion, and gallant Member, and will write to him as soon as possible.

  Gretna Green Railway Accident.
  Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether his Department gave definite instructions for the arrest and prosecution of the signalman Tinsley, alleged to be responsible for the railway accident near Gretna Green, in Scotland; and, if so, will he explain the reasons for such instructions in view of the fact that the matters fall clearly under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts?
  Sir J. SIMON: No such instructions were given by my Department. A good many deaths caused by the Gretna accident occurred at Carlisle, and an inquest had therefore to be held there. The coroner's jury having found a verdict of manslaughter against Tinsley, the coroner, in pursuance of the Statute, committed him for trial on this charge to the next Cumberland Assizes, which will be held in October. I have no authority to intervene in these proceedings, which I believe to be in accordance with the law.
  Mr. WATT: Is it fair that this man should be liable to be apprehended twice for the same alleged crime?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether Scottish or English proceedings would be the more rapid, but I can hardly doubt, whichever takes place first, that the matter will be finally disposed of by the Court.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will my right hon. Friend not consider that it would be cheaper to prosecute this man in Scotland than in England in these days of national economy?

  Child Welfare Centres (Scotland).
  Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the necessity for making provision in Scotland for the institution of child-welfare centres in different parts of the country; whether he is aware that a large grant has been obtained for the purpose of providing such centres in England while no grant has, so far, been obtained for Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Scotland is receiving any Grant for child welfare, corresponding to that now made to England (Class II., Vote 17, Sub-head X.); and, if not, whether any steps are being taken to provide an equivalent
  656
  Grant of that character for Scotland, particularly in view of the additional duties proposed to be laid on local authorities by the Notification of Births (Extension) Bill?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The matter has been receiving his close attention and he is in communication with the Treasury with regard to it.

  Cardiff Street Improvements.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any decision has been come to with respect to the application by the Corporation of Cardiff for a Provisional Order for the widening of Duke Street, Cardiff; whether he is aware that there is an increasing body of opinion in the city who view with anxiety the secret negotiations which have taken place with the landowner, as disclosed in the printed minutes of the Cardiff Corporation; whether he is aware that a definite pledge was given to the representative ratepayers' associations of the city that they should be heard by the Duke Street Improvement Committee before that committee put forward any scheme to the city council, which pledge has been ignored; whether he is aware that the scheme was referred back to the above committee on the 7th June instant for further information; whether the scheme has since been approved by the city council and, if so, when; and whether he is prepared to order a public inquiry into the whole circumstances, and so meet the wishes of the main body of the ratepayers of the city?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Provisional Order referred to is included in the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, which has been read a second time in another place. A local inquiry was held by an inspector of the Local Government Board before the issue of the Order. I have no information as to the second, third and fourth points raised in the question. The scheme was approved by the town council on the 28th ultimo, but my right hon. Friend thought it his duty to require an independent investigation by a valuer nominated by him, of the proposals involved and their financial aspects before making himself responsible for the scheme to the extent of allowing the Provisional Order to come before Parliament as an unopposed measure. My right hon.

  657
  Friend has received the report of the valuer, who is satisfied that the scheme is a fair and equitable bargain. In the circumstances I see no necessity for further inquiry.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Will the Local Government Board, in view of the serious cleavage of opinion both on the council and in the city, take further steps to protect the interests of the community?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has already stated in reply to the hon. Member that he sees no occasion for any further inquiry. It is obvious that at the present time Local Government Board sanction is necessary for further proceedings under the Provisional Order. I understand that the town council are ready to acquiesce in that. The Local Government Board will be applied to for further sanction before anything is done under the Provisional Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister if he will endeavour so to arrange the business of the House that when novel and far-reaching legislative proposals are made by the Government Members may have the opportunity of reading and digesting them before being called upon to pass them into law; and is he aware that last Thursday night week an important Government Bill, affecting the financial interests of thousands of His Majesty's subjects, was passed through the House in a few minutes, at an hour when about 650 Members had long gone to bed, and that it became an Act of Parliament by Royal Assent the following day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The usual course is to give full opportunity for consideration. In the case of the War Loan Trustees Bill, referred to by my hon. Friend, the stages were taken on two days. There were exceptional circumstances which required that the later stages should he taken quickly, so that the Bill could be in operation in time to be of any effect.
  Sir W. BYLES: Does my right hon. Friend realise that exceptional circumstances have resulted in making this Statute the creation, not of Parliament, hut of half a dozen clerks in Whitehall?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all; it received the assent of both Houses.
  Sir W. BYLES: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the resumption of Friday sittings as an alternative to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no evidence of any general desire in the sense of my hon. Friend's proposal.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the business for Wednesday next?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Wednesday I intend to move a Procedure Resolution dealing with Supply. We shall then take the Report stage of the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
  On Thursday we shall take Supply—Civil Service Votes.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the municipal elections will be fixed this year or not—it is an important question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have already given notice that we will bring in a Bill to deal with that subject.
  Mr. LOUGH: When may we see the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Next week.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Colonial Office Vote will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Not this week. If there is a general desire we will take it next week. I will refer to the subject when I move the Procedure Resolution.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In reference to the municipal elections, will the Bill cover the question of Parliamentary registration, which is a subject on which some of us ought to be consulted, having regard to the special case of Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA.
    CONCLUSION OF MILITARY OPERATIONS.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to give notice that I shall to-morrow move a Resolution on the happy conclusion of military operations in South-West Africa.
  SUPPLY.— [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, JOINT COMMITTEE.—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £568,275, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, including Sundry Grants in Aid."—[NOTE.—£50,000 has been voted on account.]
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have been for less than two months responsible for

    667
    the administration of the National Insurance Act in this House, and there are many details in connection with insurance work with which I have not yet had time to become personally acquainted. I am glad to have the opportunity to-day of hearing the points to which hon. Members attach importance, but I cannot, in the circumstances, go further than promise to give them my careful attention, for I am not, as will be understood, in a position to give an immediate reply to suggestions that may be made in the course of discussion. Of course, at the present time, most of the old controversies in connection with the National Insurance Act are in abeyance and I have no desire to review them at the present moment. They may be revived again later on. I shall confine myself in the present statement I have to make to two main questions.
    I want to say something upon the effect of the War on the Department and its work, and to, sketch in outline some assistance which, in various ways, the Insurance Commission has been able to render. Then—and this perhaps is a controversial subject—I shall say a few words on the possibility of economies in administration of the National Insurance Act. Consistently with the maintenance of efficient administration, we have done all in our power to release men on the staff who wished to volunteer for military service. Clerks of military age to, I believe, the number of 533 have been released for military service. Six of them, I regret to say, have already fallen. Other members of the staff have been sent to help other Departments. Those other Departments have in many cases drawn picked able men from the Insurance Commission; and in Departments that have been feeling the strain and in various committees which have been dealing with war work the members of the staff have been rendering efficient and valuable help. It has been suggested by some of our critics that we should gain some economy by that, but obviously as we are paying their salaries there is no particular gain in economy, though I think we have done what might fairly be expected of us in allowing those members of the staff to volunteer. I cannot disguise the fact that there must be some lowering of the standard of administration. You have to work sometimes overtime, but the extra burden on the Department has been borne with cheerful alacrity by those of the staff who remain, and there must be some scaling down in
    668
    promptitude, and possibly we cannot guarantee equal freedom from error and mistake. That is inevitable in the circumstances, but I hope the Committee will realise that we have done the best that is possible consistently with the maintenance of due efficiency. On other points I need not assure the Committee that the occurrence of the War has raised a number of new problems with which we have to grapple. Three emergency measures have been passed through Parliament, and perhaps the most important of those in its effect on the approved societies is the grant of five shillings relief from sickness and disablement benefit to those soldiers who have come back totally disabled and have secured disablement pensions from the pension fund. That is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Pensions and Grants. In some other ways assistance has been given to the approved societies, and I think we have gone as far as we can at present to safeguard the funds of the approved societies from the drain which the War is causing upon their resources. The ultimate effect of the War upon the finances and position of the approved societies will have to be considered when we have more information at our disposal. There may be considerations which will have to be weighed on both sides, but I think we must wait for further information on that point. We realise that the societies are naturally undergoing like the central administration a considerable strain owing to the depletion of members and by the additional work which the War has thrown upon them. They have to record the number of members who enlist, they have to pay maternity benefit in proper cases in the families of the soldiers who enlist. To meet these additional expenses an allowance has been made which will to some extent relieve the societies.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the hon. Gentle-say under what Act?
    Mr. ROBERTS: A number of duties have been undertaken which are strictly outside the purview of the Insurance Commissioners, but I should like to assure Members of the Committee that where we have gone beyond the bounds of our powers we have acted only at the request of the responsible authorities, and only within the limits within which we have been asked to act. For instance, in collaboration with the War Office we have secured medical attendance for soldiers on furlough, soldiers living at home or in

    669
    billets, and have made known the arrangements amongst the insurance and panel committees. There are the cases of workmen where the camps were being constructed. The Committee will realise that it was undesirable to have the delays which would be involved in making inquiries as to whether men engaged in this particular work, which was work of pressure, were or were not insured under the Act. Arrangements have been made in which medical attendance has been secured to them, the account afterwards to be settled by the military authorities. I may also mention the generous offer made by the medical profession and the chemists to treat the dependants of soldiers serving with the Forces. We have been able there to help in the dissemination of the information and in the preparation of the scheme, and it is, I think, a very generous act on the part of those two professions which deserves all due recognition. There are cases of soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, and here again we have arranged with the War Office that soldiers when discharged afflicted with this illness should vacate their beds in the military hospitals, and without any interval should undergo treatment in residential institutions so that there should be no gap between their discharge from the military hospital and admission to a sanatorium. The insurance committees have helped with this scheme with great alacrity, and grants of £10 per head have been made out of the Grant sanctioned last year by Parliament. A considerable number of soldiers have already been benefited by that arrangement. Then, again, numbers of the Forces engaged in civil employment with the consent of the War Office, such, for instance, as in the Dock Battalions at Liverpool, or those sent-back from the Army to assist in munition work or in engineering work, have been provided with medical attendance and treatment. They have been all given the advantages of the Insurance Act. We had also the case of the Belgians, which raised some novel points. As the Committee knows, residents abroad are not liable, and it was thought that if the Belgians went back early to Belgium they might not wish to be insured. They were allowed in consequence to claim the exemption which was due to them if they could establish that they were ordinarily dependent on some occupation or work in Belgium. In the case of foreigners the employer pays
    670
    his contribution though the employé does, not, and the 3d. weekly which the employer pays goes to provide in the case of the Belgians medical and sanatorium-benefits. There was one case of a munitions works, where a large number of Belgians are being employed, and there it was desirable to provide them at once after no waiting period, or a very short waiting period, with medical treatment. In those-cases special arrangements have been-made that after a month they are to be-entitled to medical treatment. Special medical cards are being prepared in those-cases, which can be presented to any doctor on the panel, and they are to be-renewed every three months.
    There are two other war points which I wish briefly to mention. One of the first difficulties with which we had to deal on the outbreak of war was the rapid rise in the price of certain drugs which were normally prescribed. In their case the Treasury allows a special Grant therefor, and the prices in respect of these drugs are-being fixed monthly by agreement between; the British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Society with the approval of the Insurance Commissioners. There is one further point which will, I think, appeal to the Committee. In this case really substantial assistance has been given. Under the principal Act one penny per annum per insured person is available from the Exchequer to carry on schemes of medical research. The Medical Research Committee was set up with an income of about £56,500 a year. It is-staffed with some very distinguished men of science, and before the War they were engaged in the prosecution of a number of schemes of medical research. When the War broke out the whole staff was handed over to the War Office for service in connection with the War. Their buildings-have been turned into a hospital. The staff are engaged in compiling medical statistics, statistics of casualties, and soon. They are taking preventive steps; against the spread of disease and in reference to improved sanitation. Some details of their work have been embodied in a White Paper which has been presented to the House. I really think that no single penny has been better spent by any one of the 14,000,000 insured persons during the year than this particular penny which has been contributed for the purposes of medical research. The Insurance Commission is very conscious of the strain which the War has thrown upon the approved societies-

    671
    Owing to the fact that many of the members of their staffs are at the War it is undoubtedly difficult for them to get through their work with the efficiency which they would undoubtedly desire. We have done what we can in the Insurance Commission to lighten their work, but if any hon. Members have any suggestions to make which would assist the societies in their work I shall be very ready to hear and consider them.
    I turn next to the second head with which I wish to deal. I am in great sympathy with the critics who at this time preach the need for close economy. All my own instincts personally are in favour of economy. The critics who are pleading this cause single out the work of the Insurance Commission for special attention. I would point out in the first place that, besides that stream of criticism, there is another very different stream with which I have already come in touch. There are a number of classes, official and professional, who urge that the great burden of the War should certainly not be thrown upon them. Approved societies, doctors, employers, and so on, all plead that the burden of the War is a national burden, and that, therefore, it should be thrown on the nation as a whole—that means on the Exchequer. That is a conflicting stream of criticism, and if the doctrine of economy is to be effectively preached, the Committee will have to set their faces against appeals of the kind I have indicated. The Estimates which I have the honour to present show some indication of economy. The Vote of the Joint Committee is reduced by some £600,000. There are minor variations which make the net reduction £495,000. That is in some measure due to War economies—the postponement of various schemes of development which would have been undertaken but for the War. For instance, there was a Grant for the institution of Medical Referees, and for extra provision for nursing. These schemes have had to be held up pending the return of peace. The soldiers have the first claim -on the medical and nursing professions, and the civil population must wait. While I sympathise with 'the aims and objects of the advocates of economy, I do not think that they benefit their cause by wild exaggeration and recklessness of statement. In a recent Debate, in another place, Lord Midleton, in a most admirable effort to revive the obsolete virtue of economy, singled out the Insurance Act
    672
    for public condemnation. If I may read a passage in which he led us to expect that there were possibilities of making economies to the tune of some millions a year—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member of the valuable rule against quoting in this House speeches made in the other House.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I apologise if I have gone beyond the line. Of course, I will carefully obey your ruling. It is not only in the other place, but in the Press, that criticisms have been made on the work in connection with the Insurance Act, and suggestions have been made for further economies which will serve as my text for explaining what I think is the real state of the case.
    Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I shall be delighted to hear the observations of the hon. Baronet. The position taken up by the critics is put in a statement which I found running through a section of the Press last week. It was said that the actual benefits provided by the Government amount to only 60 per cent, of the expenditure. That rests on the fact that out of a total expenditure of £25,000,000 under the Insurance Act benefits are put by the critics at the sum of £15,000,000. As a matter of fact they are rather higher. The value of the actual benefits—sickness, medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits—are about £17,000,000 a year in a normal year. The suggestion made, I think, is that if the benefits only amount to 60 per cent, of the expenditure, the cost of administration is 40 per cent. That moans—some of our critics put it definitely into words—that we are spending about £3 in the cost of administration for every £5 given in benefits. The critics make two mistakes. In the first place they have underrated the value of the benefits, which amount to £17,000,000. In the expenditure there is put to reserve—and it accumulates as reserve—against claims for sickness in the future a sum which amounts to just under £5,000,000. That is, of course, entirely proper action on the part of any insurance fund.
    Experts who have criticised the administration of the Act have somehow left that fact out of account. If the Committee would like to know how the income

    673
    of £25,000,000 is really accounted for, the percentages work out in this way: To reserve, 19 per cent, of the total sum; benefits' account, 67.3 per cent; working expenses, 13.7 per cent. That is to say, if the insurance fund was a private concern—I believe this is the language of the insurance world—the ratio of working expenses to the premium income is 13.7 per cent.—the whole of the income from the State, received from the employers' contributions and from the contributions of the assured representing the premium income of the insurance company. I admit that the analogy is not on all-fours, but I think hon. Members who are experts in the work know quite well that that ratio of expenditure would not be a bad one, and would not compare unfavourably, while it is in many cases very much exceeded. Hon. Members may say that this percentage of 13.7 of working expenses seems a heavy figure, but that is the maximum total of working expenses under the Act. In fixing the figure at that I have put the case against the Act at its highest. I have included sums which are represented in the Insurance Votes which we are discussing now, and also sums taken out for Post Office, Stationery, Customs and Excise, and other Votes. I am also including the expenses of insurance committees and of approved societies. When I was put on the track of our critics in the effort to find £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 which could be saved by cutting down the expenses of the Insurance Act, I made a preliminary exploration to see what was possible in that direction.
    I would remind the Committee that, so far as the expenses of approved societies go, any saving which they may make goes to increase the benefits which are at their disposal, and cannot be given over to the Exchequer. I have put their expenses at the maximum. It is calculated at so much per head of insured persons who are members of those societies. Any saving which they can make there will go to reduce my figure of 13.7 per cent, working expenses, and correspondingly to increase the percentage of the total which goes for benefits. That is, therefore, not the actual working expense of the Act. It is the maximum expenditure. Some societies are able to make savings, but how great are those savings I could not know without detailed examination of the accounts of each approved society. This percentage of 13.7 represents a sum of about £3,500,000. Some may say that in that £3,500,000 there are great opportunities for economists.
    674
    But out of it 75 per cent., or two and a half million, represents the expenditure of insurance committees and of approved societies, so that in that sum there is no saving for the Exchequer, though there may be to the committees and societies. There is the greatest personal inducement to members of approved societies to save on their working expenses in order to get higher benefits. My chances of economy seem to be fading away somewhat. Of the remaining sum £105,000 goes for audit—a work which is indispensable, which cannot, I think, be cut down, and which in any case is not under the control of the Insurance Commissioners.
    4.0 P.M.
    I am left to find a field of possible economy in two sums of £483,612, which is represented in the present Insurance Votes, and the sum of £287,000 which is expenditure in the Stationery, Post Office, Office of Works Votes, and so on. Under the circumstances any idea that the country can save one million and a half in the Income Tax, or that you are going to get a penny or twopence off tea, by economy in the administration of the Insurance Act is fanciful, and will not bear examination. In fact we are reduced to the domain of minor economies. I agree economies ought to be made, but I note that the critics have it strongly on their notes that the Insurance Commission is infected with the microbe of extravagance, and that the Commission pays no attention to the possible waste of public money. The evidence for that, and the only evidence quoted, refers to affairs three years ago. These are only relevant to-day as illustrative of the mind and temper of the Commissioners. It is said in the Press that in the first three months of the Act the Commissioners ordered 2,800 tons of paper and distributed 175,000,000 leaflets. I have examined that incident, and I find it included 120,000,000 insurance books and cards; and I imagine there is considerable weight in that figure. Those books and cards were required by Parliament, and I think the critics who quote that figure out of a Blue Book should also have noticed that the Blue Book itself, in dwelling on that question, mentioned that the Stationery Office claim that, by careful attention to a particular brand of paper, it had been enabled to save the country a sum of £70,000 a year. On the whole I could not find any evidence of recklessness there. As to the 175,000,000 leaflets, there

    675
    is a fancy picture of these leaflets being laid on the Table of the House—a picture which does not betray much acquaintance with our ordinary procedure—and of these leaflets being amended and then flung aside in batches of a million. Well, there is nothing of that which is really true. It is true that the leaflets were ordered, and, if the House of Commons will remember what it did last week when it ordered forms of inquiry and certificates of registration by the million, I think I may conclude from that that where the House of Commons realises there is a really important object to be gained, it does not object to a large stationery bill. I think, on the whole, it was an aim of importance that the Insurance Act should be rapidly, promptly, and thoroughly understood. I do not want to detain the Committee on these small minor points, but the country wishes, and the House of Commons wishes, that minor economy should be made.
    I have one crumb of consolation to offer to the critics. When the office of one of the Commissioners recently fell vacant—the post of Legal Adviser to the Joint Committee, with a salary of £1,500 a year—the Treasury, with the full concurrence of my predecessor, decided that it need not be filled up. The gentleman in question had done admirable work for the Insurance Act, but the period of stress and strain was over, and I think that, on the whole, his place can be supplied in other ways. If anyone is really anxious to further the minor economies, he can perhaps assist by giving three or four days' notice of questions. That is not a matter which is of as much importance to-day, when the interests of the House of Commons has died down in matters of insurance; but when there were thirty, forty, or fifty questions a day from hon. Members interested in the working of the Insurance Acts, these questions had, in many cases, to be telegraphed to Dublin, to Edinburgh, and to Cardiff, owing to the national organisation of the Insurance Commissions, and I quite admit that there was there an expenditure which, though not large in bulk, could well have been dispensed with. The Committee knows that the organisation of the Insurance Commissions has often been criticised as expensive. We cannot discuss any amendment of that now, or I should be once more called to order by the Chairman; but I think the time is come to see whether there is any expenditure which results from that system of organisation which admits of
    676
    being cut down. I, for my part, should heartily welcome the new inquiry by the Treasury into the working of the Departments which was indicated in another place. The matter is being considered in the Department. Abstract economies may be praised occasionally, but concrete economies are generally very unpopular and disagreeable. Still, I think the House and the country expect that resolution and increased care will be shown in the future.
    I have only one word further in this connection. You cannot cut down the efficiency of the administration beyond a certain point. During war time you have to expect makeshifts, postponements, and we can make allowances, but any real inefficiency in the administration of the Act might work out into poor persons losing the help and the comfort which are their due under the Act at a time of stress and trouble. You cannot so economise as to run the risk of a maternity benefit, for instance, being paid some four or six weeks after the proper time, or an assured person failing to get his proper sanatorium treatment in a sufficiently early stage of his disease. I believe the Act is performing a work of vast beneficence in the country at the present time. It will not be less indispensable after the War, in the days that are to come, and for the sake of men who may come back from the War in bad health and on all other grounds the efficiency of the administration must be maintained.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman, when he commenced his remarks about economy, said that the critics had singled out the Insurance Commission for their comments on economy. That does not apply to me, because I think in nearly every Department of the Government economy could certainly be made, and it is not necessary to single out any one Department. I have already, within the last ten days, singled out the Land Valuation Department, which, if anything, is worse than the Insurance Commission. The hon. Gentleman stated that certain economies, if they were made, would affect the insurance companies, and that they would not affect the Exchequer: That may be quite true, but economy is a good thing whether it affects the Exchequer or anybody else, and if economies in the administration of the different companies that look after the insurance can, be made they ought to be made. However, I propose this afternoon to deal only

    677
    with that amount of money which is spent by the State. If there were not what is called a political truce, I think I could make a very good case against the late Government. I observe that the hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the total cost, which, as far as I can make out, is over £9,000,000. It is not very clear, because you have to look about amongst the pages to find out certain items which are included in other Votes.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does the hon. Baronet suggest £9,000,000 per annum?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute that?
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Estimates I think he will see that I am correct. He will see that the total is £21,787,060, all of which, except £13,089,000 for old age pensions, belongs to insurance. If you deduct £13,089,000 from £21,787,000 you arrive at £8,700,000. If you look a little further on you will find there are on the other Votes £5,000 and £283,000.
    Mr. BOOTH: Out of the first total the hon. Baronet gave, there is over £1,000,000 for Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance which are not in the Vote today.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance are so mixed up that it is difficult to tell how much belongs to the unemployment insurance and how much belongs to the Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But the unemployment insurance is certainly part of the National Insurance and "was in the same Bill; therefore it ought to be included in the expenditure.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: It is nothing to do with my Department, but the Board of Trade.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It may have nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's Department, but the taxpayer has got to find the money, and that is the point which I want to emphasise and which a great number of people are thinking of at the present moment. Then the hon. Gentleman dealt with leaflets. It is necessary to send out I
    678
    forget how many millions of leaflets in order that people may understand the Insurance Act. It possibly was in the interest of a certain political party, and I think the hon. Gentleman used those words himself.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think he did; at any rate, it was in nobody else's interest. The only reason was because it was in the interest of a political party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it was. I would point out that the hon. Gentleman first of all said there was a saving this year, and so there is. It is a very small saving, but it is not a saving on the original Estimate of last year. On page 2 the total expenditure is given as £21,787,000, and there is a little footnote which says that the total original net Estimate for 1914–15 was £21,036,000, so that on the original net Estimate there is an increase. That £21,036,000 was increased by Supplementary Votes, and of course we do not know whether we may not have Supplementary Votes later on this year. Taking the original Estimate, there is, as a matter of fact, an increase upon the Vote of last year. I may, just for one moment, deal with the expenditure which comes under the heading of these Votes—the expenditure which the taxpayer has to pay. I will not say my figures are correct to a pound or two, but they are correct to within £500 or £1,000. Now I find, out of an expenditure of, roughly speaking, £9,000,000—I am not including in this the Labour Exchanges, on which there is for salaries, wages and allowances, £569,000—it appears that £454,000 is spent on wages and salaries; nothing for paper, nothing for office expenses—merely wages and salaries, £454,000. Then there are travelling expenses, £40,000; they must travel a great deal to spend £40,000.
    Mr. W. THORNE: There are no cheap excursions now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In addition to that there is £838,000, which is granted to the insurance societies for expenses, so that altogether there is £1,400,000 actually spent in wages, travelling expenses and Grants in aid of the expenses of administration (societies and committees). That is an enormous amount. It is something like 15 per cent, on the amount contributed by the State, and that does not include office expenses, rent, paper, stationery, or any of the other various items

    679
    which have to be provided. It seems to me that there is great room for economy in this direction. I cannot conceive why we want to spend £1,300,000 in salaries, wages and expenses of administration of the societies. I presume the societies spend a considerable sum themselves in expenses of administration, and therefore I am not at all surprised that it has been stated that the benefits are, comparatively speaking, small. The hon. Member for Lincoln admits that the cost is £3,500,000. It seems to me that it is difficult to show that anyone is receiving any benefit at all under the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes they are!"] I will not go into that because it may be regarded as controversial, but my experience is that we should be a great deal better off without the Act than with it.
    Mr. BOOTH: Who does the hon. Member mean by "we"?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Workmen and employers. I should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman opposite can explain why it is necessary to spend these enormous sums in salaries and wages. I do not want to make any charge against the present Government or the last Government, but I do hope that the hon. Gentleman representing the Commissioners, who seems desirous of instituting economies, will cast his mind over these matters and see whether he cannot get the work equally well done by a considerably smaller number of people at a considerably less salary. The hon. Gentleman said economies are always unpopular. Of course they are. Naturally the person doing half a day's work and receiving more pay than he ought to does not like to be told to do a whole day's work and have his pay cut down. The hon. Member is there not to make himself popular but to look after the interests of the taxpayer and see that for every sovereign he spends he gets a sovereign's worth. All Governments of late years have failed in that respect, because their desire has been not to do anything which is unpopular. Their desire should be to do the right thing, without caring whether it is popular or unpopular. I do not suppose that I am doing a popular thing in saying that there is a great deal of money being wasted in salaries, but I believe it is so, and I believe the work could be done well with a far smaller staff and smaller salaries. It is because I believe that is so that I feel it is my duty
    680
    to get up and make the few remarks that I have made. I do not know whether it will be possible for the hon. Member for Lincoln to tell us how far he thinks this expenditure is likely to rise, and whether there is any chance of its diminution. When the Insurance Act first became law no one ever contemplated that there would be anything like £9,000,000 spent upon it. I have got out the figures, but I will not give them for fear that I should be tempted to make a more or less controversial speech, but I should like some assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he really does appreciate the great importance of effecting economies in every direction. As he is a new broom, and there is an old proverb that "new brooms sweep clean, "I hope he will give me some satisfaction before the Debate closes today. We are in a peculiar difficulty because, under present circumstances, I could not very well divide the House upon this question, but in ordinary times I should have done so in regard to this great waste of public money. The Prime Minister himself at the Guildhall the other day, as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, advocated economy with great force and power. I do not see either of those right hon. Gentlemen present, and I do not see many hon. Members on my old side of the House, but if we are going to have a campaign in favour of economy it will be necessary for hon. Members to take a little more trouble and interest themselves on this subject, or we shall gain nothing. With the exception of two hon. Members on the opposite side, all the others are for extravagant expenditure without regard to where the money is going to come from. I really trust that the House will consider these questions very carefully. It would be out of order for me to enter into a Budget discussion, but I really do not know where the money is going to come from, and I am quite sure, when the War is over, the position of the country will be extremely serious if we go on spending these enormous sums of money.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not wish to say anything which would lessen the effect of the moral lesson which has just been read to us by the hon. Baronet opposite. I think, on this question of economy, I may reckon myself as a close follower of the hon. Baronet.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I included the hon. Member for Pontefract in the two.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sure that is so, and if the hon. Baronet will only read this homily to every Government Department I will promise to be present to support him. I would, however, remind the hon. Baronet that this is scarcely the time for paying off old grudges which are a few years old, and which arise from a difference of conception by hon. Members of this House in regard to the insurance scheme. I think it would be much better to turn our attention to the effect that the War has upon the finances of the insurance scheme. I would remind the hon. Baronet before I leave him that if he had taken the trouble to turn up the Debates on the Insurance Act he would have seen that I did announce to the House that the sums of money the Government were then voting would be nothing like sufficient, and would have to be increased. I know at the time some people were very sceptical about the matter, and I was like one crying in the wilderness. Now we are face to face with the position that the Commissioners can control this matter very little. The machinery was set up by this House, and so far as economy is concerned they can effect some economy in their own administration, but they cannot effect the saving of millions of pounds, which apparently some hon. Members opposite think ought to be done, without repealing the Act. Therefore any talk of this kind, whether in another place, in the Press, or in this House about saving millions cannot possibly apply to the insurance scheme. I welcome the hon. Member for Lincoln upon his first appearance in his present position. I think he is the sixth Minister who has answered insurance questions in this House. I would like to point out an omission from his statement. The hon. Member made no reference to the number of people under insurance or of the effect the War has had upon those figures. He also made no reference to the finance, and he did not say whether the actuarial calculations for men and women had been found to be sufficient. He did not say what financial burdens the War had already thrown upon the scheme in regard to the return of soldiers in imperfect health.
    I should have thought that this was a very good opportunity for having a searching inquiry into the working of the Act, seeing that we now have a united Government, because it could not be taken as a party move. I should include in the inquiry the conduct of the Commissioners themselves, both as regards the Joint Committee and the National Commis-
    682
    sioners. I do not mention those bodies because I have not a great respect for them, but seeing that there is a considerable amount of uneasiness in the country and in this House about this scheme, and seeing that it is now nearly four years since it was passed, I should have thought that it was necessary to institute an inquiry in order to inform and assure the country generally how the Act was working. An hon. Member has already hinted at a Treasury inquiry into some small point. I do not know who first suggested that course, but I believe the suggestion was made in another place. In my opinion that would not meet the case at all, and I hope hon. Members in every part of the House will have an inquiry which has the seal of this House set upon it, rather than one Department of the Government inquiring into another Department which is directly under its control. I rather think the hon. Member for Lincoln himself is a Treasury official, or perhaps he is a Household appointment. Anyhow, if he is a Household appointment he is the first that has taken charge of this matter, because all the previous spokesmen have been Treasury officials. We have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have had the Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, and we have also had an exception in Mr. Masterman, who after his appointment as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was allowed to keep the post ho had occupied in regard to the National Insurance Act, which was given to him because he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he was thought to be so indispensable that the work of the National Insurance Commissioners had to follow him when he was appointed to that joyful sinecure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a Department which looks after the cricket grounds at Pontefract and neglects them.
    The Insurance Department was set up, and it was complained that the Treasury, instead of being the custodian of the public purse, was turning itself into a great spending department. Therefore to have a Treasury inquiry into a matter of this kind would be like appointing the head partner in a firm to inquire into the conduct of his junior partner. While I do not object to the Treasury inquiring into the conduct of their own offspring, what I think is required by the community is an examination from the general or public standpoint to see whether the Act is answering the wishes of those of us who helped to pass it into law. I do not think we ought in our

    683
    approved societies to have our attention diverted any more than can be helped by new regulations relating to the conduct of the War. Those working the Insurance Act have their minds principally centred upon the War, and the Commissioners appear to be choosing this time, when they think the House is quiet, and free from criticism, to issue these regulations. There is a temptation to them to take this opportunity to issue circulars and regulations, and to attempt to make a change in the administration. I am not uttering this warning without some foundation. What has happened of late to the Advisory Committee? The Commissioners are contemplating, as far as I can make out, important changes in the administration, but they do not call the Advisory Committee together. At a time when, in politics, we are uniting, and when Ave see the advantage of combined counsel and cooperation, the Commissioners do not see it, and are not consulting this advisory body.
    I have had reported to me—it comes from so many quarters that I cannot disregard it—that there is a lack of sympathy, on the part principally of the English Commission. There has been controversy in this House with regard to the position of this Joint Committee, and the establishment of separate national Commissions. Approved societies express their satisfaction and their appreciation of the work of the National Commissions in Scotland, in Ireland, and in Wales, but that satisfaction does not obtain in this country. There may probably be a little misunderstanding, because I cannot think that there is any less real or actual sympathy on the part of the English Commission. Still that position does obtain, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to use a little of this large sum for travelling expenses and to go about the United Kingdom himself. It has been my duty occasionally to preside at conferences of insurance workers from all parts of the United Kingdom, and repeated complaints come from trade unions and from friendly orders, as well as from other large societies, or, at any rate, from the provincial men. I have generally pulled the speaker up, and he has always said that he means the English Commission. Immediately Irishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen have got up and have repudiated such a state of things as applying to their own country. That
    684
    has been the case at more than one conference at which I have presided.
    It was intended originally that the societies, the insured persons, should have a large influence upon the opinions and the work of the Commission. It is not easy for men who are academical, and who know of these things from theory, however clever they may be, to understand the enormous difficulty of working it out in detail throughout the country. Regulations have been issued which have puzzled Members of this House. I will undertake to say, if Members of this House attempted to understand the regulations with regard to arrears, that there would not be 5 per cent, who could give an intelligible explanation of them. The approved societies, who can command very capable men, have put the ablest brains on them to decide what they mean, but very often the local secretary is a man who works at his trade during the day, who comes home and clears a place on the tea-table, and, with children running about and shouting and crying around him, he gets his papers and tries to do his duty to his fellows. You cannot in the villages and small towns pay for university men, and men with degrees. Unless these working men do the work, the Act will not be locally administered at all. They attempt to unravel all these circulars and leaflets which the Commissioners shower upon them, and they are bound to give it up. When they come to me, I say that I left off trying to keep up with the stream of leaflets coming from the Commissioners years ago, because one found that the information which came from live men who were able to give you facts was apt to be misplaced by attempting to analyse great multitudes of leaflets. It may have been inevitable, but that is the position.
    It surely was the intention—it was so stated in this House—that the representatives of approved societies should have a large place in administering the Act. Yet there is not one of them on the Joint Committee. When that promise was given in this House, the intention was to have one Commission. There was no suggestion of National Commissions. There was to be one supreme Commission, and upon that Commission the Industrial Insurance Societies were given to understand that someone who had great know-ledge of their work, someone from the friendly societies and someone from the trade unions would be placed upon it. Then the idea of National Commissions was brought forward, and a Joint Committee, a super-

    685
    edifice, was placed over them, and upon that Joint Committee their representatives were not given a seat. We accepted the inevitable at that time. There was an intense desire on the part of all those large approved societies to work the Bill in harmony with the administrators, and little was heard of it, but gradually disappointment has come upon us. We naturally thought that with regard to the National Commission for England, that being by far the largest, the position of those who have spent their lives in actual touch with the democracy in its thrift expression, would be considered, but gradually the work seems to have been removed, so far as I can make out, on to the Joint Committee. I do not challenge the Joint Committee; it is a desirable institution, and I am perfectly certain that the administration in London gains largely by the chairman of Scotland, the chairman of Ireland, and the chairman of Wales coming up to the Joint Committee.
    I hope that I shall never say a word that will have the inference that the Committee should not get the value of the services of those men. They have done a great deal to smoothe out the working of the Act, and to place valuable experience at the service of London and Whitehall, but now we hear that one of the most active men upon that Commission, one of the two or three prominent spirits, is leaving it, and that he is not to be replaced. I am not sure that is really good economy. I should have thought that this was an excellent chance for strengthening the Commission on its representative side. Now that the Act has been before us for about four years one would have thought that they would have been able to point to men of public spirit, of great capacity and of great devotion to the Act, who could with advantage have been brought into their counsels. Instead of that the Advisory Committee is not meeting and it is not proposed to fill up this place. It gives great concern indeed to those men who are working the approved societies outside, as to whether they will have the consideration to which they are entitled.
    The basis of this Act "is that of service through the voluntary societies. If that is lost sight of the Act must crumble. It was that which recommended it to the people, and it is that which has made it efficient. The great bulk of the 13,000,000 are in societies. There is only a very small number at the Post Office, and, if the right
    686
    of self-government of these approved societies is recognised, they will do a great deal. There is a great deal of voluntary service being put in, and even those who are paid are not adequately paid. Under these circumstances, I do not think that I am making an unfair claim when I say that these men and women, giving their valuable time to work in these organisations without reward, are entitled to the fullest recognition from the Commission and from well-paid Civil servants sitting at Buckingham Gate. I make these remarks entirely on my own, not having been asked by anyone to put them forward. I have carefully avoided identifying myself with the work of any particular society. I have been invited over and over again to take posts, and up to the present I have always felt it my duty to refuse. Therefore I speak in this House entirely unbiassed, but I think that I am in as close touch as any Member with all the various members of approved societies. I offer these criticisms in good faith.
    I also wish to ask about the valuation. No reference was made by the hon. Member as to whether the valuation would be made at the right time or would be postponed. I take it that it is anticipated that the valuation will not take place at the expected time, and that it will be postponed. That has its advantages and its disadvantages. For those societies which are on wrong lines, or which are working on a wrong basis, it will increase the danger, but for those societies which have not perhaps quite adapted themselves in the most perfect way it may be a convenience. I do not know what reasons the Commissioners have had for coming to their decision. I do not know on what information the hon. Member founded his remarks about the benefits which are being paid. The Commissioners naturally get later information than the 'approved societies; but I would like to say, as far as I can observe, that the calculations for the men are good. I know in previous years in this House and in the Press fears have been expressed that the actuarial basis of the Act was unsound, but I do not think there is any doubt now that, so far as the men are concerned, the actuarial basis was sound, and that the benefits are quite in accordance with the contributions. There seemed to be an epidemic of sickness in the first year of the Act, and in addition there were, no doubt, many persons who were waiting for the Act to bring forward their claims. Now that those have been

    687
    dealt with and sickness has resumed its normal condition, it is seen that the main structure of the Act, at any rate so far as it applies to men, is sound and wholesome, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the actuaries on the estimates they framed. There is no doubt that they were largely taken from the experience of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, but still their figures were small compared with these, and it shows that they were careful and able men.
    With regard to the position of women, surely the Commission by this time realises that the figures are not sound. You cannot possibly pay more benefit than 6s. instead of the 7s. 6d. per week upon the present rate of contribution. I know that some special societies, such as domestic servants, may produce very good results, while others, such as laundresses, are producing very bad results; but one can only take the general figures spread over the insured female population, and even in the well-managed societies of each grade—the well-managed society of the industrial class, the -well-managed society of the friendly orders, and the well-managed society of the trade unions—in nearly all those it is clear that the benefit paid to women—7s. 6d. per week—is too much as compared with the contributions from all sources. This is a matter which the Commission will have to consider, and if, by postponing that consideration, they are able to arrive at some happy solution, the time may not be ill-spent. But I think the Committee is entitled to know what are the views of the Commission upon that point. The War is bringing into the ranks of weekly wage-earners large numbers of young women who were not under the Act before, and I should have thought that the lion. Member for Lincoln would have seen his way to discuss this question. Perhaps I am unreasonable in view of the fact that he has only just taken up this post, but undoubtedly the Committee would have preferred to have had this large and important question discussed.
    Another important point in regard to finance is the cost of the county committees and of the insurance committees generally. I am not at all sure that they are worth the expenditure incurred. I do not know what the Commission think about it. The committees were no doubt set up from very good motives, and to some extent they may be considered necessary, but there is a very great deal of time wasted on them and a considerable amount
    688
    of money as well, which may lead eventually to a financial breakdown. I understand that in the county of Glamorgan the rate of expenditure under this head has become very alarming, while the position of the London committee in this, respect is almost heart-rending. A special staff committee was appointed to reorganise the office, but could not see its way out of the difficulty. As far as I can gather, it is utterly impossible in London to put the register right and use the card system as devised by the Commissioners on the amount granted for the purpose. I am afraid the remedies which have been suggested will constitute an excuse for putting some of the cost on the approved societies. I should like to know whether that is in the mind of the Commission. If you cannot get this money from the Treasury, and if you do not get a sympathetic answer from the Exchequer, there is only one other source from which it can be obtained, and that is out of the contributions of the working people.
    Mr. W. THORNE: You will get none from the trade union section.
    Mr. BOOTH: My hon. Friend is no doubt well qualified to speak for that section. I want to utter a warning note. If these committees are to keep on this very cumbrous card system, which is crippling their work and running them short of funds, and if the deficit is not to come from the Exchequer, it can only come from the approved societies, and it may mean a reduction of benefits, because anything you take from approved societies can have only the effect of reducing the benefits. If there is a surplus on the management fund of any society that must go to the benefit of the members, because it is a cardinal principle that good management shall be for the benefit of members who elect their own officials. I want to know where are these committees drifting to? I have not been convinced of the necessity for this intricate card register system, and I should have thought that some simpler form than that could have been arranged. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Lincoln is aware, or if he dare tell the Committee, how many hundreds of thousands of insured person's cards there are that cannot be traced. We have been debating just recently a national register, and the hon. Member for Lincoln to-day tells us that he and his colleagues have been exercising their minds as to the manner in which they could best help the Government in

    689
    that matter. One would have thought that as they have a register of thirteen million insured weekly wage earners in this country, they would have been the authority which could assist in the matter; but apparently that is not the view of the Government. It prefers to go to the urban district councils which have no registers at all.
    Largely owing to the fact that they do not realise the character of the work, the number of cards that go astray, and the vast number of removals that occur, the committees are at present in a very unfortunate position in many parts of the country. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that if you take up a stray card there is nothing on it to show to what society the insured person belongs, and there is no means of tracing him therefore in that way. The consequence is that in nearly every district throughout the country they are utterly bewildered by the stacks of cards which are unappropriated, and in London the number of these is really overwhelming. I say quite frankly that, in my opinion, this is a problem which cannot be solved, and I defy the Insurance Commissioners to go into our offices in Chancery Lane and provide a solution. In some cases the officials have been blamed for not having accomplished the impossible. Of course officials are not all alike; some are more adaptable for dealing with problems of this kind than others. But in a great place like London it docs seem absolutely hopeless, on the money allowed, for the committee to solve this register problem. I do not know whether it would be worth the trouble if the money were spent, but I do not see why the Commissioners themselves should not take the responsibility, and I am sure my colleagues on the London Insurance Committee, among whom are to be found some of the best organising minds in the whole of London, would be glad if the Commission would undertake to deal with the problem, which to them seems almost insuperable. The Commissioners should take this matter into consideration in this time of war.
    I do not wish to press my own personal point. I will take the case of some of my colleagues who are battling with this problem and trying to carry out the recommendations of the Joint Committee over which the hon. Member presides. A good many of them are busy organising munitions work and addressing recruiting
    690
    meetings, and I do think they are entitled to some consideration, and that their work on the Insurance Commission should be made more simple than it has been in the past. I have no doubt that some of the permanent officials think it is easy to solve the problem; they have very clever brains and are in possession of a great deal of information. Their policy is to send out a circular broadcast, and, when that is done, they exclaim, "Thank God that job is over!" But that is only the beginning for those who have to administer the Act. I know it will be said that all these complaints have been made before, and that ever since the Commission started people have emitted groans on this point. This is. a time not merely for economy in finance, but for economy in system. There should be simpler methods of dealing with this is insurance problem than this cumberous card index. It cannot last. The committees have made a gallant struggle with it, but according to the information which has reached me in many districts the trouble is-growing, and instead of getting up with the work the committees are getting-further behind. I, therefore, feel it my duty to speak out.
    It is one advantage of having a united Government that we can say these things in a frank way which will not be resented. On previous occasions when I have made-suggestions with regard to possible improvements in the working of the Act, my personal friends have invariably come to me and complained that I have been giving points to somebody opposite which will enable them to criticise the Government. I trust we can have some information today upon the various points I have-raised, on the effect the hon. Member-thinks the War will have on the financial side of the administration, and which it certainly will have when the cripples are coming home. I do not mean men crippled by the loss of a limb, but men who have had to stand in deep water in the trenches who coma back with rheumatism in their system and who, when they attempt to work at their respective trades, will soon come on the Insurance Fund. They will not be regarded as wounded in the War. I want to know the opinion of the hon. Member with respect to the working of the insurance committees and, further, on the actuarial position regarding women. Has he any suggestion to offer upon any of these points? It is of no use for him to bury his head like an ostrich in the sand. He has before him one of the greatest problems any Minister has ever been

    691
    called upon to deal with, and I am bringing it forward in order to make quite sure that he knows of it. We shall, I am sure, be quite ready to give him all the help we can in trying to solve it for the benefit of insured persons.
    5.0.P.M.
    Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member for Lincoln introduced this matter in a very temperate speech in which he moderated the transports which characterised his predecessors' speeches and led him into melancholy exile. But in stating that economy was desirable he very effectually showed that he would be unable really to effect any economy. That is what I understood from his review of the situation. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), whose speeches are generally exceedingly clear as to their purport, whether we agree with him or not, has to-day delivered a speech which leaves me in considerable doubt as to whether lie is really advocating any concrete economy. I gathered he actually disapproved one concrete economy proposed by the hon. Member for Lincoln—the absorption of one post which might be dispensed with. The hon. Member's speech appeared to be a general condemnation of the administration of an Act of which he is usually a strong supporter. I cannot follow him in the details with which he dealt, because I have not that intimate knowledge which he possesses, but I must confess he was not so clear as he usually is in his speech. I regret he should not have encouraged the hon. Member for Lincoln, who showed considerable courage in proposing to abolish one solitary official. May many more be? dispensed with in order that money may be available for those causes for which it is more required, and not squandered on establishments without which the country at the present moment is able to do. I agree entirely with every word said by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). All that I heard I readily adopt, and that which I did not hear J am certain was in the same vein, and equally worthy of adoption. I do not intend now to enter into any criticism of the Act, which I, myself, would gladly see suspended and, if possible, abolished. I want to ask the hon. Member for Lincoln if. when reviewing the administration, he will look into the case of the outworkers. I do not wish to trouble the Committee with that matter now, because I have done so on previous occasions. A commission was appointed by the Glasgow University
    692
    concerning the effects of the want of proper nourishment on the people of this country. That becomes relevant to this extent, that it was found that the contributions to the Insurance Act, small though they are in actual amount, were considered by this commission to be such as to put a very grievous strain upon the health of the people. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into that matter. I will provide him with the reference in order to save him the trouble.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of medical research. Is it to be understood that out of the funds collected from the taxpayers compulsorily money is paid for medical research in connection with the Insurance Act? If so, it is a gross misapplication of funds compulsorily collected from the taxpayers. If such research work is necessary, surely it was never intended that money which is compulsorily taken from the taxpayers for insurance should be applied for that purpose. It may be a very necessary and extremely proper subject, but this money, at any rate, should not be diverted to that object, and I beg to enter my protest against it on behalf of those who pay, of whom I suppose I am one. With regard to the expenditure upon which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) commented, I am one of those who receive all the leaflets that are issued. I put my name down at the beginning, and I have received them. I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Pontefract when he says that large numbers of those normally intelligent could not understand these leaflets. There are tons and tons of stuff printed which is perfectly useless for the object for which it was intended. These circulars may have been intelligible to the trained capacities of the Gentlemen who sit underneath the Gallery, who have their intelligence trained day by day, month by month, and year by year, in order to understand that which is practically unintelligible. This stuff is printed in tons and published broadcast. I receive it day after day, because I put my name down in order to find out what was going on, but with no intention of reading it. It is really a gross abuse. Whoever publishes what is not required is a public enemy, and whoever does that at the public expense is still more a public enemy. There is great room for economy in the administration of this Act, and at the present moment of all times economy should be enforced.

    693
    The hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned in passing the figure of £3,500,000 as the working expenses in connection with these compulsory collections. He said that a good deal of that money went into reserves. I do not think reserves ought to be collected under this Act now. There should be no reserves in anything. All the money that is possible should be devoted to the purposes of the War only. Of course, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Booth) will not like that. He looks upon it from the point of view of an expert in insurance. I am speaking from the point of view of the taxpayer. I quite understand his objection, and how easy it is for him to demolish what I say from his point of view. I submit that all these principles should disappear at a time like this, and that there should be no building up of reserves, under this Act or any other Act, in respect of money collected from the taxpayers. What is not needed for carrying on the War should be left in the taxpayer's pocket. He will stand in need of it before the War is over. I wish to express my regret that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who is an independent Member and is an expert in this matter, should not have encouraged the hon. Member for Lincoln in greatly daring to propose to make one small economy.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I claim no credit for it. It was done by the Treasury with the concurrence of my predecessor.
    Sir J. D. REES: I only hope the hon. Member will improve upon the courage of his predecessor.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: On the last occasion I ventured to criticise the administration of the Insurance Act, and, owing to the criticisms, I was asked certain questions. I answered those to the best of my ability, and the reply I received was that the matters were not of very much moment but that they were receiving consideration, and that in the near future further regulations would be issued in connection with the complaints I made. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), as to the enormous amount of literature issued to people who have to administer the Act. I should say that not 15 per cent, of the secretaries who administer the Act ever look at the circulars that are issued, because they feel quite satisfied that in a month or two months' time new leaflets will be issued contradicting those issued previously. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Lincoln to
    694
    do all he possibly can to stop the issue of so many regulations and, if possible, make the regulations simpler than they are. At present they are not at all simple. I know from my experience in connection with trade unions and friendly societies that it takes a considerable time before one can quite understand what is meant by some circulars, and a considerable amount of time is spent referring to the Sections of the Act with which a leaflet may deal.
    Some of the circulars issued by the Commissioners directly contradict the rules of the societies affected. When the Act was passed, those rules were altered with the object of making them comply with the regulation issued by the Commissioners. Now new regulations are issued which make the rules of some of the societies absolutely null and void. I would suggest that before the regulations are issued the societies affected ought to be consulted to ascertain whether the regulations make any great difference so far as their rules are concerned, because in many small towns and villages where there are lodges and branches of societies the secretaries do not know what to do when they have to tell their members who are on sick benefit that they must comply with the rules of the society. Then they find some official calling and saying that the regulations issued by the Commissioners have been violated, and the poor sick member has to comply with the new sets of rules and regulations. That should not be. The regulations should be simplified in order that the men who are doing the main work in connection with the Act can understand them.
    I should like to say a word in connection with the Audit Department. I see there is an increase in the expenditure of that Department. I was told that a considerable number of the staff had joined the Army and that they were short of auditors, therefore I should have thought that the expenditure on that particular branch would have been reduced instead of increased. I was also told that the Commissioners or the Treasury had said that the auditors must not be allowed to join the Army, although many of them were quite willing to do so and were eligible so far as age is concerned. I do not think that any Government Department should hamper any of its staff who desire to join the Army, at any rate at the present time, but should rather encourage them to do so. The working of the Act ought to be better understood now both by friendly societies'

    695
    officers and the trade unions officers, and that being so there ought to be less work for the auditors now than there was at the beginning of the Act, and not so many of them should be required. So far as inspectors are concerned, there is room for a reduction in their number. They were supposed to educate the officials of the societies who were to administer the Act. After two years of experience, those responsible for the Administration of the Act must understand it better than they did when it was first introduced, and there is no occasion for the present large staff of inspectors. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into those matters. I believe some economy could be effected, starting at the top and coming down the list, perhaps halfway. Certain of the staff are overpaid at the present time, while typists and others are not overpaid. So far as the higher officials are concerned, there is room for economy, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do something in that direction.
    Mr. WARDLE: I can understand the position of the hon. Member opposite (Sir J. D. Rees) in wanting to do away with the Act altogether or to suspend it, but if it is to remain in operation I certainly cannot understand his desire to do away with the building up of reserves. So far as concerns those engaged in the administration of the Act, and especially looking at what is likely to happen after the War is over, the building up of reserves, even from the point of view of carrying on the War, is one of the most necessary operations the Commissioners can take in hand. I should like to associate myself with those who have expressed a desire for a cessation of some of the circulars which have been issued, or, what I think would be far better and lead to real economy, namely, the codification of all those that have already been issued. I should prefer both codification and an index. If they were codified the whole administration of the Act would be simplified.
    I chiefly rose to deal with one small point with regard to the action of the Commissioners which has lead, I believe, in many places to what are called stock medicines being brought into operation. I understand that doctors have started a system of stock medicines, and that the Commissioners have to some extent authorised this. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will see that if there is any indication whatever of the treatment of
    696
    patients under the Insurance Act being less efficient than that which a private patient is able to receive from a doctor, that will militate strongly against the Act. The idea of having these medicines stocked in large quantities—a very old method which was in operation in the old dispensaries twenty odd years ago—has the effect of deteriorating them, and it also has the effect, I am informed, of making a doctor rather inclined to give a stock medicine than to write out a prescription which will exactly fit the case which he is diagnosing. If that be true, I sincerely hope that the whole question of stock medicines will be gone into thoroughly, and if the objections which I have raised, and which I assure the hon. Gentleman are causing a considerable amount of irritation in certain quarters, are looked into and, if possible, obviated, then there will be a smoother working of the Act than there is at present.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: My hon. Friend (Mr. C. Roberts) referred to the cost of administration and said it compared very favourably with workmen's insurance generally. I should be sorry if it went out that we were to consider that such a very favourable comparison, because it is hardly a far comparison. Surely the only way in which you can compare the cost of administration would be to compare it with a similar compulsory State form of insurance in other countries. Take, for example, the Post Office employés. Theirs is a free system, so that the ratio which my hon. Friend gave us to believe was a very low one is hardly a fair one to state, and it might convey a misleading impression. I think my hon. Friend showed that he is anxious to initiate some system of economy, and I am sure, from the admirable speeches we have heard, that he will have the support of the House in any form of economy whereby he can cut down the staff without impairing the efficiency of the administration of the Act.
    Colonel YATE: The hon. Gentleman, T think, said that arrangements had been made that all tuberculous soldiers were to-be transferred from military hospitals to institutions without any break of treatment. Could he tell us if the institutions are all ready to receive the men transferred?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been very much interested in the various criticisms which have been made, and I assure the Committee that I will look very carefully into the matters which have been

    697
    brought to my attention. I sympathise to some extent with the criticism which has been made about the number of regulations which have been issued, and if anything could be done to codify or simplify them that work would have my heartiest sympathy, but I must remind hon. Members that these regulations are documents which have the force of law, and they have been couched in legal language, and legal language in complicated matters is sometimes not easy to follow. Many of the leaflets, the number of which is complained of, have been rendered necessary in the effort to put into simple and popular language the effect of the regulations, so that we have to get on the one hand the legal document which has the force of law And the simple, popular exposition. With reference to the question of medical research, the sum which is devoted to that purpose was distinctly contemplated under Section 16 of the Act, and, obviously, if by means of medical research connected with the Act you can lessen the amount of sickness prevailing in the country, the expenditure of this money will enormously benefit and relieve insurance funds. That is the justification of this. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) has commended to my notice the care of the outworkers. I will carefully look into that, and also into the question of stock medicines. I am entirely in sympathy with the general position laid down by the hon. Member. The insured person is wholly entitled to proper and thoroughly efficient treatment.
    Then I think the only other points that I need speak about for the moment are the very large questions which were suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth). I was sorry he thought it necessary to explain that the approved societies, of which he has such intimate knowledge, are not satisfied with the amount of sympathy that they receive from the Insurance Commissioners. I have not myself come across any instance of that. I think we all appreciate their work and appreciate democratic management. We regard them as an integral part of the scheme devised in the Insurance Act, and I can only hope that my hon. Friend for once, in spite of his knowledge, has not rightly interpreted their real feelings, and that the case is not so black as he depicts it. He asked me to embark upon conjectures, prophecies and estimates as to the actual effect of the War upon the position of women and approved societies. With the utmost desire to gratify him, I think, as
    698
    I am not a prophet, at the present time I had better not embark on these large speculations. As a matter of fact, only yesterday I received a deputation from the British Medical Association which raised some of these points, and the association promised that it would lay before the Commission such evidence as it could collect bearing on this somewhat difficult question. I am afraid for the present I have not sufficient information at my disposal to form any really effective and satisfactory judgment on the point. Therefore on that point I must ask my hon. Friend to wait.
    As for the point about valuation, that is a matter which is of importance, and I think I must say a word about it. It would be very disastrous if the valuation were indefinitely postponed. It is necessary in the scheme of the Act that valuation should take place. Under the Act it was to begin on 15th July, or such other date as might be appointed by the Joint Committee. I think it is obviously right—I cannot go further than that at present—that valuation should not begin before 31st December of this year in order that there may be three full years on which to base it. My hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) pointed out, truly, that you might have in an individual year an excessive amount of sickness, and you want three years to get the average. I am fully aware of the large and difficult problem involved, and I wished to hear what the House of Commons had to say on the subject, and I wished also to listen to the views of my hon. Friend. I cannot go further than to say that the valuation will be postponed until 31st December, and meanwhile I shall take an opportunity of making a further announcement on the subject.
    Mr. BOOTH: I did not mean my inquiry about women and their rate of sickness to be confined to the War. That was a point I raised, certainly, but my main point was the experience up till now, not any conjecture, shows that 7s. 6d. cannot be paid. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that is a question connected with the whole problem of valuation. I will only say in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that I still think my figure of £7,000,000 is right for the contributions of the State to Health Insurance. I do not know that he has much encouraged the smoking flax of economy by his strictures; nor can I be wholly satisfied with

    699
    the attitude of the House of Commons in mons has taken in reference to the faint indications in that direction which I have suggested. My real point was that I could not see anywhere in the administration of the Acts these large sweeping economies of millions which the critics in the Press think they can descry. I think they can only descry them in virtue of the elementary blunders which they themselves have made.
    Mr. WATT: Is £3,500,000 any too large?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Of the £3,500,000, £2,500,000 is the expenditure of the approved societies and the insurance committees. My hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) rightly points out that the expenses of the approved societies are not excessive as a general rule. There may be special cases, no doubt, but if any economies are made in that sum by them they go not to the Exchequer but in increased benefits, and if the hon. Member asks me whether that sum is too great, it was calculated in the Act on the analogy of the working expenses which were the fair normal cost of running the large friendly orders. It is rather less than the large friendly orders in the pre-Insurance Act days actually spent, and, therefore, so far as that sum of £3,500,000 is concerned, I am afraid when you look into it all you can see is a possibility of minor economies, the importance of which I do not neglect but which must not be exaggerated.
    Mr. WATT: Does not the Post Office do a good deal of work?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In the £3,500,000, as I carefully explained in my opening speech, I have included not merely the money on the Insurance Vote, but also all the other money which is properly to be attributed to the work of National Health Insurance on the Post Office Vote, the Vote of the Stationery Department, and all the other Civil Service Estimates. In reference to other points, I have only to assure the members of the Committee that I will lay their strictures to heart and will do my best to consider their suggestions with a view to improving the administration of the Bill.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question about soldiers transferred from military hospitals?
    Mr. ROBERTS: So far as I know, the institutions are ready to take every tuberculous soldier discharged from military
    700
    hospital. I know a very considerable number of them have been so treated without any interval between their discharge from, hospital and their admission into sanatoria. The insurance committees have cooperated very heartily on that point.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible without repealing the Act to effect certain economies, but I never suggested that. What I suggested was, and I confined myself to the question of administration, whether some economy might be effected, seeing that something: like £1,400,000 has been spent upon administration. I do not quite gather from the reply of the hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to give me any assurance upon that point, or whether he rather passed it over by dealing with the criticisms in the Press, who apparently are asking for economies of a kind which I myself do not ask for. I was most careful to say that I did not want to bring forward controversial matters at the present time, because you cannot economise in many directions unless you repeal the Act. The hon. Gentleman says the cost will be about £7,000,000, and that therefore my figures are wrong. Supposing his figures are right. That only strengthens my position, because he does not deny that without including the cost of rent, paper, stationery, etc., and such items, the cost of administration is something like £1,400,000. There is also the cost of the Audit Department, which I forgot, and which amounts to £91,000 for salaries and wages, and £15,000 for travelling expenses. That has to be added. If you diminish the sum given without diminishing the expenses of administration you increase the percentage of cost for administration, and therefore that strengthens my point, and shows that the cost of administration really is much in excess of what it ought to be. In reading the Vote I noticed that the old age pensions, which cost the State £13,000,000, only cost £65,000 per year for administration. If that be so, how can the hon. Gentleman reconcile the cost of administration for the Insurance Fund, which he says only costs the State £7,000,000—I say it costs more—while the cost of administration is nearly £1,500,000? I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this in the hope that he will take an example from the cost of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act with a view to effecting some economy in the

    701
    direction of the administration of the Insurance Act. May I have some sympathetic assurance from the hon. Gentleman before we pass to the Vote that some effort will be made to effect economy in what are minor matters.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can give an assurance to the hon. Baronet that I will look into the matter with an anxious desire to act in the direction that he wishes; but if he asks me for a definite assurance as to any particular figures, I certainly cannot give it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSUBANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,300,356, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (England), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and under the National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."—[NOTE.—£1,600,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I notice that in Item H, which deals with sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits (Grants-in-Aid), there is an increase of £1,396,300, while on Item K, medical benefits (Grants-in-Aid), there is a decrease of £996,000. I see that in the following Votes, dealing with Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, the same thing has occurred. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there should be this very large increase in the sickness and disablement benefits, and that there should be this decrease in the medical benefits? No doubt it is right, but I do not quite understand how it is arrived at. Last year, 1914–15, the amount for sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits was £1,701,200, and this year it is £3,097,500. This increase of £1,396,300 for sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits may be owing to increased sickness and disablement, or an increased number of children or a variety of circumstances. I am not criticising; I only want to know how it is. Item K, medical benefit, has gone down from £1,371,400 to £375,100, or a decrease of £996,000. I do not quite understand
    702
    why sickness should have gone up to a very large amount and medical benefits should have decreased by such a very large amount. I think it is the same in all the Votes relating to England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, and I should like to have some explanation.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid I cannot, give an explanation immediately on the points raised by the hon. Baronet. I think, perhaps some explanation will be found in the notes on page 9, which the hon. Baronet may refer to. I am afraid that I cannot on the spur of the moment give: him a full explanation as to details.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is new to his post, and I do not want to criticise his action or to-ask him any inconvenient questions. I do not know whether any hon. Member is going to say anything on the subject, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman may seek a little information while the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. H. Booth) addresses the House.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will give the hon. Baronet some information. I do not think he is a very close student of the Insurance Act or he would know that one of the benefits, namely, the disablement benefit, does not come into operation until a certain number of payments have been, made. A specific time has to pass before permanent disablement benefits can be paid at all, a period of really two years. Unless a man has made 104 payments he cannot qualify for a benefit, so that really this disablement benefit is practically a new one now, and it will grow as the years go on. There is no doubt about that. The ordinary sickness benefits will probably grow, because more people will come into insurance, and people are also getting a little older. The main answer, however, to the hon. Baronet's question is that these are merely cash advances. It does not follow that that particular amount has been spent in that particular year, and the other particular amount in the other-year. The Treasury has to keep these people in funds. It takes care of their money, and as they want money it pays it out to them. They have to give security for the money until they have disbursed it weekly, and it does not follow that it has all been spent. Some societies do not spend as much money in proportion to their numbers as other societies do, because of the more hazardous trades in

    703
    which the members are engaged. You cannot draw really from that that there has been any increased sickness pay. It means that a larger amount has been paid the Treasury in advances to the various societies. As to the disablement benefit that now comes into the purview of the scheme, it could not do that until 104 payments had been made.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am obliged to the hon. Member for supplying me with this information, but I am afraid I do not altogether follow it. It is quite true that I have not studied the Insurance Act very closely. Do I understand from the hon. Member that the Treasury advances money haphazard as the societies want it, and that the money is not always spent in one year; that sometimes it is spent and sometimes it is not spent? As to disablement, I understand what he said about that, namely, that it only comes into force after a certain period has elapsed, and the Act having been in operation a certain period, disablement benefit is coming into force. The hon. Gentleman did not tell me why medical benefit has gone up so much. I cannot understand why one should go up and the other should go down in such an extraordinary way.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Baronet asks me to explain this conundrum, and to the best of my ability I will endeavour to do it. It is an accounting point which is rather technical, and I am not quite sure whether I can give a full explanation of it. So far as the medical money is concerned, it is only for a quarter of the year, and not for a whole year. As a matter of fact, there has been no real increase in sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits, and there is no real extra charge upon the taxpayer, which is the point that I think the hon. Baronet is anxious to have cleared up. The difference in these sums is really due to the fact that the basis of the Grant has been altered as compared with last year. The money this year has been granted in proportion to the amount of money which is issued to the 'approved societies as distinct from the amount of money which was audited. That is how the difference arises.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged for the explanation, but I cannot quite understand it. No doubt that is because I have not understood all the intricacies of this Insurance Act; if I did, I should be in my grave and not here. I am
    704
    afraid the explanation of the hon. Gentleman does not quite coincide with the explanation of the hon. Member (Mr. H. Booth). I do not know which is right. I recognise that it is impossible for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roberts) to answer all the questions concerning a very complicated Act of this sort, when he has only been three or four weeks in his present office. Perhaps if we are sitting opposite each other next year he may be able to give me a little further information upon this point, which seems to me to be extremely complicated. He says it is a matter of accounting, but it seems to me that it should be a matter of voting money, and not a matter of accounting. Apparently the result is that these sums do not represent the sums which are paid out by the taxpayers. However, I do not follow it, because I frankly admit I do not understand it. It seems to me to be very extraordinary that sickness should have gone up and the amount of medical benefits should have gone down. The hon. Gentleman apparently does not agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract about disablement benefits, because I understood him to say that disablement benefits had not increased and that it was a matter of accounting, while I understood the hon. Member for Pontefract to say that the amount of disablement benefits has gone up. I will not press the subject further.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think there is any difference at all between us. It is a matter of a cash account. The custom of the Commissioners is settled by Act of Parliament, They advance moneys to these various societies, who are distributing weekly benefits. These societies must be substantial people, and if they are not very substantial societies the individuals must give securities, otherwise they cannot get money from the Commissioners. Naturally we want the payments to be made weekly, because it is very important to the people receiving the benefits that the weekly payments should not be overdue. Unless the societies have the funds in hand they cannot distribute them. The Commissioners in London invest the money for the societies. The societies do not accumulate the money in the way of ordinary friendly societies, because it is paid in stamps and it finds its way to St. Martins-le-Grand. The whole of the money finds its way to London. Therefore they do not get the money locally, and unless that money goes back to the provinces the societies will not have it to

    705
    distribute in ther weekly Grants-in-Aid. Therefore the Commissioners make these Grants-in-Aid. One society may have larger claims than it anticipates, but it makes its estimate, the Commissioners see how much is paid in for the week or the month, and by a friendly conference between the Commissioners and the society a certain amount is agreed on to finance it. In the actual working out, the amount required may be heavier or lighter according as the amount of sickness claims is heavier or lighter, and then the matter is readjusted on audit. Disablement benefit is an increasing benefit. I do not think that the hon. Member meant to say that it was not. If he did, I hope the hon. Baronet will not believe it. It will be larger next year than this. I simply introduce it because the hon. Baronet overlooked it; he also overlooked the fact of the Grants-in-Aid.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, I did not overlook that.
    Mr. BOOTH: He rather talked as if this amount had been spent. I do not see how the system could be improved upon. Of course, from that the Commissioners made the estimates, which the hon. Member for Lincoln gave to the House. The Commissioners cannot possibly know what is the amount of sickness benefit until they get the final figures from the society, but they judge by the amount that has been asked for to finance it, and of course they get approximately near the figure. That part of the system is working very well, and there is no complaint on the part of any society against the considerate treatment which the Commissioners have given it.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Looking at these Estimates, it appears to me from the manner in which the two Items, G and K, that is the Grants-in-Aid for medical and sanatorium benefits, are presented, that practically in the medical benefit and sanatorium benefit (G), as compared with last year, there is a decrease of £664,000; while in the Grants-in-Aid (K) there is a decrease of £996,000, and if you add these two and compare the total reduction with the increase of £1,396,300 in the sickness, disablement and maternity benefit, it looks as if last year the whole of these benefits did not come under that head, and were given as Grants-in-Aid. It is a very extraordinary thing that these two items more or less coincide with the sickness benefit, and it may be that they are involved in those two things, but I quite agree with the hon. Baronet that these
    706
    items ought to be made so clear that every Member of the House of Commons could understand exactly what is paid under the different heads, and if there is an actual increase it ought to be shown. That is really the point of the hon. Baronet. I would like to suggest to the hon. Member for Lincoln that it would be interesting to Members of the House of Commons if we could get the percentage of cost of administration of benefits. Taking the whole income of the insurance, including what is paid into the approved societies—because we have to take that into consideration along with what is granted by Parliament—I think that it would be interesting if we could get the percentage of cost for administration of this Department.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, I can give that. If the hon. Member had paid me the compliment of listening, he would know that I spent a good deal of time in dealing with that.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am sorry that I was outside writing letters when the hon. Member was speaking, but I shall have great pleasure in reading his speech to-morrow.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: It is quite clear that nobody in the Committee understands the way in which the accounts are put, and it is a bad example of the methods adopted by the Commissioners. The Commissioners themselves may understand their system of accounts on the White Paper, but nobody else seems to understand them. The same argument applies to many of their regulations, and there should be somebody who would be able to tell people in simple language what ought to be done.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? I see in item J, Expenses of Administration Grants-in-Aid, £713,400. Last year it was £455,800; that is an increase of £260,800, or 60 per cent. I want to know why these expenses of administration, Grants-in-Aid, have gone up so much. I must press for an answer to this question. I did not intend to put the hon. Gentleman in an awkward position; I am endeavouring in my humble way to be extremely pleasant to him. He is in a very difficult position at the present moment, and he is new to it, but we should have some reason given to us to explain why these expenses have, increased so much.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I shall be very happy to attempt to convey the information in my Department to the hon. Baronet, especially if he will give me notice as to the kind of points which he is going to raise as to these very technical matters. The point which he is on at the present moment is exactly the point with which I was dealing before. He has merely gone from one item to another.
    Sir F. BANBURY: A particular item.
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is the same point. It is simply a question of accounts, and it really is a matter of the period for which the Grants are being voted. I believe that I am quite correct in saying that there is no real increase in expenditure. There is simply a change in the period for which the accounts are dated.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I accept what the hon. Gentleman states, but if this is merely a matter of accounts which does not represent any increase in expenditure at all, then we should have some, footnote to explain it. We private Members are at present in a very difficult position, because we are not allowed to divide against hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite. I see opposite my Noble Friend the Member for the Hitchin Division, who, a few months ago, discussing this particular point, supported me in the Lobby. I know the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman is, and I will not press it further, but I hope that he will represent to the Department that the intelligence of the ordinary private Member of Parliament is not very great, and that they should remember that fact and put their accounts in such a form that the ordinary Member of Parliament can understand them, so that he shall not be obliged to ask for explanations from the Front Bench, which may sometimes, perhaps, be a little inconvenient to give.
    Mr. W. THORNE: It appears to me, according to the description which has been given, that the accounts are very puzzling. I have not taken the trouble to go over them myself, and I am glad that I have not done so, because I should be in exactly the same position as the others who do not understand them. There ought to be some explanatory notes, where any-particular item such as sickness pay, maternity benefit, or any other item under this Act seems to require explanation, so that we may know, if possible, why there has been a reduction or an increase. Such
    708
    a course would save all this discussion. All of us feel extremely for our hon. Friend in consequence of the awkward position in which he finds himself placed. We quite recognise that it is almost impossible for a man who has been in office simply for two or three weeks to grapple with all these difficulties. If the hon. Baronet were in his place he would experience exactly the same difficulty. I do suggest that when we get next year's accounts, explanatory notes should be incorporated in them, so as to show the causes of the increase or the decrease.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES).—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £177,553, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (Wales), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and under the National Insurance Act. 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)." [NOTE.—£180,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: The same point would arise on this, but I do not press it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND).—Class VII.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £419,027, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (Scotland), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)." [NOTE.—£300,000 has been voted on account.]

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION-IRELAND).—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £228,090, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the

    709
    sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (Ireland), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)." [NOTE.—£264,000 has been voted on account.]
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid that I must ask a question on this, as it is not quite the same as the others. If the hon. Member will look at Item K he will find medical certification, medical grants £100. Last year the amount was £97,100. This is a decrease of £97,000. I do not understand why there is such a great decrease. There must have been extraordinary extravagrance last year or very foolish economy this year. We should have some explanation of that extraordinary decrease. I do not see any hon. Member from Ireland here, and therefore I will, for the moment, represent this as a grievance from Ireland. The amount is to be reduced from over £97,100 in one year to £100 in the next. I am afraid I am putting a question to the hon. Gentleman which he cannot answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) may be able to answer this question, and I would appeal to him to give me some reason why this item is to be reduced to this enormous extent.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think the same answer applies to this as to the other question which was raised. It does not mean that this enormous sum is spent in one year and only £100 in the next. These Grants are made, and this money has been voted to be available. I should think that a large portion of it was in account last year, and that £100 has been put down in order to give us a right of discussion, and so that the matter should not be withdrawn from the purview of the House. With regard to medical certification, it is entirely different in Ireland from what it is here. They have no medical benefit such as we have; they have a system of dispensary doctors somewhat connected with the Poor Law system, and they pay a less contribution than is paid here. The whole thing is entirely different in Ireland, and it could not be explained in anything like the manner which would be applicable to the position in England. I
    710
    have taken the trouble to go through the evidence which was given before the Commission which inquired into the matter as regards Ireland, and I find that this system of medical certification is a sort of adaptation of our system to Ireland, with the omission of medical benefit, which could not be agreed upon, because the Government was unable to come to terms, and the simplest way was to leave medical benefit out, deducting a (penny from the contribution.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Baronet will look at the note to the Estimate ho will find that it gives an explanation. I agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract, and the explanation is that the money voted last year is still in hand. We have the money in hand for this purpose; in fact, as soon as the War allows it, we shall be able to deal with the matter freely, without imposing a strain upon the medical profession. The money will be used, and certainly it will not be necessary to revote it. I trust that meets the hon. Baronet's question.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: If the hon. Baronet looks at Item K, he will see that it gives the explanation why they are only asking £100 this year instead of £97,100. I think the explanation of the hon. Member for Pontefract is not altogether incorrect in conjunction with this expenditure it seems to me, according to the explanation, that they have been paying for several years—for at least two years—a much larger sum for medical certification in Ireland than was needed. It states in the Estimate that the estimated gross expenditure in respect of Grants for the three months—not for twelve months—ending the 31st March, 1916, amounts to £23,250. If it is only for three months, what becomes of the other nine months in the year? There is no explanation here of the expenditure for nine months, or you may put it this way. The whole of this expenditure on medical certification is only paid for the three months ending 31st March, 1916, which comes to £23,250. These accounts ought to have stated the actual amount in hand and the actual expenditure incurred, and then we would have known exactly what the amount would be for the year ending 1916. I am bound to say that, looking into the accounts, they are very complicated. I am accustomed to insurance accounts, but these which I have before me, in my opinion, do not divulge the actual state of affairs. I think

    711
    that it is important between this and next year that we should have a correct statement of the actual estimated income and expenditure for the year, otherwise we shall get into a very complicated state of accounts
    Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose it is my stupidity, but looking at the beginning of the Estimate I find it says that it is for the year ending the 31st March, 1916, and not for three months. Therefore ostensibly this sum is required for the year ending 31st March, 1916, and I really do not understand it. The Estimate says that it is for the year ending the 31st March, 1916, and then it says that it is for the three months ending the 31st March, 1916. The matter is most complicated, and I am not surprised that an ordinary Member cannot understand it, especially when it is further complicated by the total Vote being put in, which, so far as I know, is not done, I suppose, in any Estimate except in the case of the Army and Navy under the exceptional circumstances of the present War. We never get a total Vote unless it is an Appropriation-in-Aid, or something of that kind.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Member is asking too much of the Estimates, which do not profess to be a complete record of revenue and expenditure. They only authorise expenditure for the coming year; and, as a matter of fact, we are engaged in war economies and we are holding up the scheme in Ireland because it put a heavy strain on the medical profession. There are various schemes which might apply to Ireland, but at the present moment our hands are not free to deal with the matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is not the explanation which the hon. Gentleman gave a few minutes ago.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I stated that the scheme was hung up owing to the War, and that it was desired to avoid putting a strain on the medical profession.
    Mr. BOOTH: I hope the hon. Baronet will not object to the total Vote appearing because it may be very important in future years to have the Vote, so that the House can go over the accounts. On the very day when the War troubles arose, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was busy in the City, there arrived at this
    712
    House four gentlemen from Ireland who were my guests and lunched with me here. They were the Bishop of Ross, the Member for the College Green Division (Mr. J. D. Nugent), Mr. Noble, of the Orange and Protestant Society, and Mr. Alexander, of the Presbyterian Society. They came, on behalf of the approved societies in Ireland, as a deputation to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they were thoroughly united in what they had to propose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called into the City as stated, war having been declared. The deputation said they would return to Ireland as, under the circumstances, they could not possibly trouble the right hon. Gentleman in the grave condition of European affairs. They were extremely disappointed, but they felt that they must return to Ireland as they could not bother the Government at such a time.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL INSUKAXCE, AUDIT DEPARTMENT.— Class VII.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £57,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Audit Staff under the National Insurance Act, 1911."[NOTE.—£50,000 has been voted on account.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  COTTON SUPPLIES TO ENEMY.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to detain the House only a very few moments while I mention a matter which I brought before the attention of the House this afternoon in the form of a question, namely, the question of cotton going to the enemy through neutral States. I have been threatened if I raised this question tonight that I would be counted out, and I understand that great efforts have been

  713
  made during the afternoon to secure that object. Whether it succeeds or not if it is now attempted, I, at any rate, will feel that I have done my duty in trying to bring before the House a matter which I think is of the most urgent importance. If the threat of a count out should be carried into effect the country, I hope, will take note of the efforts of Members to prevent the discussion of matters of supreme interest. I think it is admitted even by the Government itself—and indeed it has been admitted by the President of the Board of Trade—that cotton still goes to Germany. It was admitted at that box the other day. I say it is a very serious state of affairs that after nearly a year of war we are permitting, practically with our connivance, the most essential factor in the making of high explosives to go to our enemy, and that we are assisting them to make munitions to kill our soldiers, while at the same time we are not doing everything we can to give munitions to our own soldiers. This is a question which is a good deal discussed outside. The plain blunt man does not understand all the Parliamentary niceties and other considerations which permits the Government in this crisis of the country to assist the enemy to make high explosive shells. Germany is using at this moment, on a calculation which the present Minister of Munitions made the other day, something like 250,000 shells per day. That means that she must have an enormous amount of cotton for that purpose.
  Without the cotton which we are supplying, all the authorities who fully understand this matter, among whom I do not, of course, include myself, have come to the conclusion that Germany would have been practically unable to have continued the War up to the present time. I would like that contention to be replied to. What evidence have the Government got for assuming to-day if we had not supplied her with cotton that she would have been able to make high explosive shells? The Under-Secretary for War said that they were satisfied that Germany had sufficient cotton in stock to make it really unimportant whether we stopped it or not. I think it is a most indefensible and worthless argument to say that because Germany has got enough of anything that therefore we need not take any trouble about it, is a very curious defence indeed. As a matter of fact, it is not correct. Germany did not have at the beginning of the War the stock of cotton which she was
  714
  reputed to have. There is absolutely no evidence in favour of the contention of the Government, while there is abundant evidence against it. What I have contended throughout is this, that we ought, if money would do it, prevent cotton going to Germany. And money could have done it, and could do it even to-day. If we were to buy to-day the American exports to Austria and Germany we would practically settle the whole question. A sum of £30,000,000 would do it, and what is £30,000,000 when we are spending £3,000,000 per day in regard to the War, and, as an hon. Friend rightly reminds me, it would not be lost, because we might be even able to sell the cotton at a higher price, and at most the loss would be practically infinitesimal, and even if we lost the whole lot, I think it would be a matter of satisfaction that we prevented cotton going to Germany.
  I would like to give the latest official figures, and here let me say it is exceedingly difficult to get the real figures with regard to this question. I do not know if the Government have the recent figures, and it seems to me there is great delay in supplying the figures from neutral countries. Take the figures as the basis of the importance of this matter. The imports of American cotton from the 31st of August to the 30th April, 1913–14, to Holland amounted to 32,870 bales, and in 1914–15 to Holland, 413,820 bales; to Denmark in 1913–14 no bales at all, and in 1914–15, 65,370 bales; to Norway, 60 bales before the War, in 1913–14, and 107,400 bales in 1914–15; to Sweden, 24,930 bales before the War, from the 31st of August, 1913, to the 30th April, 1914, and 735,510 bales after the War. I say that those are serious figures, and it is really no good trying to dispute the fact that this is a very great and important question. Germany was also, of course, importing other matters, but I am confining myself particularly to the bales at the present moment. There is another rather interesting fact, and I do not know whether the Government have got these figures at the present moment. I have taken them from the "Cotton Gazette" of Liverpool, which is absolutely right. Take the question of cotton yarn exported during June, 1914, to Norway and the total was 218,700, and in June, 1915, 348,300; to Sweden in June, 1913, 108,900, and in June, 1915, 260,800; to Denmark, 106,400, and in June, 1915, 204,700; and to, the Netherlands, in June, 1914, 3,252,800, and in June, 1915, 4,493,300.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Of what?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Pounds weight of cotton, yarn. I shall be glad to give the official figures to the Noble Lord. In June, 1915, in addition, we sent to Greece 2,000,000 yards of cotton manufacture more than in the corresponding month for the year before, and 3,500,000 yards more than in the corresponding month of 1913. In June, 1915, we sent 132,000 yards of cotton manufacture to Turkey—as late as June, 1915. I think these facts, which are absolutely reliable, seem to call for some attention and some explanation on the part of the Government. I know we have had replies from the Government that it is difficult to do it. I have no desire to interfere with the relations that may be existing between our own country and neutral countries, but I do think the time has arrived when some definite pronouncement on the part of the new Government should be made as to what their policy is in regard to cotton. Let us know what it is. If there is a defence, let us all know it. We will all be glad to be converted and to get this question out of the way. Let the people outside know, because there is some explanation required. If the Government can convince us that there are even higher considerations than these, though I very much doubt it, I am very sure they will have the sympathy of an approving House, but up to the present moment there has been no real reply given to the contention which we have put before the House.
  I would ask the Noble Lord, who will, I presume, reply, Why is cotton not made contraband? We have made other things contraband, thirty within the last few months. The Noble Lord will probably reply that the situation is no better from our point of view if it is contraband. With great deference I disagree. If it is not affected when it is made contraband, why have we gone to all the trouble to make other articles contraband? Wool has only recently been made contraband, and why was it made so and cotton left out? I shall be very much interested to know the reply. It is not the mere fact as to the capture of cotton. The whole question of shipping comes into this matter, because the shipper will not take the risk of the cotton if he knows he stands the chance of losing both the ship and the cargo because the article is contraband. If it is not, he has the chance of being able
  716
  probably to delay matters and certainly of saving the ship and, it may be, the cotton. Take the position of France. We had a great discussion about the "Dacia." It was allowed to go to France, and what has France done? France has confiscated both ship and cargo. Why cannot we do what France is able to do. The French Press have had articles during the last few days in which they expressed consternation at the fact that we have not made cotton contraband I therefore would submit that something might be done in order to put a stop to this export that is going on. I think the time has come when definite action should be taken by the Government. My sole desire in raising this matter is to ask the Government to be more vigorous in this, as I have asked them to be in other matters. There are many other aspects of the question to which I should like to refer, but time forbids on the present occasion. I do press on the Noble Lord that there is great anxiety on this matter, and I believe he will do a great service not only to this country, but to other counties concerned in our success, if he were at once to say "No more cotton must go to the enemy."
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to impress upon the House the importance of in some way preventing cotton from reaching the enemy. I may not see eye to eye with the last speaker on every point, because, perhaps, I realise more fully than he does, or more fully than he has expressed, the difficulties with which this question is surrounded. I submit that this is not a question for Great Britain only, but concerns all the Allies. It is one in which we have to co-operate with our Allies, and in which we have also, to some extent at all events, to consider the feelings of a great friendly Nation on the other side of the Atlantic. But, after making all allowances for these difficulties, we must not minimise the importance of the matter. We must not shrink from these difficulties; we must consider them in order to overcome them; because it is undoubtedly the case that as long as we allow cotton to leak into Germany we do allow the War to continue and to be waged against us successfully. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. H. Dalziel), in common with a great many people who touch upon this subject, dwelt almost exclusively on the fact that cotton is the basis of high explosives. For many years before the War, for

  717
  purposes entirely unconnected with the War, I have found it necessary to study the various uses to which cotton is put under modern conditions of life in civilised countries, and I can assure the House, as the result of many years' careful study of the subject, that the importance of stopping cotton from reaching Germany does not end with the question of explosives.
  There is hardly a branch of human industrial activity at the present time in any civilised country which does not depend upon the supply of cotton. I have here a list of the industries concerned; I am not going to trouble the House with much of it, but I will run through some of the headings. Without cotton it is impossible to run railways. Without cotton it is impossible to run motor-cars, because cotton is the main fabric in connection with the rubber for motor tyres. I am merely touching upon industries connected with warfare. Armies require great quantities of cotton for clothing, bedding, tents, ground sheets, mackintoshes, tarpaulins, and many other purposes. A modern battleship is said to use more cotton than any vessel did in the days of sails; and I have no doubt that enemy submarines would have to cease their operations if we stopped the supply of cotton to Germany. Every class of factory, including munition factories, is bound in many ways to use cotton in some or other of its processes. In fact, to-day, to stop the supply of cotton to any country is to paralyse that country's industries to an extent that would render its armies impotent. That is a very important consideration, quite apart from the question of explosives. The last speaker suggested that we might deal with this question by purchasing the exportable surplus of America's cotton. I do not think the question is as big as that at all; because America at present exports to this country a large portion of its surplus. She exports cotton to Japan. Why should we interfere with that? She exports cotton to India, Spain, Portugal, and other countries. But none of those is concerned in this problem. The real point is the regulation of the export of cotton to the neutral countries immediately adjoining Germany. It is through those countries, and through those countries alone, that the leakage can take place.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: What I was dealing with was not the whole American crop, but the amount that went to Austria and Germany before the War.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I am purposly leaving that out of consideration, because I think anybody can see that we are not now discussing the question of any cotton being shipped direct to Germany or Austria. If any such shipments have taken place they have been dealt with, and any such shipments would no doubt be dealt with in the future. The point to which I was directing attention was the leakage which is taking place in regard to cotton shipped to neutral countries ostensibly for the legitimate purposes of those countries, and which is then passed over to our enemies in large quantities. I think there is no country in the world that would or could maintain that we in this country ought tamely to sit down and allow Germany to use the neutral countries as collecting agents. My suggestion is that that would not be a true interpretation of neutrality. If a neutral port is used, not for the purposes of the legitimate trade of that country, but merely as a port in which supplies for our enemy are to be collected under false pretences, then I think that is a matter which we must ask our diplomatists to use their ability to counteract.
  But the question is not as large as might be supposed. It may surprise Members to know that the normal yearly consumption of raw cotton in the four countries adjoining Germany is under 250,000 bales; that means in money in normal times on the average of recent years before the War, say, £2,500,000. That is a very small sum as we now speak of money. Surely, it ought not to be beyond the ability of our diplomatists—I do not mean merely of this country, but of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy—to make some friendly arrangement by which the Allies would undertake to supply those four countries with 250,000 bales of cotton, or whatever they might require for their own legitimate purposes, in return for undertakings given by responsible parties or corporations in those countries to the effect that such supplies would be used only for their own purposes and not under any circumstances or conditions whatever passed over to our enemies to be used against us. It may be said that America would have something to say to that. I do not profess to have any knowledge whatever of diplomacy; but, speaking with some knowledge of business, I have always found the Americans, whom I know very well and with whom I have done a great deal of business, to be very good business

  719
  people. If we put it to them that circumstances were such that they had to choose between the two alternatives of cotton being made contraband or of the Allies taking from them sufficient cotton over and above our ordinary requirements to enable us to supply those four neutral countries with their legitimate requirements, speaking as a layman, not as a diplomatist, I am very confident that our good friends across the Atlantic would regard the latter as a sound business proposition and probably agree to it. The subject is a most important one; and while I fully realise the difficulties that surround it from the diplomatic point of view, I also fully realise that every bale of cotton that we allow to go to Germany through any channel does mean the prolongation of the War and the killing and wounding of many of our brave soldiers at the front.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not in any way complain of what the right hon. Gentleman has done in bringing this matter again before the House, because it is undoubtedly a question of enormous importance, and I am sure the House will realise that the Government are fully alive to its immense importance. I confess I feel a little difficulty in discussing the question as fully and as frankly as I should like to do. Undoubtedly, very difficult international questions are raised by the subject. You have to consider not only this country and Germany—if those were the only two. countries concerned the problem would be an extremely simple one—but you have to consider the great producing neutral countries like America, and the neutral countries which consume cotton, like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, particularly Sweden. You have to try to devise a policy which will respect the legitimate rights of neutrals, and yet safeguard our legitimate interests and inflict as much injury as we can upon those of our enemies. I am sure the House will recognise that it is extremely difficult for me, speaking here, to point out the full case which might be made on behalf of any of the neutral interests. I cannot do it. It would be improper, and I cannot do it. Every Member of the House therefore must do that for himself; he must supply that part of the argument for himself, leaving me argumentatively the poorer, and fill in what is obviously wanting in my argument by that consideration. It is
  720
  therefore with that limitation, and having that before their mind, I ask the attention of the House to what I am about to say.
  The right hon. Gentleman began the discussion by quoting a number of figures. I should be the last to deny that those figures are disquieting. I have never denied it. There were some figures given by my hon. Friend, in answer to a question, which we have not had time to verify, but which would be still more disquieting if they turned out to be accurate. All I can say with reference to all those figures is this: The policy of the Government, as I understand it, is to prevent the importation of cotton into Germany. We have hitherto been acting upon a certain plan, which I will describe to the House in a moment, which we believed, and still believe to be—I will not say absolutely perfect, because you will never be able to prevent a certain amount of leakage or smuggling, whatever plan you adopt—but on the whole we still believe that that plan is reasonably and substantially effective. If it should turn out that we are wrong—and we are giving close and continuous attention to the matter—if it should turn out, contrary to our expectation and belief, that cotton is still going into Germany, then no regard for Ministerial consistency or anything of that kind will prevent the Government from carrying out whatever plans are necessary to secure the end we have in view.
  I do not wish to detain the House at any length, but let me just say a word about the various proposals that have been made. We have been asked on previous occasions—I am not sure that we have been asked to-night—to say that no cotton shall go into any country which could possibly transfer that cotton to Germany; that is to say, that we should cut off the whole of the supplies of all those neutral countries—Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and so on. I do not think that that plan is one that is seriously suggested. Obviously it is quite indefensible from the point of view of international law, and would land us in international difficulties which we wish to avoid. Well, then, a plan of purchase was rather tentatively put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure that I understood what he meant. He talked of purchasing the average supply that went to Germany and Austria. I do not quite know what he means. That by itself would do no good. He did not develop his arguments, but the mere purchase of

  721
  that supply would not help us at all, because there is nothing to prevent the supplying countries sending in a further supply to the belligerent countries, who, of course, are prepared to offer very considerable prices, as we know. There was a somewhat similar plan suggested by my hon. Friend opposite. Do not let him or anyone think that because I do not see my way to accept these plans that they will not get very careful consideration. Everything put forward will be considered. The plan of the hon. Member was to buy the cotton to go to the United States, and say: "We will buy from you the cotton you usually send to the neutral countries, and in return for that you must not send them any more; we will supply the neutral countries with that amount." That, said the hon. Member, would cost a very small sum of money. I only wish it was as simple a matter as that. The whole case of the right hon. Gentleman who began this Debate is that it is much more than that—that America at present is selling to neutral countries an enormous increase; therefore that would not meet the difficulty at all. In the same way it would not be simple to say to the neutral countries—I do not say it would not be possible—"We are the judges of exactly how much cotton you ought to use, and we will supply you with no more than that." I do not say that some such ultimate plan of what are sometimes called "rations" may not be devised, but it is a. matter of very great complication and difficulty, and one which cannot be done straight off by a mere ipse dixit on the part of this country.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I recognise that, and I did not intend to suggest unnecessary hardship upon them.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean that, but if the real proposal is, as sometimes I have heard and read, that we should purchase the whole cotton crop of America, that is a tremendous undertaking* It is a very serious financial undertaking, and the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) would be the first to recognise that that is not an expedient likely to be adopted. It would mean a very large expenditure of capital, and the transfer of a very considerable sum of money from this country to America, with all the financial disadvantages with which the hon. Baronet is more familiar than I am, with reference to exchange and so on. I do not think that is a policy which certainly ought to be
  722
  adopted, unless every other plan has failed. What has the Government done? Let me take the case of Holland. They have made an agreement for the establishment in Holland of a body called the Netherlands Oversea Trust, which, I am informed, consists of some of the most substantial men in Holland, men of the highest possible character and the highest possible reputation. To take cotton as an example—and it applies to many other articles—the arrangement is that no cotton is allowed to go into Holland unless it is consigned to, and accepted by this Trust.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does that apply to other countries?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am talking of Holland as an example. You must walk before you run, and you must deal with one country at a time. It is part of the agreement, and sanctioned by very heavy bonds with this trust, that no cotton shall be allowed to go into Germany. I confess that appears to me to be a businesslike arrangement, and one that should succeed, if it does not. It does secure to Holland the legitimate demands which Holland can make for its own internal trade, and it does secure, as far as you can secure, that no part of the cotton imported into Holland goes into Germany.
  Sir A. MOND: Does that apply to cotton going direct from another country or only to the cotton exported from England?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understand it applies to all cotton. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understand that that is so. And I am very much shaken in my opinion by hon. Members contradicting me. My information is that it applies to all cotton going into Holland.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: It applies only to the licences granted for export from this country, the same as copper or anything else.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the hon. Member is mistaken.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Is not this under the Proclamation of 29th October, that no-goods, unless they are consigned to the order of the particular trust mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, will be allowed to pass, and therefore the Proclamation of 29th October does in fact secure all the right hon. Gentleman says?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is perfectly right. All cotton of any kind going into Holland has to go consigned to the Netherlands Oversea Trust; that is the arrangement.
  Mr. HENDERSON: From America?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, that is the arrangement carried out by us—American cotton also. That arrangement is accepted by the neutral consumer, because it supplies the cotton which is necessary for neutral consumption, and stops the cotton that is going into Germany. Hon. Members forget that on 11th March, in consequence of the submarine attacks on our trade, we issued an Order in Council, by which we said that we would not allow any trade at all to go on with Germany—I am speaking of my recollection of the Order—and we proceeded to carry that out. We said we would apply to all trade going to a neutral country the doctrine of continuous voyage. If a cargo was consigned to a neutral country under circumstances which made us reasonably believe that it had an enemy destination, we would treat it in the same way as if it had a definite enemy destination. That is the arrangement. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen seem surprised at that. It is only by doing that or something like it that you can possibly stop the evil of which the right hon. Gentleman complains. That appears to me to be a reasonable, businesslike arrangement, if it is carried out. If it can be carried out in other countries, so much the better. We must devise arrangements, the nearest we can, to prevent cotton reaching Germany. Let me repeat what I said the other day: if you made cotton contraband to-morrow, you are still faced with the difficulty of cotton coming from America to the neutral country. You still have to deal with that, and unless you can show that the cotton is actually going to Germany sooner or later, you are just in the same difficulty as under the Orders in Council. That is the difficulty which besets you. It is part of the great and essential difficulty of the situation, that you have not the command of every road into Germany—because some of these roads go through neutral countries—and it is to deal with cotton going into Germany through neutral countries, that, whether or not it is declared contraband, your difficulties arise. I venture to hope that in future discussions there will be in the mind of every Member
  724
  that this is the essential difficulty of the situation. Unless that is appreciated, no suggestion, however well meant or however ingenious, will be of service to the Government in dealing with this problem. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were additional advantages in making cotton contraband which do not apply to our present plan of dealing with it under the Order in Council of 11th March, because it would be possible to confiscate the ship and the goods without dealing with it in the milder way under the Order in Council. That is, I concede, an important matter for the Government to consider. I do not think that I can, with due regard to the public service, present the whole argument for or against that procedure. It is quite evident it may be much more severe on the producing country. It is a matter which evidently requires very careful consideration whether it is wise in a particular case to make a particular commodity contraband or not. That is a matter deserving very careful consideration. No doubt it will get it. I am certainly not in a position to declare any change of policy on the part of the Government with regard to that. I have endeavoured to deal very shortly with the rival plans in an extremely difficult and extremely important subject. I ventured to say at the beginning, and I want to say again, that our object is to prevent cotton going into Germany. We have to carry that object out without inflicting injustice upon neutral countries, and we have to carry it out effectively, but with due regard to the public law of Europe—for we stand for the public law of Europe throughout this quarrel. We believe that our plan has brought a considerable measure of success. We believe that it is, in fact, preventing the overwhelmingly greater part of the cotton going into Germany, and that ultimately it will prevent it all. If it should not, we are prepared to consider any scheme. Whatever is really effective for our purpose, subject to the limitation of justice and respect for international law, that plan, the House may rely upon it, the Government will adopt.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am glad to hear the Noble Lord say that this arrangement has been made. I am glad that all cotton that is going to Holland is going to what is known as the Netherlands Oversea Trust; but I cannot help thinking that the Noble Lord is somewhat mistaken in saying that American shippers have agreed to consign their cotton to the Netherlands

  725
  Oversea Trust. How can you compel them to do that? You can do it. Copper you have made contraband, and in regard to copper let me say that all these countries use copper just as largely as cotton. You have declared copper contraband as far back as 13th September, and I do not know why that was not done when War broke out in August. Since then no copper can be exported from this country without this particular licence to the Netherlands Oversea Trust. Further than that, you have very wisely, with regard to Sweden and Norway, stipulated that there should be a declaration that it is for their own particular consumption and not for export, and there, again, the Swedish Government has helped you by refusing to allow those things which are contraband to be exported. Very well, that is all right. If the copper companies in America—and the great bulk of it comes from there—send a ship with copper or nickel to Sweden or Norway our ships stop it at once, and, unless they are satisfied it is going to those countries for their actual purposes, it is confiscated. There was a large cargo of copper going to Norway, and there is no doubt it was going to Germany, but, by reason of it being contraband, you were enabled to seize it. Assuming that a Galveston shipper consigns a shipment of cotton to Christiania, will our ships stop it, and on what ground? It is not contraband.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: You cannot stop any ship on the ground of contraband, or anything else. All you can stop it for is for search. If you find any cargo on board which contravenes the provision of the Order in Council we stop it now.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Then, am I to understand that you treat cotton exactly in the same way as you treat copper?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: As far as the stopping of the cargo is concerned, yes. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in pointing out there are certain legal consequences which accrue to the subsequent disposal of the goods concerned if contraband, which do not apply to goods if not contraband; but, so far as regards the stoppage of goods, that is absolutely the same thing, whether contraband or not.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Then I am afraid I do not quite understand the distinction between contraband and not contraband.
  726
  Why should you not make cotton contraband the same as copper? America sells by far the largest amount of cotton of any country in the world to this country and all the other countries, and there must be some occult reason we do not know why you deal with it differently from copper.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I thought the hon. Gentleman knew the historical part of the subject. Everyone knows that in past times there has been considerable dispute about this question of cotton. I do not want to shut the door on any solution, but there is a doubt. The hon. Gentleman really, I think, ought to inform himself on the elements of the subject as to whether cotton is contraband or not.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I know it may be contended it is not contraband, but you can declare anything contraband if it goes to an enemy and is useful to that enemy; if you can establish that any substance is of use for the manufacture of implements of war you can make it contraband. Germany has declared pit-props contraband. No one ever heard of these being contraband before, and there is nothing to hinder this country, so far as I know, from declaring cotton contraband of war, and if we do that, all the rest follows. It may be that if you offend the shippers in America they may be open to a deal to get rid of that. But, at the present moment, I cannot see that you are putting cotton in the same category as copper, and it is evident that copper has been to a very large extent stopped, while cotton has not. I would not ask my Noble Friend to put too much trust in this Netherlands Oversea Trust. Let me tell him something. A large consignment of ferro-manganese went to the Netherlands. Ferro-manganese and iron ore are only used in smelting, and there is not a furnace in the whole of Holland. That was going to Germany. That is not an absolute protection. It may be there is something else; but it does seem to me cotton is quite as necessary in the making of munitions, especially high explosives, and, having made copper contraband, I see no earthly reason why you should not make cotton contraband.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There was one point which was not made clear in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which has been partly elucidated by question and answer when my hon. Friend was speaking just now. I think there was lacking an assurance that all cotton was

  727
  now being stopped under the present arrangement which could be stopped by declaring cotton contraband.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I did say so, and I said so a few days ago in this House in the clearest possible language I could command.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I listened attentively and I did not catch it quite so clearly and distinctly as the right hon. Gentleman said it just now. But I think, when that fact is appreciated in the country, a good deal of the alarm and uneasiness which has undoubtedly been excited by certain newspaper comments and by various speeches will be removed and quietened. I hold here a copy of the Order in Council under which the Government is acting at the present time, and there I find it declared that:—
  "Every merchant vessel which sails from her port of departure after 1st March, 1915, on her way to a port other than a German port, carrying goods with an enemy destination, or which are enemy property, may be required to discharge such goods in a British or an Allied port."
  Any goods whatever destined for Germany may be stopped and discharged, and on their being discharged two things may happen. In the first place, if they come within the Schedule of those goods now listed as contraband, they are confiscated. If they are not contraband, they are not allowed to proceed to Germany, but are either requisitioned for the use of the Government or handed back to the owner on such conditions as the Government determine, but one of these conditions is that they shall not be imported into Germany.
  Some criticism has been directed to the fact that this Order in Council is permissive; the words are "may be required to discharge." But I understand that we have the assurance of the Government. I have seen it stated in announcements in the Press; I have seen it stated in correspondence which the former Attorney-General had with the secretary of the Society of Chemists that, although the words here are permissive, the Government are stopping all cotton and goods of that kind in every case whatever, so that there is nothing to be gained in the way of stopping goods going into Germany through neutral countries by declaring cotton contraband. By declaring cotton contraband we could not stop a single ounce going into Germany more than is being stopped at the present time. That,
  728
  I understand, to be the statement of the Government—and, indeed, it is quite clear. The definition in the Order in Council is a definition which includes goods of whatever class, whether contraband or not, "carrying goods with an enemy destination." All goods with an enemy destination are stopped, and, so far as goods reaching Germany are concerned, not a single ounce more could be prevented from reaching Germany by declaring cotton contraband. I think it is important that that should be clearly understood in the country. The quarrel which my right hon. Friend has with the Government in this matter is a quarrel, not as to the purposes to be achieved, but as to the manner and method. He thinks the better method would be to declare goods contraband just as other goods have been declared contraband. The Government, for reasons which are known best to themselves, think that, under the special circumstances, the procedure laid down in this Order in Council is the best procedure for the present.
  Lord ROBERT CECILI hope I have made it quite clear that the Government do not shut the door on any suggestions.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I thought I made it clear that that is what I understood. The Government are of opinion that the procedure laid down in the Schedule is the best procedure under present circumstances and for the present. What the reasons of the Government for this differential action are the right hon. Gentleman has not made clear—he has not attempted to make clear. He has only vaguely hinted at them, but, from the hints which have been given, it is clear that there are international reasons of the very gravest kind. In dealing with the international questions we are really dealing with high explosives, and I should be the last to attempt to say anything on that subject that would hamper the Government or would raise international difficulties. I would only throw out one suggestion to my right hon. Friend. In this matter we are dealing, not with the prejudices of neutral Powers and not merely with the desires and interests of neutral Powers; we are dealing with the international rights of neutral Powers, and there is no way of getting over those rights of overriding them—except by placing a pistol to their heads. That is not a method of diplomacy which it would be safe to adopt with neutral Powers at the present time. We have to remember also

  729
  that these international rights are rights which are of the greatest value to ourselves; that the time has been in the past, and the time may come in the future, when we ourselves will be a neutral Power, and when other nations, possibly great nations, may be at war, and that one of the things which the Government has got to safeguard and protect are the rights which are essential and vital to our commerce in the future. We have not only got to look to the present. In those circumstances, seeing that it is only a matter of method that all cotton is now being stopped that could be stopped by declaring it contraband, I think it is desirable to give the Government a free hand in this matter, and not to hamper it by intermeddling with the very difficult, the very dangerous, and the very delicate international questions which are bound up in it.
  Mr. PETO: I want to call the attention of the House to one aspect of this question, which I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook. We are gaming experience as to how far the present arrangements are or are not watertight. Nothing gave me greater satisfaction than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman
  730
  that no regard for ministerial consistency would prevent the Government from adopting other methods if the present methods were not effective. We know the present methods have not prevented Germany getting all the cotton she required, and vastly more than she got during the twelve months preceding the War. We have now to remember that our experience so far during the War has been dealing with last year's cotton crop, and the cotton which is coming through now is the very small residuum of the old cotton crop, and six weeks from now a fresh problem will be before the Government, for they will have to ask, how have we dealt with the crop of 1914? They will have to ask, has that method been sufficiently successful to satisfy us that there will not be a vast new influx through the same back door of the cotton which is ripening in the United States—
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.
  Adjourned at Seventeen minutes after Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  RECRUITS (ASTIGMATISM).
  RECRUITS (ASTIGMATISM).
MUNITIONS.
  TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS CLOSED TO RECRUITING.
  TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS CLOSED TO RECRUITING.
  MARRIED MEN ENLISTED.
  MARRIED MEN ENLISTED.
  CORDITE TRAYS.
  CORDITE TRAYS.
  RICHMOND (YORKS) MILITARY CAMP.
  RICHMOND (YORKS) MILITARY CAMP.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  ALIEN ENEMIES (RELEASE).
  ALIEN ENEMIES (RELEASE).
  MILITARY FOOT POLICE.
  MILITARY FOOT POLICE.
  Questions to Ministers.
  Questions to Ministers.
  Police Summonses, County Cork.
  Police Summonses, County Cork.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland),
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland),
  National Teacher's (Ireland) Claim.
  National Teacher's (Ireland) Claim.
  Ramelton Postal Delivery.
  Ramelton Postal Delivery.
  Bolton Post Office.
  Bolton Post Office.
  United Friendly Insurance Company.
  United Friendly Insurance Company.
  Board of Agriculture (Journal).
  Board of Agriculture (Journal).