Sitting of 20 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords,]
Bill to be read a second time Tomorrow.
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords],
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
Divorce Bills (Counsel and Witnesses).
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): It is usual in the month of July to carry out a revision of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business. That has been done this year. The Amendments I have to propose are of a small character, and none of them involves any matter which raises new principles. I hope the House will accept that assurance and agree to the Amendments.
I beg to move, after Standing Order 189, to insert,
"189a. The Select Committee on Divorce Bills shall hear counsel and examine witnesses for all Bills committed to them; and also shall hear counsel and examine witnesses against such Bills if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by counsel and produce witnesses."
Mr. KING: I wish to point out that the words in the new Standing Order are not exactly the same as those that are usually passed when the House Orders an instruction to the Divorce Bills Committee. The
1308
word in the Resolution is that the Committee "do" hear counsel. In the new Standing Order the word "shall," which I suppose is mandatory, is introduced. It is not always the practice of the Divorce Bills Committee to hear counsel, but I am afraid that, with the word "shall" in the Standing Order, we shall be obliged to do so. I am not quite sure that it is advisable or desirable to proceed on these lines.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: This proposal has been before the chairman of the Joint Committee on Divorce Bills, and he raises no objection to it. There is no difference in effect between the words "do" and "shall." The word "shall" is the more proper in a Standing Order, although in Motions we use the word "do."
Question put, and agreed to.
189a. Ordered, That the Select Committee on Divorce Bills shall hear counsel and examine witnesses for all Bills committed to them; and also shall hear counsel and examine witnesses against such Bills if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by counsel and produce witnesses.
Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
Standing Order 196 read, and amended, by adding the words,—
"And if the House is not sitting on the latest day on which the Bill ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, then the Bill shall be so laid on the first day on which the House again sits."
Standing Order 224a read, and amended, in line 11, by inserting, after the word "extended," the words "in respect of (a) and (b)."
And in line 12, by inserting, after the word "adjournment," the words "in respect of (c) to the second day upon which the House sits after the adjournment."
Standing Order 225 read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the words from the first word "List," to the end of line 5.
And in line 14, by leaving out the words "5. First Reading."
Standing Order 238 read, and amended, in line 2, by leaving out the words "Committee clerk to the."
And in line 2, by inserting, after the third word "the," the words "Committee and."
Standing Order 248 read, and amended, in line 1, by inserting, after the second word "the," the words "Committee and."
And in line 1, by inserting, after the word "Office," the words "and the clerk to the Examiner, as the case may be."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Private Bills,
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords,]
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (LIGHTING IN FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of First Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire and report as to the conditions necesary for the adequate Lighting of Factories and Workshops. Vol. I., Report and Appendices. Vol. II., Summary of Evidence, Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF THE WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of the West Riding
1310
of Yorkshire, constituting a new polling district in the parliamentary division of Elland, and assigning a polling place thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th July, 1915, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
Copies presented of Orders in Council, dated 13th July, 1915, respecting Winter Assize Counties. Nos. 1 to 7 for the Winter Assizes, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Reports Nos. 847 (St. Helena, Annual Report for 1914) and 848 (Fiji, Annual Report for 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHAMBER OF LONDON.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year ending 31st December, 1915 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 301.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Dillon Nugent, esquire, for the Borough of Dublin (College Green Division).
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Glasgow Corporation (Parks, Harbour Tunnel, Gas, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
London Electric Railway Companies' Facilities Bill, without Amendment.
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extensions, etc.) Bill.
Weardale and Consett Water Bill, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    COTTON SUPPLY (GERMANY).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received information of measures taken in Germany to reduce the use of cotton in manufactures in such a manner as will cause it to be mainly or entirely used for military purposes?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): According to information in the public Press—which is the only information at present available to His Majesty's Government on the subject—the German Government have assumed control of the stocks of cotton in the Empire, with a view to their economical use; and they have prohibited the manufacture of certain kinds of goods which are not articles of necessity.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether the naval reports are of such a character as to indicate that it would be of assistance to the Navy in stopping Germany's cotton supplies to declare cotton a contraband article?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): From a purely naval point of view it seems immaterial.

    BILLETING AND VICTUALLING CHARGES.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state what is the rate at which soldiers are now billeted per diem per man, and what is included in this rate?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The existing rates which are, however, under revision, are shown in an Army Order of the 23rd April, 1915, and include lodging, attendance, and three meals a day. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Army Order.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked what is the average cost per head per diem of victual ling the troops in the camps in Great Britain?
    Mr. FORSTER: About 1s. 5d.

    COLT MACHINE GUNS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that casualties were occasioned owing to our trenches being held by riflemen while the German first lines are mainly held by machine guns, he will say whether, seeing that the War Office have stated that the Colt machine gun is a good weapon and that this gun is used by the French and by the Canadian division at the front, when the firm's offer of 10,000 to 20,000 of these machines for quick delivery was made last January, Sir J. French was consulted before the offer was declined?
    Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend professes to quote the opinion I have expressed with regard to the merits of the Colt gun, he should quote it in full. Sir John French was not consulted when the offer of these guns was declined.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that the offer of 10,000 to 20,000 Colt machine guns was refused last January, as it Was then considered that the money and plant might be more usefully employed in the manufacture of another type of gun, he is aware that not a single American machine gun has been made for this country with the plant in question; and if he will say whether the Treasury in any way restricted the War Office in the ordering of these or any other guns?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the latter part in the negative.

    EMPIRE BATTALION (REPORT OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to communicate the substance of the Report of the Court of Military Inquiry into the affairs of the Empire Battalion to the House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The Report will be laid on the Table of the House with as little delay as possible.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report before the Adjournment?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think I can make that promise.

    ASYLUM MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a retired medical officer of the asylum service who accepts medical duties under the military authorities is deprived of his pension under Clause 7 of the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act to the extent that no such officer may receive more of the superannuation allowance than, together with the pay from the military authorities, is equal to the remuneration of the office or employment in respect of which the superannuation allowance was awarded; that, consequently, in some cases the officer employed works for less than half the salary paid to other men; and that no such disability applies to military and naval pensioners; and whether, in view of the scarcity of medical men at the present time both for the Army and for civil practice, he will take steps to ensure the restrictions under Clause 7 of the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act being waived?
    Mr. TENNANT: The provision in question is not peculiar to asylum officers, but is applicable generally to persons drawing civil superannuation allowances. It is not proposed to alter the law, so far as I am aware, but the matter is one for the Treasury rather than the War Office.

    SOLDIER COMFORTS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has any information that soldier comforts, in the form of knitted helmets, body bands, etc., contributed by the public have been sent in bales of rags from the front in France to Dewsbury for sale by auction to manufacturers of shoddy?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that four bags of comforts in the form of mittens and body belts were, by inadvertence, shipped from Havre with a consignment of old clothing, which was sent to Dewsbury for sale by auction. The articles were in separate packages and not mixed with the old clothing. The packages were recovered from the sale room and taken into military charge, and steps have been taken to obviate a similar accident. I am satisfied that this is a case of mistake, and not a scandal, as has been incorrectly stated in the Press.

    LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY (SCHOOL CLEANING).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the London education authority having reduced its vote for school cleaning by£66,000, he will say whether the Board's inspectors have been, or will be, instructed to permit school premises to remain in a less cleanly condition than before the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The answer is in the negative. I cannot anticipate the possible results of such a measure of economy, for the adoption of which the local education authority do not require the permission of the Board or of their inspectors.
    Sir J. D. REES: What is the total amount of the provision which admits of a reduction of£60,000; will any such figure be continued at any time?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware of the total amount, but I shall be glad to inquire for the hon. Member.

    MUNITIONS.

      SPELTER SUPPLY.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether the British Government, directly or indirectly, is the chief buyer in this country of spelter from the United States; and whether, when ordering American spelter, it would be possible to discriminate in favour of the metal made in the United States from ores raised in British Columbia?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): In the event of such purchases being made the point raised by my hon. Friend shall receive due consideration.

      HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR VOLUNTEERS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will say what action he is taking to ensure the provision of clean and sanitary housing accommodation for volunteers who have enlisted for work in the production of munitions of war in the towns to which they are about to be sent?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): This question is not being lost sight of by the Minister of Munitions and my right hon. Friend. In most cases the workers will, no doubt, prefer to select their own accommodation to suit their particular requirements. Where they find difficulty in securing suitable accommodation they should apply to the council of the district in which they will have to reside, who will, I am sure, do their best to assist.

    GERMAN GOLD (ACCUSATION AT CAHIRCIVEEN).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is in accordance with Irish practice for a police officer to ask witnesses in open Court whether they have received German gold for attending to give false evidence; whether he will state the source and nature of the information on which that accusation was made against Kerry peasants at Cahirciveen Petty Sessions; seeing that the police magistrate disregarded the evidence of the witnesses so questioned, whether those persons will now be tried under the Defence of the Realm Act for their criminal receipt of German gold for a criminal purpose; and, if so, by what Court?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have been asked by the Attorney-General for Ireland to answer this question. With regard to the first part of it I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the 7th instant. The answers to the remaining parts are in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us—as I expected the Attorney-General would—who has conferred upon police officers in Ireland the privilege, denied to counsel in this country by the best judges, of slandering witnesses in open Court?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Nobody has.
    Mr. GINNELL: What action will the Irish Government take with reference to the officers who have done that?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have told the hon. Member before in this case that the officer who asked the question had information which in his opinion justified the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper—
    1316
    [Interruption]—whether those persons are going to be tried for this crime—[Interruption]—of receiving German gold —for a criminal offence; if so, before what Court—that is on the Paper?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I said the answer to that was in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to accept that as impartial administration of the law?

    ENLISTMENT (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what grounds the Irish Government at the present time discourage the enlistment of policemen in the Regular Army and encourage the enlistment of countrymen engaged in the production of food?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Irish Government, so far from discouraging members of the Royal Irish Constabulary from joining the Army, they have encouraged their doing so up to the point of safety. I have already given the House full particulars on the subject

    COAL FREIGHTS.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is going to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendation submitted to him by a conference of Members of this House with regard to the restriction of the rate of freights to be charged for the coastwise carriage of coal within the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether he can say when such Bill is likely to be introduced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): The recommendations to which my hon. Friend refers have been very carefully considered, but it is not proposed at present to introduce legislation for the purpose of regulating coastwise freights.
    Mr. NEVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least regulate the freight charges for interned steamers, so that the rate does not exceed the price paid by the Government for the commandeered coal steamers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The freights for interned steamers are regulated by the general freightage rates for the country as a whole.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is not the Government themselves charging for these freights rates 200 to 300 per cent. higher than those prevailing before the War; and does the Government consider that it is setting a good example by charging these exorbitant rates for conveying coal from the North of England to London? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO answer."]

    HALLATROW-LIMPLEY STOKE RAILWAY.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the passenger traffic upon the Hallatrow-Limpley Stoke railway has been suspended for many months, and that, whereas some passenger lines have a service scarcely curtailed from pre-war conditions, persons in this part of Somerset have no passenger service on their nearest railway line; and whether he will use his powers to restore a passenger service on this railway?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have been in communication with the Great Western Railway Company on the subject, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of their reply.

    DARDANELLES OPERATIONS:

      LETTERS AND PARCELS FOR SOLDIERS.
      Mr. NEVILLEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is being felt by our troops in the Dardanelles by the delay in forwarding parcels from the base; and whether he can take any steps to accelerate their delivery?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The arrangements for the transmission of the mails are made by the military authorities and not by the Post Office; but I am calling for a report on the question and of the time occupied in the transmission of letters and parcels between this country and the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force.

      DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (EXPULSION, IRELAND).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether Ernest Blythe, described as an organiser of Irish Volunteers, has been, under the Defence of the Realm Act, banished from Ireland and ordered not to return; and, if so, will he say for what, illegality?
      Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is undesirable in the public interest to give details of the evidence or the charges in respect of which action has been taken.
      Mr. GINNELL: In view of the answer, I beg to ask the Minister to whom the question is addressed, whether he has not had police on the trail of this gentleman for the last six months; and, if those police spies have observed any illegality, why this gentleman has not been put on, trial for it?
      Mr. BIRRELL: The gentleman in question, I have no doubt, has excited the attention of the police for some time past.
      Mr. GINNELL: What is the illegality, and why has he not been tried for it? That is the question on the Paper.
      Mr. BIRRELL: I dare say it is on the Paper, but he has been dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act.
      Mr. GINNELL: What is the illegality?

    RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE.

      COMPOSITION AND TEMIS OF REIERENCE.
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can give the names of the members and the terms of reference of the Retrenchment Committee?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The terms of reference are:
      "To inquire and to report what savings in public expenditure, in view of the necessities created by the War, can be effected in the Civil Departments without detriment to the interests of the State."
      The following gentlemen have been invited to serve:

      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chairman).

      Mr. Montagu, M.P. (Financial Secretary to the Treasury).

      Viscount Midleton.

      Mr. H. T. Baker, M.P.

      Sir L. Chiozza Money, M.P.

      Mr. J. F. Mason, M.P.

      Mr. Evelyn Cecil, M.P.

      Mr. J. H. Thomas, M.P.

      Sir Gilbert Claughton, Bart. (Chairman of the London and North-Western Railway).

      Mr. Gaspard Farrer.

      Mr. Harold Cox.

      Non-Provided Schools.
      Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the non-provided school at Tudhoe is threatened with refusal of maintenance by the county council of Durham if certain additions and alterations are not carried out by the managers before 31st August; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of building and the urgent necessity of economising both capital and labour at the present time, he will see that the time for carrying out these works is extended to a reasonable term after the termination of the War, and that meanwhile no steps are taken which might be prejudicial to the carrying on of the school?
      Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board have already twice informed the managers that they will take into consideration any delays for which the managers are not responsible. I have no doubt that the local education authority, who are primarily responsible for seeing that the managers comply with the conditions of maintenance, will, in spite of the long delay which has occurred, make reasonable allowance for existing circumstances
      Mr. MOUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that assent was not given to any alterations until June of last year?
      Mr. LEWIS: That may be, but the matter has been proceeding since 1012. The Board of Education has been in communication with the managers, who have made representations as to postponing the date of completion.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware: first, that this school has had the necessitous Grant from the Government; secondly, that it has been overcrowded for many years past; and thirdly, that it stands in a particularly wealthy colliery district where large profits are being made?
      Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this county authority very often receives reports from the Board of Education inspectors asking them to see that these alterations are carried out?
      Mr. KING: If the questions which have been put forward cannot be answered now, will the right hon. Gentleman look into them?
      Mr. LEWIS: The Board of Education carefully considers these matters.
      Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that any Grant given to such a school as this must have been given more than fifteen years ago?
      Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Education whether an application has been made to him by the Devon County Council to close a non-provided school at Loxbeare; whether he is aware that the average attendance has been increased at this school of late, and that the local education authority only decided to abide by their decision to close the school on the casting vote of the chairman; and whether, in view of these facts, he will withhold his assent to the proposal to close this school?
      Mr. LEWIS: I am aware of the recent rise in the attendance at this school, and am now in communication with the local education authority upon the case.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average attendance at this school is only fifteen, that therefore it is a very expensive school to carry on, and that there is another school—a very small school—in the neighbourhood?
      Mr. LEWIS: The average attendance has recently risen to twenty-nine.

      British Chambers of Commerce.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is taking any steps to bring into existence British Chambers of Commerce in all important parts of the British Empire where they do not at present exist?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): British Chambers of Commerce are already in existence in most, if not all, the important trading centres of the Empire; and if further action is required I think it may be safely left to the commercial community.

      Sewers (Assessment).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of cities or towns in the United Kingdom where sewers are rateable, and also the cities or towns where they are assessed to Income Tax; whether he can state how many places are assessed or where Income Tax is now being

      1321
      claimed in Scotland and England, respectively; whether there is any uniformity in the operation of such tax or any proposal to make such taxation uniform; and whether, until such uniformity is established for every case, the Treasury is prepared to waive their claims in isolated cases now especially in view of the already heavy charges which such communities are bearing in common with all municipalities?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I am informed that there are approximately in England and Wales 161, in Scotland 229 such sewers which are rated, and with a few exceptions as to which inquiry is being made, these are assessed to Income Tax, Schedule A. The practice of the revenue authorities is perfectly uniform, and proceeds on the principle derived from Income Tax and rating law that whatever is a proper subject for rating is a proper subject for assessment to Schedule A. Any change which is desired must be brought about by relieving sewers from liability to rates.
      Mr. HOGGE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose, by agreement of the right hon. Gentleman, to raise this question to-morrow night on the Adjournment.

      Educational Endowments (Use for National Objects).
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Section 13 of the Education Act, 1902, having failed to achieve its intention, there are many thousands of pounds, being educational endowments, accumulating in banks, and that for thirteen years an amendment of the law has been awaited to release these funds and apportion them between their various objects, religious and secular; and whether he will use the opportunity afforded by the party truce and the Coalition Ministry to bring in a Bill which would forthwith free these funds for national objects and so render immediately available material and intellectual forces now bound down by inoperative trusts?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that the facts are substantially as suggested in the question. I am afraid that any Bill for dealing with the funds referred to would be of a controversial character. I may refer the hon. Member to the Report which was made by a Departmental Committee in the year 1911
      1322
      (Cd. 5662), which will show the great difficulty of dealing with the endowments in question by legislation or otherwise.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire, especially of the Junior Whip—I mean the recently appointed Junior Whip, who went over from this side of the House—who was a member of this Committee, whether there might not be a possibility by agreement between the different parties of releasing a large sum of money?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PEESENTED.
    NAVAL DISCIPLINE (NO. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Naval Discipline Act." Presented by Dr. MACNAMARA; supported by Mr. Balfour and the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
SUPPLY.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This is the third Vote of Credit for the present financial year. It will raise the total so voted for the year to£650,000,000, and the total since the outbreak of War to£1,012,000,000. I had better give the figures in detail. There were three Votes of Credit for the financial year which expired oh the 31st March:—

  First, on the 6th August, of£100,000,000;

  Secondly, on the 1st November, of £225,000,000; and Finally, on the 1st March of the present year, of£37,000,000;

  Making a total for the financial year 1914–15 of£362,000,000.

  For the present financial year the details are as follows:—

  On the 1st March,£250,000,000;

  On the 16th June,£250,000,000—that is £500,000,000—

  And the sum which we are now asking the House to sanction is£150,000,000;

  Making, as I have said, a total so far for the financial year 1915–16 of £650,000,000.

  It was estimated that the first sum of£250,000,000 in the present year voted on the 1st March would last until about the second week in July. When the second Vote came to be taken on the 16th June that anticipation had to be revised, and it was then expected that the money included in the first Vote would last till the end of June. This latter forecast was practically fulfilled. The expenditure from the first Vote of Credit for the present
  1330
  financial year of£250,000,000 up to 30th June this year, inclusive, was approximately£246,721,000. That, as the House will see, substantially exhausted the first Vote of Credit for the present financial year. I come now to the second period, which is covered by the Vote proposed and sanctioned on 16th June for another£250,000,000. For the first seventeen days of July the expenditure has amounted to£54,190,000. It is just a little above the-estimate I gave of£3,000,000 a day; it exceeds it in the aggregate by about£3,000,000. It follows, as the House will see, that the total expenditure from Votes of Credit this financial year up to the 17th July was just over£300,911,000, or, in round figures,£301,000,000.
  The House will naturally be anxious to learn under what heads or categories that expenditure has been incurred. The Army and Navy account for£241,693,000; loans, and advances to the Dominions and to our Allies,£43,915,658, or roughly£44,000,000, leaving a balance of approximately£15,302,000, which has been, expended on food supplies and other miscellaneous purposes. The House will remember that the figure of£300,911,000 exceeds the actual cost of the War up to-date, since it includes the provision for the ordinary naval and military expenditure on a peace footing, which at£220,000 per day for 108 days may be taken at.£23,760,000. If that is deducted there remains a net War expenditure from the Votes of Credit, including loans and advances to 17th July,£277,000,000. So much as regards the past. If the future expenditure be taken at, roughly,£3,000,000 a day, the balance of£199,000,000 remaining from the existing Votes of Credit would last for sixty-six days, that is to say until 21st September. But there are some factors which, in considering the sum we ought to ask the House to vote, we have had to take into account, which are, I need not say, to a large extent of a conjectural character. In the first place, as I said last month on the introduction of the last Vote of Credit, it is proposed to repay the Bank of England advances made by it in respect of what are called pre-moratorium bills and other purposes at the request of His Majesty's Government. That is a question mainly of adjustment. I do not think it desirable to disclose at this moment the exact amount, but the House may take it from me that it is a very large sum, running into a great many millions. If these

  1331
  repayments are made as proposed the period which the existing Vote of Credit which I am now asking the assent of the House for will be materially shortened. I do not like to give the date, because that would disclose the figures, but it will be very materially shortened.
  The second point I desire to emphasise is that the daily rate of expenditure is, with the best possible attempt at forecast, necessarily in a large degree uncertain. The tendency I need hardly say of expenditure for war purposes from Votes of? Credit is to increase, and while the sum of£3,000,000 a day which I have mentioned when I last addressed the House in these matters was taken for the purposes of the Estimate, the daily rate may be substantially more than that. One fact in particular has to be always borne in mind, and that is that the item of advances to Allies may grow with the adhesion to our cause of States which did not take part in the War in its earlier stages. Further—I am obliged to deal very generally in considering the amount which we ought to ask the House to vote at this moment—we must remember that it is not desirable to put these things too fine, and that although we are most anxious that the House should retain its Parliamentary control over the expenditure of the country on the War, I think I am not over-estimating it when I say it takes the best part of a Parliamentary fortnight to pass through all the various stages in Committee and on Report and other stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, any additional sum which may be needed for that purpose. I think it may be assumed that the existing Vote of Credit, giving a fairly wide and liberal allowance for the considerations which I have stated, will last at any rate until the end of August, and a further Vote now of£100,000,000 would provide funds to carry on the public services until the end of September.
  That is the minimum sum we can ask the House to vote. In view of the uncertainty, fluctuating, and, to a large extent, unforseeable factors which I have indicated in general terms, we advise the House, having regard particularly to the serious consequences which would follow from any temporary shortage of supplies, to increase the amount of the Vote to£150,000,000, so as to make the provision absolutely secure. That amount of£150,000,000, if the expenditure be at all confined to£3,000,000 a day would cover
  1332
  fifty days, and in view in particular of the two factors I have dwelt upon, namely, the expediency of accelerating and making ample provision for our obligations to the bank, and putting ourselves in the position in which we can meet the financial requirements of our Allies, we think the House will agree with us that a sum of£150,000,000 which I now propose is not in excess of the reasonable requirements of the case. There is nothing in the form of the Vote which differs indeed in any respect from the last Vote of Credit. I may remind the House, as there seems to be some little uncertainty of opinion as to the supplementary note at the bottom of the Vote, that it is no part of the Vote itself. The assent of the House is asked and given only to the words which precede the signature of the Financial Secretary and the date, and the supplementary note is an indication of the intentions of the Government, which, of course, I hope will be strictly carried out, but it is no part of the Vote itself. I ought in candour, in order that the House may be in possession of every material fact, to note in regard to this Supplementary Vote of Credit that the explanation of the Vote has a slight variation in phraseology in paragraph (2). In the last Vote of Credit the language used was this:—
  "Advances by way of Loans or Grants to His Majesty's Dominions or Protectorates outside the United Kingdom and to Allied Powers for the purpose of war expenditure or of meeting difficulties arising out of the War and to local authorities and other bodies for undertaking public works for the relief of distress."
  The House will observe that in the note appended to the present Supplementary Vote wider language is used, or at least that the words of limitation are omitted, and we now ask, we suggest, that the money granted by the Vote may be expended in
  "Advances by way of Loans or Grants for purposes connected with the War."
  I think upon the last occasion the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) called attention to those words, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated with perfect accuracy that no advances had been given or were then in contemplation to any States or Governments which did not fall within the description of "His Majesty's Dominions or Protectorates and Allied Powers." We purposely leave out that limitation on the present occasion. I am sure that the House will not ask me to go into any detail. We think—of course, subject in the end to strict accountability to Parliament

  1333
  for the manner in which this money or any part of it is expended—it desirable in the existing situation that we should have a rather wider power than was conferred upon the last occasion with regard to the countries or States to which advances may possibly be made. I do not think it would be right to say more; I am sure that the House would not expect me to say more, and I am quite sure they will agree that the Government ought to have in that matter a free hand, subject, as I have already said, to their responsibility to the House of Commons. Those are all the material considerations which it is my duty to lay before the House in asking for this extended Vote.
  I will not on this occasion go, it is not necessary or desirable to do so, into any general question either of policy or of strategy, but there is at least one subject which may be of interest and which may be to some extent material, and that is the length of time for which we propose at the conclusion of our present duties, which I hope may reach an end early in next week, that the House should rise. I need not say that the Government have no desire to ask the House of Commons for anything in the nature of a blank cheque or an unduly extended period which would preclude or unduly suspend or interrupt the sitting of Parliament and the operation of the House of Commons criticism. Nothing is further from our intention. I think I may say, without committing myself at the moment to the precise date, that it is our intention, when we have disposed of the business which is now before us and which is in contemplation, and the House knows exactly what it is, to ask the House next week, I hope in the early part of the week, to adjourn till the middle of September. Some people may think that we ought to adjourn for a little longer, and some people may think that we ought to adjourn for a shorter period, though I do not think there are very many, but I am quite sure if, as I have tried to make clear, there is no withdrawal of any part of public expenditure from Parliamentary control, it will be the general sense of the House, as I believe it is of the country, that we should adjourn for six or seven weeks, amongst other reasons because the obligations and duties which are imposed upon Ministers in the administration of the public service on account of the War are of such an onerous kind and so insistent in their demand that, with every desire which they have as servants of the House of Commons as well
  1334
  as of the Crown to render daily account of themselves in this Assembly, the House will see it is in the interests of the country that they should be set free, at any rate for a reasonable period, to concentrate their undivided attention on that great and dominating purpose on which not only all parties in this House but every section in the country are absolutely united.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I am sure no one will want to criticise the Resolution before the House or the amount of the Vote of Credit for which the Government have asked. I feel also sure that no desire will be found to pry further into the details of the manner in which the Government propose to expend this money. The fact remains before us as a very big fact that this sixth Vote of Credit since the War broke out brings the total of such Votes to over£1,000,000,000. I do not think it will be regarded as unreasonable that the House should consider for a few moments not only the financial expenditure in which this country is involved, but also the resources to some extent upon which that expenditure must fall. He would be indeed a bold man who would forecast that these Votes of Credit would stop short of£2,000,000,000, but even if they do not pass that sum£2,000,000,000 means, under existing conditions of finance and those which are likely to follow, something like a permanent charge of£100,000,000 a year for interest, plus, of course, as I should hope, a considerable sum for Sinking Fund, and plus also such expenditure as the War will impose upon us after it is over, like the pensions to widows and families of soldiers who lose their lives in the War. This, of course, means that we shall have to face when the War is over an annual expenditure of probably something like£350,000,000 a year. On the other hand we are, of course, obliged to raise very large sums by loans, and at the present moment we are raising something like£600,000,000 on terms tempting indeed to the investor, and I should think, for that reason, probably bringing forth the greater part of the available money that can be lent. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that the whole of this money, whether it is for the purpose of finding the national income or for the purpose of lending money to the Government in the form of loan, has to come from one source, and one source only, and that is the pockets of the people. I cannot help

  1335
  thinking that the future loan obviously must follow the present one, and will have to be at considerable rates of interest, because they cannot any longer carry the tempting baits which it has been possible to attach to the present one. For that reason the whole question of the sources of supply of money is one of the utmost importance to the country.
  If it is a fact—as it is a fact—that this money must come eventually out of the pockets of the people of this country, we can only expect it to do so by ensuring that there is actual economy and saving among them. I am afraid that so far the science of saving has not been in satisfactory operation. The Government itself has not set a good example in that respect. We all know that considerable numbers of Government officials are employed on work which might reasonably have been left to happier times. We go into the public parks and see the flower beds and mown lawns showing indications of peaceful prosperity. But we know also that they are employing both labour and money which might be productively used elsewhere. I am glad to see at last, after very nearly one year of the War, the Government have decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into possible retrenchment and saving. Surely it is high time such inquiry was made. But I fear we shall not see very great economy on the part of the Government itself until the actual difficulty of borrowing more money comes home to it. We see on all sides the local authorities are still desirous of spend-money on road improvements and such things, apparently with a very small realisation of the actual position in which the country stands. I have hopes in the case of local authorities that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will take steps to prevent them from going too far with extravagant work. Even philanthropic institutions and associations, we find, are still desirous of entering into new expenditure. An institution of this kind, a meeting of which I recently attended, surprised me by the way in which those present talked of spending money, just as if subscriptions would flow in not only as before but in increased volume.
  The main subject which we really have to face is the economy to be effected. If we are to find the money which is required in the future it must be, to a great extent,
  1336
  by the economy of individuals saving on their daily expenses. I am afraid that, so far, there is very little sign of such economy. We see a certain amount of economy forced on people who no longer employ as many servants as they did. But that is because their servants have joined the Army, and thus, to a great extent, it has been forced on them. But there are a great number among the masses in the community whose savings have not been apparent, and certainly have not been drastic. I believe that has been due to the bad example set by the Government and the local authorities. People have said, "Let us see an example set." They see no sign of retrenchement, however, on the part of the Government, and so they declare they see no necessity for retrenchment on their own part. This is also very largely due to the extraordinary ignorance as to the actual position in which the country finds itself, which is to be found among very large classes of the people. There is no actual realisation of the present position, and that is one of the most remarkable things which one notices in the country.
  There is another cause for this want of saving, and I believe it is a very important one. It is that a very large amount of the income of the nation at the present time is artificial. A great deal of that income is dependent, directly or indirectly, on the War, on the making of warlike material, and so forth, and a great deal of that income will be reduced, and considerably reduced, when the War is over. We know that even in the case of the separation allowances to the dependants, of soldiers there are many cases in which the incomes of those who are left behind are far in excess of what they were in times of peace. But, in so far as these incomes are artificial, and to some extent dependent on the War, it would not matter so much if the excess of such incomes were saved and were at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he had to raise a further loan. But, unfortunately, we know that to a great extent that is not the case, and one effect of these increased incomes has been a very large increase of ordinary consumption, which means firstly, that the money is not available for the purposes of the War when it is wanted, and secondly, that there is an increase in the amount of imports which this country must obtain to provide for the increased consumption. Both of them, of course, are effects which

  1337
  materially prejudice the position of the country at this time. I believe that this saving and economy on the part of large classes of the people—the lower middle classes—is necessary. But at present it is not only not practised, but I do not think it will be practised.
  But if it is necessary for this country that any increase of income "which there is and which is being earned, especially incomes which in any way are due to the War itself, if it is a matter of necessity to the country that that money should be available in some way for the War, I say, in the absence of that economy, which we would like to see, there is only one way offers itself, and that is to increase taxation during the currency of the War. In my opinion a considerable and judicious taxation of all classes, and especially a taxation of incomes which have been in any way increased owing to the War itself, would be to the advantage of all concerned. Let it be noted that it is undoubtedly easier for the taxpayers of this country to bear that burden now, when in many cases the incomes are larger than they will be in the future, than to wait the increased strain which must inevitably follow the signature of peace. I believe it would not only be easier to bear the burden now, but it would check a considerable amount of the unnecessary extravagance that is still going on in the country, and I feel sure it would reduce the painful strain which in any case we must feel when the War is over.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It is obvious that the House will receive the demand which the Government have now made with unanimity. As I ventured to say on a previous occasion on which a Vote was asked for, whatever amount the Government liked to asked for for the winning of the War they would, in my humble opinion, receive it unanimously from the House of Commons, so that the decision which the Cabinet takes today with regard to War expenditure is virtually the decision of the House of Commons. We have given them from the commencement a blank cheque to take whatever amount of money they desire, and I believe that will be the attitude of the House until the end of the War. In my opinion we are now past the stage when millions count. The only thing that counts is the winning of the War. Whatever the Government considers it necessary to ask the House of Commons to do to assist them in that purpose, I believe the
  1338
  House of Commons will readily and cheerfully respond. The Prime Minister himself will admit that if Members were to exercise their strict Parliamentary right in regard to the demand which he has now made we might put forward a fairly strong case, more especially with regard to the undisclosed directions in which the right hon. Gentleman is asking permission to pledge the credit of the country, but I do not think there is any desire in any part of the House to press unnecessary questions at the present moment. We are content to give the Government complete confidence to do what they think is best, both diplomatically and from a military point of view, in order to end the War as speedily as possible.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with regard to his complaint as to the limited character of the new Committee that is to be appointed in respect to economy. I see difficulties in the way of obtaining the evidence and assistance of men who are busily engaged at the present moment in more urgent affairs, but I would express my regret that, at any rate, the new Committee is not to have the power to supervise some of the contracts that have been and are being given out by some of our spending Departments. Members know, I am sure, from manufacturers in their own constituencies that abundant evidence can be supplied that they are willing to carry out contracts at the present moment, and have been since the commencement of the War, at a lower price than is forced upon them by our spending Departments. There is abundant evidence to the effect that they have had to raise their prices in order to satisfy the State, when they are willing to do the work at lower prices. That is a matter which the new Committee might, with advantage, be able to stop. It might have taken the evidence in a few hours of some of the officials who are responsible. Certainly they would have no difficulty whatever in obtaining evidence from the great Government contractors throughout the country.
  With regard to the waste that is going on, that is not disputed. There is waste in almost every direction. I myself visited a little time ago, with my colleagues on a Committee which is now at work, one of the great ships used for interning German prisoners in this country. Looking over the side of the ship we saw scores and scores of loaves of bread floating in the water, which had been delivered that

  1339
  morning. We inquired about it and were told that that was a daily occurrence, that the War Office insisted upon sending more than they could possibly use, and that they were just emptied into the sea. That had been going on for months, but I believe, as a result of representations made, that has now been stopped. That is only a small part of the greater question. There is the further question on the meat supplied to our troops, and what has happened to that meat both at home and abroad. I can assure the Prime Minister that some most remarkable evidence could be forthcoming with regard to that particular matter. I am, therefore, sorry that the new Committee is strictly limited to what one might call the Civil Services, that is, really the standing salaries of the great Civil Service Departments. It is not there that any real economy will be secured. Real economy can be obtained by checking expenditure which is not essential for the War, and taking care that money is not wasted in giving contracts at the present time. I hope that, if possible, the Prime Minister will take into consideration whether the power of the Committee, which has been very wisely appointed, should not be extended to the taking of evidence with regard to the other great spending Departments, where such evidence would not in any way interfere with the proper carrying on of the War.
  I am not going to use this occasion to raise any controversial matter. I recognise it is not desired that the subjects I might like to raise should be raised, and I respond to the appeal of the Prime Minister in that respect. But there are one or two matters upon which I should like the Prime Minister, if possible, to give us a reassuring statement. The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to be present at any of the Debates we have had in regard to cotton. I do not propose to press him to-day if he cannot add anything to what has already been said pretty fully in this House. I want, in his presence, to assure him that there is a very widespread feeling outside this House that we are not acting as vigorously in that matter as we ought to be. The fact that we have allowed for a year cotton to go to the enemy for the purpose of making explosives has been treated in a manner not entirely satisfactory to the people of this country. We know there are difficulties, and the Government must know
  1340
  them better than we do, but at the same time it would be an advantage if the Government could give us more information than we have had up to the present time as to why cotton has not been made contraband, even at this late date. We do not accept the statement which has been made more than once that to make cotton contraband is not to improve the position so far as this country is concerned, because we know that if it were made contraband the shippers would not take the responsibility they take at the present time. We know, further, that it would be a comparatively simple matter for the captains in our Navy to assist in the blockade if it were made contraband. I do not quite agree with the reply given to-day that it mattered little from a naval point of view, because if it were made contraband it would be a very simple matter. It would be a very welcome thing if the Prime Minister could give us his view on that matter at the present time.
  4.0 P.M.
  I should like also, if it is possible, the right hon. Gentleman to reassure us with regard to our aerial service. Is everything being done even now that ought to be done to make that service as complete both for offensive and defensive purposes? There is a great deal of misgiving on that point, and if we can have any information I am sure it would be reassuring. I have only one more suggestion to make. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it or not, but I think there is great ignorance in the countries of some of our Allies, more especially in France, of what this country is doing and the part she is taking in order to win this War. It is no secret that there is a feeling in France to-day, in certain quarters, that we might be doing more. That is largely due, first, to the activity of German agents in that country, and, secondly, to the fact that we have not encouraged any great amount of information to be published in the French newspapers. My suggestion is that, in order to avoid any possible ignorance as to the great part that this country is taking, we should invite the representatives of French newspapers, not only Parisian but throughout the provinces, to come to this country as our guests and see exactly what is being done. It has been done on a small scale, but on a very small scale. I believe if that proposal were carried out within the next month or two it would have a most marvellous effect so far as French opinion is concerned. I

  1341
  know my right hon. Friend may reply that I am totally misinformed and that the public of France has shown no desire to have more information, and that there is no feeling at all such as I have described. With great respect, I differ. I believe that if we could tell the people of France to-day all that this country is doing in connection with the War, it would have a most marvellous effect throughout that country; and I very respectfully submit that suggestion to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I sympathise very strongly with the desire of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Mason), that we should have a more adequate contribution from taxation to the cost of the War, but I have had an opportunity of expressing some views on that subject recently, and therefore I do not propose to pursue it, except to say that I hope that deficiency may be made good before any long time has elapsed and that we may have, by further taxation, a larger contribution to the cost of the War than we have had up to the present. The matter I desire to allude to is the control of the vast expenditure which we are asked to authorise in this Vote of Credit. We are asked to add another£150,000,000 to the already very large credits which have been voted in this financial year, and when I say I should like more information I do not pretend to trench at all upon that sphere to which the Prime Minister has alluded as being of a confidential character. I allude more especially to the expenditure of the two great spending Departments which are dealing with the vast majority of the sums we are now voting—the Army and the Navy. I should like to ask that we should have some more information in regard to what these Departments are doing to safeguard this expenditure, and whether, and to what extent, they are increasing their machinery to cope with the enormous development of the expenditure. Vast sums are, of course, represented by these Votes of Credit, but in the Estimates this year we have only taken Votes of£15,000 and£17,000 for the Army and Navy respectively. Last year it was only the initial war expenditure which was included in the Votes of Credit, but this year, I understand, the whole expenditure of the Army and Navy comes under these Votes of Credit, and is represented by the two token Votes. The War has been proceeding for nearly a year, but we have not had any indication as to how and in what way this expenditure is being controlled from
  1342
  the financial point of view. In the South African war it was shown that very great economies were possible by taking this matter in hand and establishing an accurate and extensive control over that expenditure. Lord Kitchener himself at a certain period in the War felt the necessity of that and asked for financial assistance, which was granted—financial assistance in the sense of control over expenditure at the front.
  Many persons, and Members of this House even, have said to me, "Why trouble about this? War is waste. The whole thing is inevitable, and we really cannot do anything in the matter." It does not appear to me that that fatalistic attitude is at all justifiable or necessary. No one will grudge any sum which is essential for the efficiency and the safety of our forces. That is not the question. There is no question of interfering with control or supplies, but the idea is that you should have a proper system of accounting and auditing the expenditure on those supplies. We know that waste only uselessly consumes valuable resources which may be essential later on in the conduct of this War. It never promotes efficiency, but very much; the reverse The view that nothing can be done to limit waste is certainly not a business point of view. A business manager sees to it that his accounting departments are organised and expanded to meet the increasing demands of an expanding business, and I see no reason why our great spending Departments, the Army and the Navy, should not do the same. They should expand their machinery. They may have done it; very probably they have, but we have never been informed yet. There-is certainly no practical or strategic objection to the information being given as to whether this is now being done. A business man is always improving and perfecting his machinery, bringing it up to date, and making it a little more accurate and perfect in assisting him in knowing exactly what is going on. Surely with a gigantic expenditure of this kind—£650,000,000—we ought to follow the example of the prudent business man in making our auditing and financial control as perfect as circumstances will admit. It is quite certain that the savings which may be made by so doing will far more than cover the cost, and not only that, but an enormous amount of waste may be prevented by an adequate and complete system of accounts and control.

  1343
  The responsibility lies with the two great spending Departments, the Army and the Navy, and I hope it may be found that they are doing this. I think we ought to have some assurance and some knowledge, when we are asked to add to the gigantic sums we have already voted, that this kind of control is now being effectively exercised. No one can tell how long the War may go on, and we ought therefore to institute a very exact and accurate state of things. This was Lord Kitchener's own view during the South African War, when he asked that better financial control should be exercised, and he received the assistance of Sir George Fleetwood Wilson to act as financial adviser, and very great advantage resulted from that appointment. We have in this country abundant business ability and accounting experience, and I do not suppose anyone will suggest that there is any difficulty in getting whatever may be necessary in this department, or adding to them, if it is necessary to do so, proper financial control commensurate with the gigantic expenditure we are now making. Those who object to any control of this kind often use the argument that you are going to interfere with the discretion of the executive Departments, and may hamper them. To say that is to misunderstand entirely the nature of the control which is asked for. The Royal Commission on the War in South Africa points out very distinctly that it is of the very greatest assistance to executive officers to have finance adequately controlled, and it relieves them of great burdens and really assists them in conducting their duties in connection with the War. I should like to quote one paragraph from that Report which shows the nature of the duties which fall on some of the officers, and how they were hampered in their duties by having to discharge these financial duties. This paragraph is from the evidence of Mr. Marzials, the Army Accountant-General. It is quoted by the Commissioners:—
  "That system is exposed to a most terrible strain on active service, because, of course, the captain of the company has not only to pay his men and to keep in touch with his finances, but he has also to look after stores, to look after his men, to feed them, and do everything else, and finance is, as it were, a mere corner in the work of a man who is already terribly overworked; and, without any question, that system, I hardly like to say, broke down—but at any rate the strain was very great."
  The Report goes on to say:—
  "It was represented by military witnesses, with convincing force, that in war, and even in peace, anxiety as to this accounting for pay was apt to
  1344
  divert the mind of an officer from more important duties, and that the time of the colour-sergeant in each company was also largely consumed by it, so that attention of eight officers and eight non-commissioned officers in each battalion was thus diverted from military duties."
  The view held there was that management is not in any way interfered with by the financial control of the Department. They see that the orders which he gives are carried out, and that value for money is obtained. I suggest that point strongly in this case. The view that this waste is inevitable was certainly not taken by the two Committees which reported on the South African War. We had a Royal Commission which dealt with the whole South African War, and we had another Commission which dealt with war stores. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from that Report to show the importance which they attached to this question. They say:—
  "Early in the year 1901 Lord Kitchener, feeling concerned with regard to expenditure, and especially with regard to the ordnance purchases which had been made by officers at Capetown, obtained from the War Office the services of Mr. G. Fleetwood Wilson (now Sir G. Fleetwood Wilson) in the capacity of Financial Adviser to Commanding Chief.…. Sir G. Fleetwood Wilson was succeeded in his duties by Major Armstrong, who also gave evidence before the Commission. Thus, during the last year of the war, there was established a central financial control over contracts and other matters by men specialised for that purpose. We desire to call attention to the following passage in Sir G. Fleetwood Wilson's report to Lord Kitchener."
  I should rather like to read that paragraph. It summarises the sort of control which the Report said ought to be instituted and which they think would be valuable. It contains some of the principal features to which I should like to draw attention. This is the paragraph in the report to Lord Kitchener:—
  "The flaw has beer, the absence of any financial authority at headquarters with time, knowledge, and power to treat financial questions as a whole. There are many matters in which large sayings can only be effected upon general lines. If a Financial Adviser had been appointed at the beginning, instead of towards the end of the War, he could have prevented excessive charges from arising, instead of merely curtailing them when large unnecessary expense has already been incurred. He could have established a system for watching and controlling expenditure, and could have system atised commandeering. He could have seen that the use of Army money or Colonial railway purposes was confined within limits. He could have secured rates from the Natal Railway, and have pointed out with authority that specie could be obtained at less expense. He would probably have arranged that supply accounting was conducted upon defensible lines, end that Telegraph and Intelligence accounts were not allowed to get hopelessly into arrear; and if he had not been able to prevent the Ordnance difficulties from arising, he could have checked them at an early stage. Also, he would have been able to apply to questions now arising the knowledge gained throughout the whole War. He could, above all, have relieved the Commander-in-Chief of a volume of

  1345
  work which should not fall upon him. My experience in South Africa has convinced me that it is desirable that in future wars a Financial Adviser should accompany each Army Corps, and a Financial Adviser of high standing be attached to the staff of the Commander-in-Chief. The necessity is greatest at the commencement of operations, when generals have no time to devote to considerations of finance. It was inevitable, for example, that General Buller should pass by the question of the Natal Railway rates. A Financial Officer, with no executive duties to perform, would as surely have taken steps to get them reduced, saving some£300,000. In the present War, I believe that an expenditure of a few thousand pounds on a specially selected financial staff would have saved the public at the very least£1,000,000."
  There are more details suggested in regard to what could be done. No doubt these things have been carried out because Lord Kitchener himself drew attention to the matter himself. He said:
  "The Army Pay Department, as at present composed, merely records the expenditure of the Army without any idea of improvement or economy, and ignores financial considerations of any kind. Its labours are purely clerical and mechanical, which, though necessary and essential, do not, in my opinion, require other than clerks to carry them out effectively. There is a marked want of financial assistance to generals in the field, which, if it were met by the appointment of competent military financial advisers on the staff, would result, I am sure, in a more efficient and economical expenditure of the public money supplied. The system of accounts in the Army requires thorough examination and signification."
  Therefore I am verified by Lord Kitchener himself. No doubt he has carried these things out, but we should like to be assured that it is so. Then there is the Report of the War Stores Commission. They there drew attention to the fact—I have no doubt it has been altered—that when they were appointed to deal with these accounts, what they called "an inchoate mass of data" was thrown at their accountants, Messrs. Annan, Kirby, Dexter and Company, which was quite unorganised and was really of no value. The whole of it had to be completed, systematised and tabulated, and it took the accountants appointed by the Commission seven months to find their way through this mass of accounts. As this Report points out, accounts kept in that way are really of no value either at the time or subsequently. The Report goes on to say:
  "On the other hand, it is evident that in ordinary times, the simpler and more ordinary methods of Army Supply would entail comparatively little expense in accounting; while the importance of possessing adequate analyses of expenditure of supplies during and after a great war can hardly be over-estimated."
  They further say, a little later in their Report:
  "But however this may be, it seems to us most unsatisfactory that, under (he existing system, as our accountants report, the Secretary of State should not have been in a position to know, even
  1346
  approximately, how supplies had been disposed of, or the quantities or costs of those lost from deficiencies, condemnations, depreciation, and the conditions of purchases and sales; nor do we understand how, under this system, the financial control of the House of Commons can be properly exercised. We consider, further, that if, during and after the War, an adequate system of accounts had existed with the Army and at the War Office, the knowledge of that fact would have proved a very valuable deterrent on both improvidence and speculation in South Africa."
  I think I have quoted enough from these reports to show the importance and the relevance of the matter to which I am drawing attention. My excuse for detaining the House is that the matter is of very great importance, and that the investigations were carried on in connection with the South African war. It is the most recent investigation of the kind. The experience is so comparatively modern—these reports were made in 1904–5–6—that it might very well be applied to the existing state of things. I certainly think that we can learn something from what was done then, after a very careful, long, and laborious examination of the circumstances. The nature of the South African I war was comparable to the nature of the present War. You had a great force of I over 450,000 men, who were sent great distances, 6,000 or 7,000 miles by sea, and great distances by land. We have in the present War a similar feature. We have got forces in France, and we have sent enormous forces to the Dardanelles, Egypt, and other places. Therefore the experience in the South African War is really of great value to-day, because the conditions then were comparable to the conditions today, though, of course, the expenditure of the operations to-day are on a much greater scale. It was shown, in connection with the South African War, that it was possible to provide by a proper system for an enormous increase and expansion in the energies and activities of the War Department. I do not need to enlarge any further upon that, because I think the matter is really clear. We have had valuable experience, which, I think, may be valuable to those in authority today in assisting them to secure the object we all have in view, and that is that our money should go as far as possible, and that we should get as great value for it as the circumstances permit.
  I would ask the Departments concerned, and those specially concerned with the finance of the War Office and the Admiralty, to inform the House whether these recommendations have had their

  1347
  consideration, and whether proper and adequate provision for financing and controlling the finance of those Departments has been made, also whether the suggestion made by Lord Kitchener and the Committee has been adopted, namely, the dispatch of financial advisers to the officers commanding Army Corps and to the Headquarters Staff. Has that assistance been given which seems to have been so useful to Lord Kitchener in the last year of the South African War? This has always been a matter of great interest to me, and I think it is of great importance to the country at a time like this when these enormous operations have to be carried on. No war can ever be adequately provided for, but there is no reason why we should not benefit by the experience of the past. I should like to know, and I think the House would like to know, whether the arrangement in these Departments at the War Office and the Admiralty are now developed adequately so that Departments which were normally spending £80,000,000 a year, and are now responsible for the expenditure of about £800,000,000, have been adequately developed to cope with this enormous increase of work?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in what he has said about economy, but I entirely agree that the War should be conducted as economically as possible. I desire to make a few remarks on a subject in which I have been immensely interested for some years, and that is the way in which the aerial operations of the War have been conducted. I shall be careful in my remarks not to indulge in criticism of that character which was deprecated a few days ago. I do not propose to indulge in destructive criticism, and I do not propose to indulge in instructive criticism, but if I can suggest some constructive criticism to the representatives of the Navy and the Army I shall feel that I have not spoken in vain. My justification for speaking this afternoon is a speech made by the Minister of Munitions a month ago, that is on the 14th June, only two days before I spoke in this House on this subject and only two days before the Under-Secretary of State for War gave us rather a glowing picture of our Air Service at the front. The Minister of Munitions, speaking, I think, at Bristol, said:—
  "We want more aeroplanes. The Germans have many more than we have."
  1348
  I said nothing quite as strong as that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "One British aviator goes as far as two or three Germans, but we want more machines. The more yon can turn out, the better it will be for our brave fellows in France."
  The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief said:—
  "The Air Corps has become more and more an indispensable factor in combined operations."
  The object of my speech this afternoon is to plead for more aeroplanes, for more pilots, and incidentally for a larger type of aeroplane. The Air Service has, I admit, developed during the War, but the point I want to make is that it has developed along the old lines. It has developed along the lines of a year ago; it has not struck out, because I imagine there has not been, possibly, a man of sufficient imagination to seize upon the possibilities of the occasion, to examine the best brains in the Air Service, both of the Navy and the Army, to seize upon what might be dreams, and have them translated into action on the battlefields in Flanders or in the Navy. From the reconnaissance point of view our Air Service is perfect. It is not necessary for me to say that the men are perfect; that is admitted on all hands. There are no aviators in the whole world, even those of France, who are better than our aviators. France, of course, is the leading aviation country, but to-day I think France would feel glad at being compared with us. There can be no greater honour to our own airmen than to say they are as good as those of France and far better than those of Germany. Artillery warfare is practically impossible to-day without aeroplanes. All ranging is done by means of aeroplanes. I have had an opportunity, as no doubt other hon. Members have had, of speaking with officers both of the Artillery and of the Infantry and of the Air Service who have come back from the front, and it is generally admitted that in Artillery warfare good ranging is entirely the result of efficient aeroplane service. It is impossible for us to locate the German trenches with sufficient accuracy without our Air Service, and it is equally impossible for the German Artillery to perform the remarkable feats which we know they have performed unless they have a sufficiency of aeroplanes to identify the exact spots in our lines where our trenches are. Almost everyone who comes back from the front says that invariably the presence of German aeroplanes hovering over our

  1349
  trenches is followed by a burst of high explosive shells with a nicety of range which was absolutely impossible to the Artillery service three or four years ago. It is quite true, as the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief said in his last report:—
  "During the last two months there have been sixty air battles between individuals, in which our airmen have been universally victorious."
  I think he said that we have not lost a, single man in these sixty air battles. I am quite prepared to agree as to the superiority of our airmen. One knows that there have been individual contests, and one realises that owing to the superiority of the English flying men rather than the superiority of our aeroplanes we have come off victorious. But we have not by any means kept the German aeroplanes off our lines. If we had done that we should have kept back the German Artillery from shelling our lines as they have done. I am prepared, on the authority of Artillery officers to go so far as to say that to-day the German Artillery, so far as shelling new positions is concerned—of course they have the range already on existing trenches—would be blind if we could completely chase the German aeroplanes off the field. Cavalry has also been superseded from the point of view of reconnaissance by aeroplanes. One knows that the absolutely essential condition of modern warfare, indeed the essential condition of all warfare from the time of the Duke of Wellington down to the present time, is that we should know what the fellow is doing on the other side of the hill. When we realise to-day that any general, English or German, can with motor traction, say, with a couple of hundred motor omnibuses or a corresponding number of motor lorries, move in one night some thirty thousand or forty thousand troops a distance of thirty or forty miles, we see that it is absolutely essential that our Air Service should be so perfect that it could prevent the concentration of the German troops in any given area during a night like that, first, by an offensive attack while they are being concentrated in a given position, and also by giving our own generals accurate knowledge of where those troops are to be concentrated.
  While I am speaking of the reconnaissance side of the aeroplane work I should like to plead with the Under-Secretary of State for War that some recognition should be given to the work done by the observer. The aeroplane observer to-day
  1350
  is almost as important, if not quite as important, as the pilot. He must be a trained soldier, sittng side by side or in front of the pilot of the aeroplane, who can distinguish unit from unit, can discover the batteries of the enemy, carefully hidden as they always are, and can make his report in a concise and military manner to the general as soon as he gets back. There is, I know, a feeling among the observers, who are, I think, about the same number as the pilots, that they might have the badge which is given to these, or a similar badge, to show that they have been risking their lives in the same way as the pilots, and have been performing services to the Army as great as the pilots. What I want to find out is whether during this year of war there has been such an improvement in the Air Service as will show that there is a possibility, either on the spot in Flanders or in England, of taking hold of the matter and developing it not on the old lines but on new lines. When I spoke a month ago a reply was made by the Under-Secretary of State for War. All he was able to say, and he seemed pleased to be able to say it, was this:—
  "The Air Service is in very good proportion indeed to the rest of the Army. What I want the hon. Member to realise is that since the outbreak of war there has been no smaller expansion of the Air Service in proportion to the rest of the Army. On the contrary, the expansion of pilots has been in a ratio of ten to one. Where we had one before we have ten now engaged in the Air Service, while the expansion of men generally is in the proportion of five to one."
  I am not a hostile critic. Everybody knows that. I want to help the Air Service, but I think that that shows that the right hon. Gentleman has only got a conception of the possibilities of the Air Service such as we always had twelve months ago. He comes down to the House and says that the hon. Member for Brentford ought to be satisfied because he showed an increase in the Air Service of ten to one. But during the last twelve months we have increased our forces at the front—in Flanders, and certainly if we include our forces in the Dardanelles—by ten to one, and all that the right hon. Gentleman is able to assure the House is that we have increased our Air Service in proportion, and only in proportion, to the increase of our troops at the front.
  Those of us who have realised two or three years ago the possibilities of what could be done by an air service think that instead of being pleased that we had increased our Air Service by ten to one the right hon. Gentleman should have been

  1351
  able to come down to the House and say that our Air Service to-day is entirely different from any conception which we had on the matter twelve months ago. But there has been no real development in the Air Service and in the possibilities of what the Air Service can do. They are going on doing what they were doing twelve months ago. They are doing it better, I admit, but it is the same kind of work—some reconnaissance work and some intermittent attacks on the enemy. But there has been no real conception of the possibilities of aerial offence out of all proportion to what were considered its possibilities twelve months ago. The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that the question of pilots depended very largely on the question of schools, and we have, he said, eleven schools to-day instead of one at the time of mobilisation. That is quite true, but I think that I am right in saying that some of those schools which we have to-day really existed before twelve months ago. They were independent schools which were open, and they have now been converted into Government schools. The schools were there turning out pilots, and they are now turning out Government pilots. Those schools can be extended. I am prepared to say, from conversations which I have had from airmen in high position, that it is possible to make more pilots than we are making at the present time.
  The first essential which must be observed to-day is to be careful that those pilots are turned out thoroughly experienced. I do not want to say a word which would give any information to our enemy, but after Debates which have taken place in this House on the subject of munitions, and after the exposures which have been made with regard to munitions without doing any harm to our cause—indeed, doing benefit—I think that there is no harm in making one or two statements with regard to the training of our pilots. I have heard, from the front, of a pilot who went over trained after six weeks, and the whole time that that man had been in the air was five hours' flying before he went over to France, and there was rigged out with a machine and provided with an observer to go on the machine with him, whose life was placed at the disposal of this man who had only been five hours altogether in the air. I have heard of another who had been only three months in the school; and eleven hours in
  1352
  the air. That surely must come from a shortage of machines in our schools. What is wanted is that the Government should deal with this matter of machines in the same way as the Minister of Munitions is dealing with the question of munitions, so as to turn them out not in dozens or in hundreds but, if necessary, in thousands.
  Though our men are so good, I am bound to say that our engines have always been the weak place in our Air Service. There has been a great difficulty in getting sufficient engines, and engines which will make our machines powerful enough to rise sufficiently high and sufficiently rapidly to cope with the German machines. Only this week a pilot from the front told me that he had to fly a machine—I will not say the height to which it will go, though I will tell the right hon. Gentleman afterwards, if he likes, but he could not get it up as high as those of us who know the possibilities of aeroplanes know that he should be able to get it to go. That machine should have been sent back—it probably has been by now—from the front, to be thoroughly overhauled. Then, apart from the question of pilots, we have not got enough machines for the use of the pilots. By machines I mean good, first-class machines, in every way adequate to enable the pilot to carry out the duties entrusted to him. I know the number of machines that were at Salisbury Plain, on the occasion of the review, some two months before the War began. I will not mention the number to the House, but the right hon. Gentleman knows it. But even if we had ten times that number we have not got enough machines at the front. The loss of machines in a War of this kind is bound to be enormous. I do not think I would be far wrong in saying that our Air Service has lost a machine per day, if we include all the machines which have been damaged or broken up in the course of this War. All that has to be provided for. All that wastage has to be made up.
  There is a very remarkable sentence, which I would not have quoted had it not been made public in the Field-Marshal's last dispatch. He says:—
  "We have been indebted to our Allies for supplying us "with aeronautic material without which the efficiency of our Royal Flying Corps would have been seriously impaired."
  That means that there was not a sufficient supply of aeronautic material from this country at the front, and if our Allies, the French, had not come to our assistance the efficiency of the Royal Flying Corps would have been seriously impaired. Surely, the

  1353
  Minister of Munitions, or somebody, is required to take that matter in hand. Then there is a lack of fighting machines. It may be that reconnaissance work has been done as magnificently as it is possible to do it, but where calculation has been lacking with regard to the Flying Corps has been in the direction of seeing what could be done with large fighting machines, and in providing our aerial corps with a sufficiency of fighting machines. Zeppelins can only be kept away, as everybody knows, by aeroplanes. They cannot be kept off our shores by antiaircraft guns or large guns. They fly at a height of 10,000 feet, a height at which no gun can touch them. Of course aeroplanes can get above them. The unfortunate Lieutenant Warneford got above a Zeppelin and put an end to it with a comparatively small bomb of twenty pounds. A bomb containing a few pounds of strong explosive put an end to the Zeppelin. That was done because of the absolute intrepidity, fearlessness and skill of Lieutenant Warneford, and also because he had a machine which could rise rapidly and get above the Zeppelin, whose destruction then ensued. Why is it that there have been no Zeppelin raids here during the last month? Some people have been wondering why? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Tell us why?" I will tell you.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Keep your secret.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that it will do no harm. It is known to the Germans.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Keep it quiet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a reason connected with the efficiency of our Air Service in Flanders.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am living on the North-East coast. Do not divulge anything that might bring them there.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be very loath that any injury should result to the hon. Member from any indiscretion of mine. What I am asking, both in the Naval and Army Air Services, is that there should be immediately provided a sufficiency of powerful fighting machines in order that the Zeppelins may never start from the other side of the North Sea. Then, I think, the hon. Member will be perfectly safe on the North-East coast.
  1354
  The Navy has, of course, charge of the safety of our coasts. There is no reason why there should not be an air station at least every forty miles along our Eastern and South-Eastern coasts, with, say, twenty scouts and twenty fighting machines, in order that everything possible may be done for the safety of the hon. Member opposite. He is entitled, and so is every resident on our coasts, to have everything done by the Air Services of our Army and Navy so as to prevent Zeppelins not merely reaching our shore but even starting from the other side. Why cannot we have more fighting machines? We can get them from America, and in saying that I am making no statement which could afford any benefit to the Germans. I have taken the trouble to read the American newspapers on the subject during the last few weeks; I have found full particulars of what the Americans have done in regard to aeroplanes, and I submit, from information I have, that they can do more. They are untrammelled by the ideas of twelve months ago, and we can realise what could be done by a gigantic aeroplane service taking the offensive against the Germans.
  I do not want the Minister of Munitions to take the matter up; I do not think it is necessary. I have seen it stated in various newspapers that it is desirable that there should be a Minister of Aviation. I do not think it is necessary. I want to see whether either of the big Departments represented here is responsible for the supply of aeroplanes to the Army and Navy. The hon. Member for Clare tried to find out whether the supply of aeroplanes is under the Minister of Munitions or the Under-Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Are they responsible not merely for the supply, but for deciding the number that can possibly be utilised? I submit that as yet there has been no real offensive by aeroplanes such as there might have been in this War. There have been various raids on the Continent by our aeroplane service from time to time; there have been intermittent raids, and the Germans have had ample time after each raid to repair the damage. If there could be continuous raids—which there cannot be, of course, unless we have a greater supply of pilots and aeroplanes than we at present possess—if there were continuous raids, I do not mean sporadic raids, but

  1355
  continuous raids of some four or five hundred aeroplanes dropping bombs on the Rhine bridges and the great Krupp factory at Essen—
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is right in discussing matters of strategy and whether you consider it wise that the Government should make any reply. If so, what is the position of hon. Members who do not like to hear these questions discussed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I have no inherent powers to stop these remarks. I hear a great many things said in the House which I think unfortunate, but I regret to say that I have no power to stop those statements. It rests with the Government, or any Member of the Government, to say that these matters had better not be discussed, and, if that be done, I am sure that the hon. Member will not persist in his remarks. The responsibility rests with those who know what should not be discussed.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need hardly say that if the Government say that this is a matter on which there should not be discussion I will not continue, but, in justice to myself, I think the House will realise that I have not made a single statement which has not appeared in the public Press during the last few weeks. I think everything I have said has appeared in the public Press.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Perhaps I maybe allowed to say that there are certain criticisms and suggestions which have been made by the hon. Gentleman in the course of the observations which he has addressed to the House, to which I am able to reply, but there are certain other points to which I am certainly unable to reply, from the nature of the case, and the House might be the first to reprobate any answer which it thought ought not to be given. Therefore, I think, the hon. Gentleman will be wise if he tried to circumscribe his remarks within the area in which reply is possible.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need hardly say that I will follow the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; I will not go into details; I do not in any way want to go into details which would afford our enemies the slightest help. But if hon. Members who interrupt have read the news-
  1356
  papers I think they must see that I have said nothing which has not already been published. The object of my speech is to get the Government to realise the enormous possibilities that there are in our Air Service from a fighting point of view. We realise all that they can do from the reconnaissance point of view. The Air Service—and this is known to the public and therefore can do no harm—aided our ships in the destruction of the "Königsberg." They directed our ships where to fire, and without that assistance our guns would never have hit the "Königsberg." It was by the co-operation of the aeroplanes that the gunners knew exactly the spot to which to direct their fire, which ended in the destruction of the "Königsberg." There was also the naval episode, well known to everybody, namely, the destruction of a transport in Turkish waters by the guns of the "Queen Elizabeth." The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no harm whatever in our knowing that the "Queen Elizabeth" destroyed a Turkish transport at a range of 18,000 yards. That was done by our wonderful modern gunnery without the "Queen Elizabeth" seeing the ship she was aiming at, or the sea upon which that ship rode, and it was due entirely to our naval Air Service being able to communicate with the "Queen Elizabeth," and show exactly where it was that she was to direct her fire.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: It seems that the hon. Gentleman is really giving important information, or I may put it that the hon. Member is concentrating this information in such a way that he is really risking the lives of aviators in future when they go up for scouting purposes. I think it is very unwise to place this information before the House of Commons.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not so. There is nobody in this House—and I say it advisedly—who can exceed me in my admiration for our magnificent Air Service, or is more determined to protect it and aid it in every possible way. I speak not merely as an independent Member, but I am convinced that I speak largely on behalf of the Aeroplane Service, in asking the Government to give them greater facilities for the work which they believe is in their power. The Air Services, both of the Navy and Army, are convinced that there are possibilities of offensive warfare in the air that were not dreamt of twelve months ago. What I desire is, and what I

  1357
  am sure they desire is, that the Government shall appoint some man of imagination and power and leisure, a business man, who would get hold of the heads of the particular Air Services, and would say to them, "What do you want, not on the lines of present development, but what do you dream of as possible? What do you dream of, in your imagination, as to what the Air Service really can do?" The War, I believe, may go on for some considerable period longer, and there is time to develop our Air Service, time to create more pilots, time for you to complete those large aeroplanes of which we have read in the newspapers, and of which the Under-Secretary of State spoke only a few weeks ago in this House.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman representing the Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman representing the Army, to take these matters into their consideration. I am not criticising this afternoon, I have not been indulging in criticism, save it be of that constructive character which lies in the development of the Air Service. I believe in the future of our Air Service and in the future of aeroplanes. I believe in the Air Service as an offensive measure against the Germans, and as a means of turning the German flank in Flanders—large and powerful aeroplanes dropping bombs on the Prussians' lines of communication. I believe in the Air Service as the best means we have, in future, of coping with submarines. I ask the House to believe, if they think I have offended in any way, that I am in earnest in this matter. I am convinced that the success of this War can be achieved by a large Air Service developed as an offensive force. I believe that if the Government took this matter in hand, and appointed some business man as the head of the aeroplane services, he would accomplish what the Minister of Munitions has done for artillery, and I hope the Government will deal with this Air Service, from the offensive point of view, in a frank and energetic way.
  Mr. HOLT: I should like to say a word or two on the subject of economy, which was under discussion before the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite made his interesting speech in regard to the Air Service. When the Prime Minister proposed the Vote of Credit on the 1st March he told the House that, after the 1st April, Ave might reckon on an expenditure of £1,700,000 a day. Since that time the expenditure has at least doubled, and I
  1358
  believe the figures that have been given to the House are rather better than the true case. The Government, I think, are considerably behind in the date of their expenditure. We must have incurred liabilities very much in excess of the amount represented, and they are probably considerably more than the figures we have got before us. We have been told that this is a war of endurance, that it is a war which will last a considerable time, and that we have to treat it as a war of endurance. Therefore it is certainly most important that we should turn our attention to the question of expenditure, and I am very glad indeed to see the appointment of this Committee on Economy. It seems to me that there is very much to be got, from the point, of view of endurance, out of economy and experience. The ordinary annual expenditure, though large in itself, is almost trivial in comparison with the expenditure during this War. I can sympathise with the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor as to the planting of flowers and the expenditure upon our public parks, but how many hours of the War would be suppressed by that expenditure? I do not think it would have paid for the War since the time the Prime Minister got up to propose this Resolution.
  5.0 P.M.
  If we are going to deal with retrenchment, and to do so in such a way as to produce any effect on the success of the War, we have got to turn to the War Office and to the Admiralty. Those are the places where the money is being spent, and they are the only places in which it can be saved in sums sufficient to make it worth while to take the trouble of saving at all. First of all, none of us, I believe, will hesitate about the spending of any money which is believed to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War. I do not believe that there are two minds in the House or in the country as to that proposition. Rut I am sure there is the general opinion in the House and in the country that Ave do not wish to spend money which is wholly unnecessary for the successful prosecution of the War. I am sure there is a growing feeling, which is strongest amongst those who are in the best position to speak with knowledge, that a very large proportion of the expenditure both at the War Office and the Admiralty is pure waste, and is not contributing to the successful prosecution of the War. I very much doubt whether we are getting fifteen shillings' worth in the

  1359
  pound for anything that those two Departments are spending in the aggregate. I believe that the whole of the military results which we are obtaining might be obtained with very much less expenditure of money. What I think has not been made sufficiently clear to the soldiers and sailors who are primarily responsible is that wasteful expenditure is prejudicial to the successful prosecution of the War, and that every sovereign wasted is taking away something of our power of endurance, and that every million that is thrown away means that the nation has so much less power to endure in this War and carry it through. Much more serious steps than anything we know of yet most certainly ought to be taken to bring that aspect of the case to the notice of the people responsible for this expenditure.
  Everybody sees there is waste who has anything to do with our shipping or anyone who goes about the country and sees anything of what is going on at the camps, and from what one hears knows that waste is proceeding in every single direction. That is largely due to want of forethought, and to want of carefully thinking out plans, and to the fact of not considering whether a reasonable return is going to be obtained for the expenditure which is going to be incurred. There is not enough thinking of the problem, as a whole, with regard to a great deal of this expenditure, and with regard to a great deal of the work that is being done. The fact is that many of those gentlemen who control this naval and military expenditure are behaving, apparently, as if they really thought that this country has an absolutely bottomless purse, and that nothing can exhaust its financial power. I do not believe that the country has got a bottomless purse, or that any country has got that, and if we go on behaving as we are doing, the penalty will be that we shall find we are unable to carry on the strain of the War just at the very moment when power to stand that strain gives us the best prospect of success. I think that the expenditure ought to be frankly looked at from the point of view of military advantage, and making it certain that we are able to prosecute the War for a long period of time. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) in suggesting that this new Committee should overhaul the expenditure of the Naval and Military Departments, because I do not think it
  1360
  would be able to do so in a sufficiently-stringent manner to produce good results. What, in my judgment, is necessary is that there should be an effective finance committee in both of those establishments, consisting of persons in the habit of controlling large sums of money, and of organising and carrying on large enterprises, and who would have the opportunity of putting their finger on this or that expenditure, and of saying whether it was or was not proper before it was incurred, and not afterwards.
  People tell us that all these things will be gone into after the War is over. I do not want to go into them then. I want to go into them while there is still time to put them right. I am getting alarmed as to the probable result of the reckless way in which money is being spent. It is quite plain that it is not only going to damage our chances during the War, but that it is going to materially damage our prospects of recuperation after the War is over, and of fitting ourselves for ordinary civil life faster than our adversaries can do. That has got to be done, too. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that we ought to face the problem of new taxation at once. It is quite clear that new taxation has got to come, and I think it would be much more satisfactory to have it at once and to know the full amount of it at once. Let us know where we are, so that we can make our arrangement and cut our coat according to our cloth. There is nothing worse for business and for commerce, which, after all, is going to provide the sinews of war, than a general state of uncertainty and the feeling that you have something very disagreeable hanging over your head. It is better to know your misfortunes and to face them at once than to have them bottled up and sprung upon you at some unknown time. If there is to be taxation of war profits, let us know; and let the people who are carrying on business know what they have got to face in the way of taxation, general and special. Then they would have no ground of complaint. If people are allowed to carry on business on the faith of one system, and suddenly are faced with another, they have, I think, got considerable grounds of complaint. Let us know where we are, and the burdens we have to bear, and I am quite certain we will bear them sooner than lose the War.
  There is another reason I want to put forward why every possible effort should be made to carry on the War with due

  1361
  economy, and that is the effect when people feel the pressure of taxation, as they are bound to do, and when they see this spurious prosperity passing away. If you want to get a spirit of determination, it is very necessary that the people should be satisfied that they are really getting value for their money. It is necessary that the people should realise that they are not being asked to bear a burden which could have been perfectly well avoided with a little more care and forethought, and with a little more consideration on the part of those placed in charge of the national affairs. I hope we shall have some announcement that this Committee really do appreciate the necessity of national economy and of a thrifty War Office, and a thrifty Admiralty, and of Departments endeavouring to get the last penny of value for their money, and trying to make the burden of the country as little as possible in proportion to the military results achieved. We are all of one mind that we are going to prosecute this War to a successful conclusion, but we do ask that that success shall be obtained at the lowest cost for which it is possible to manage.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I desire to echo what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy, rather than what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I wish the reference to this Committee could have been extended to include the business side of the Admiralty and of the War Office. There may be some technical difficulty, but I hope it is not too late to extend the reference. While I quite admit it is impossible to overhaul the whole system of the War Office or the Admiralty at the present moment, and that that is a matter which must be left for quieter times, yet in certain respects I feel where so large an expenditure is going on, and where so great economies could be obtained, I should like the Committee to lend its weight if possible to inquire into that matter. We all know that in matters of billeting, in matters of wages, in the building of hutments, in matters of wages paid to chauffeurs, in matters of wages paid in new factories, all those are circumstances which need inquiry. It is equally admitted that the general waste in camps has been, and indeed is still, very considerable. The matter of placing future contracts by the War Office and the Admiralty is also one which I think requires looking into. While I do not want to unduly criticise either of those Departments, I think it is true to
  1362
  say that neither soldiers nor War Office clerks have been trained to commercial business. On these grounds I think the public wants to be reassured as to future contracts, and as to continuing contracts. If the reference to this Committee could be extended so as to look into these urgent, and what I may call, in a sense, temporary matters, I think it would be of great public usefulness and would be applauded by the nation.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have listened to the whole of this Debate so far as it has proceeded, in the hope—the sincere and unaffected hope—that I might hear practical suggestions for reducing expenditure, for the encouragement of retrenchment, and some maxims as to actual administration and public economy in this or that Department of the State. I confess I am a little bit disappointed. The general maxims enunciated have been excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) made a speech with every word of which, so long as he confined himself to generalities, I absolutely agreed. But when he told us we were only getting fifteen shillings worth for the pound in the conduct of the War I was alarmed, and I expected that he would follow up that very disquieting statement by some evidence of proof, which he did not, and which I venture to tell him he could not so far as my knowledge of the matter goes.
  Mr. HOLT: I could not give instances, as to do so would be inconsistent with the public interest.
  The PRIME MINISTER: A statement of that kind that we are only getting fifteen shillings worth for a pound is a very serious statement for a Member of Parliament to make. I am bound to add in that connection, with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) to which I also listened, about aviation, I cannot at all agree that because those statements have appeared in newspapers that he, as a Member of Parliament in a responsible position of authority, should think that is sufficient justification for making those statements here. A statement made in this House goes out to the world with a very different amount of authority from anything that occurs in the Press.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: A great deal of what I said was included in an article written by me for a newspaper and passed by the Censor; therefore I thought I was

  1363
  amply justified in assuming that, as it had passed the Censor, there was no objection to my making the statement here.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Then when the hon. Gentleman refers to the Press as his authority, he is referring to himself.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Again, I think the right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair. I did not refer to the Press as my authority; I merely referred to the fact that statements which had been made by me had appeared in the public Press. I did not say that the Press was an authority; far from it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will not pursue the point; I will leave it where it stands. I am not complaining in the least of the hon. Gentleman. What I say is that, when we make statements here, they are in a very different position from those which under the censorship, such as it is, are allowed to appear in the Press. But I rose, not for the purpose of indulging in any general reflections, but to deal with one or two concrete points which have arisen in the course of the Debate, particularly the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and by the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), in regard, not to the composition, but to the reference to the proposed Committee on retrenchment. Of course, it was an obvious and a natural criticism that the terms of reference do not include, and they are purposely not intended to include, the Army and the Navy. It has been the subject of very serious consideration on the part of the Government whether the reference should not take that wider scope, and it was only after much deliberation and careful weighing of the arguments both for and against that we came to the conclusion that on the whole in the public interest it would be better to confine the reference in the way proposed.
  I do not at all dispute that the greater part of our expenditure at the present moment is military and naval, and that it is of the utmost importance that every possible safeguard, whether by inquiry or otherwise, should be taken that in regard to that which is far and away the greatest source of expenditure at this moment economy is practised and waste prevented. But unless you confined the inquiry as far as those two Departments are concerned within artificial and arbitrarily contracted limits, it would be impossible to conduct it effectively at the present moment
  1364
  without withdrawing officers of those Departments from much needed duties in connection with the War, and expending an amount of time and labour in that regard which we think might be more profitably and usefully employed in the actual conduct and supervision of naval and military operations. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, I can assure my hon. Friends that for the moment the administration of these Departments has been withdrawn from the terms of reference.
  But, let me add, we are so fully alive to the importance of the prevention of waste—and a certain amount of waste undoubtedly there has been; I think, humanly speaking, it is inevitable in the conduct of operations so gigantic and so unforeseeable in their scope as those in which we have been engaged during the last twelve months—but so anxious are we to prevent the possibility of a recurrence of any such extravagance as that which has by inadvertence, or through insufficient control of the Departments, occurred, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in the case of the War Office in conjunction with the Secretary of State, and in the case of the Admiralty in conjunction with the First Lord, apply himself at once and with the greatest possible assiduity and vigilance to a careful overhauling of the possible items in those Departments in regard to which it is practicable during the progress of the War to make effective reductions without impairing efficiency. It is better that, for the time being, control should be exercised in that way through the head of the Treasury than that the more elaborate machinery of investigation by a Committee should be applied to those Departments which are already overworked and from which it is most undesirable that any of the distinguished officers in managing positions should be withdrawn. I mention that in order that the House may be assured that we are quite as fully alive to the importance of retrenchment, if possible, in these Departments as in any other Department of the public service.
  Some criticisms have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno), in regard to control of the daily expenditure of the Army and the Navy during the War. My hon. Friend, in the course of an instructive speech, read a number of extracts from evidence and Reports which were

  1365
  presented to Parliament after the conclusion of the South African War. He seemed to be under the impression that the state of things then disclosed and condemned remained unamended and unreformed and was still in existence at the present moment. My hon. Friend shakes his head. If that is not so, what was the relevance of the quotations?
  Mr. MOLTENO: I said that I hoped possibly these things had been remedied, but that as we had no information whatever we were anxious to know what had been done, and I called attention to how these things had been dealt with.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend told us of abuses which had gone on and had been exposed, and the remedies which were suggested by high authorities ten or twelve years ago. It certainly appeared to me that he assumed throughout his speech that nothing had been or was being done to prevent a recurrence of abuses such as those which undoubtedly prevailed. I can assure him he is entirely mistaken, and I have asked my two hon. Friends who represent the Financial Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office to tell the House precisely what is the machinery now being employed in the War Office and the Admiralty to secure effective audit and continuous, I may say daily or weekly, control over every part of the expenditure of the Army and the Navy. I think it is most desirable that the House and the country should know that in that respect—of course, man is always fallible—we have, so far as possible, taken precautions, and set up long ago and are now working machinery which we believe will be effective, and with regard to the improvement of which, if suggestions can be made, we shall be only too thankful to receive them and give them due consideration.
  There are one or two other matters which perhaps I ought not to pass by. My right hon. Friend asked a question with reference to the very important subject of our dealings with the transmission of cotton from the United States to Europe for destinations in many cases hostile to ourselves. I can assure him there is no subject which engages the more anxious and constant attention of the Government. It is a very delicate and difficult matter. It is easy to put forward one particular line of policy and see its advantages, and to put forward an alternative line of policy and see its advantages; but
  1366
  when you come to weigh and balance them, it is very often found that so very minute, complicated, and difficult are the ramifications of this kind of trade that where you appear to have arrived at an easy and effective solution you are really multiplying rather than minimising your difficulties. I can assure the House that the matter is one which at this moment we are most carefully considering. I am not myself satisfied with the existing state of affairs. I believe that a great deal of this material—this necessary ingredient in the manufacture of some kinds of ammunition—reaches the enemy which ought not to do so. On the other hand, we must be very careful in the exercise of our belligerent rights not unduly to infringe the trade interests and the legitimate susceptibilities of neutral Powers with whom we are on terms of perfect amity, and do not desire to provoke anything in the nature of unnecessary or gratuitous quarrels. There is a vast mass of considerations which have to be carefully taken into account in due perspective and proportion. The Government are not without hope that we shall obtain without much delay a more satisfactory and more adequate solution of these various difficulties than has yet been possible. Beyond that, for the moment, my right hon. Friend will not expect me to go.
  One word with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who spoke as to our aerial equipment. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am treating him with disrespect if I say that everything he said as to the supreme importance of this particular branch of our military and naval equipment is not only true—obviously true—but is realised to the fullest extent by the Government and the military and naval authorities. It goes without saying at this stage of the War, and it has gone without saying almost from the beginning, that with regard to the proper use of Artillery, with regard to reconnaissance work of all kinds, both upon sea and upon land, the extended scientific use of aeroplanes has become one of the most rudimentary necessities of every Army and Navy in the world. I have no need to assure the hon. Gentleman, I am sure he will realise, that any Government, particularly the Government of this country, would be grossly negligent of its duty if it did not make every effort both to extend the mechanical development of the aeroplane and to secure an

  1367
  adequate supply of well-instructed and well-trained pilots and observers. I can assure him there is no part of our military and naval problems which more constantly engages our attention.
  On behalf of those who are responsible for the organisation and development of this magnificent branch of our, fighting services, than which none has distinguished itself more in the course of the War or realised more satisfactory results, I must say that I think any suggestion that there has been want of imagination in conception, or of readiness in the application and adoption of new inventions and new processes, or lethargy or slackness in the enlistment and training of pilots and skilled observers, is totally unfounded, and not in the least in accordance with the facts. I do not believe there is any Department either in the Army or the Navy where these qualities of imagination, adaptablity, elasticity, and assiduity have been or are being more conspicuously displayed. I do not believe that our service is one whit behind that of any other of the great belligerent Powers. Speaking with knowledge and authority, I say that, at this moment, it is being developed and expanded in every possible way under the best auspices and the wisest guidance. I will now ask the House to allow my hon. Friends to make the statements which I promised in regard to the Army and the Navy. I trust the result will be that both the House and the country will be satisfied, so far as the Government are concerned, that in these two capital spending Departments every effort is being made to prevent waste and to secure economy, as well as effectively to prosecute the War.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I respond at once to the invitation of the Prime Minister to make a statement as to expenditure as far as the Admiralty is concerned. I trust to assist in reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) as to the character and reliability of our achievements. If I may say so, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham that it is not in the interest of the State to mention cases in detail in public; but I shall personally be obliged to him if he will give me any cases that he has in his mind, and, as far as the Admiralty is concerned, I will undertake at once that they shall receive immediate personal
  1368
  examination. I quite appreciate the fact that he did not state here cases which he had in his mind. I agree with my hon. Friend, and, of course, everyone will agree, that the first duty of the Admiralty is to supply without delay everything necessary for the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. Subject to that, I cordially agree that it is the duty of a good administration to conduct these affairs with prudence and economy, even in a time of great emergency. I should contend that to the best of our ability we have done that. I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend says, that in due course, when this War is over, there will be the usual Commissions of Inquiry by this House. I take leave to think that, as regards the machinery for financial supervision and expenditure in the office with which I am associated, our procedure will emerge satisfactorily from investigation.
  What is that machinery? When the War broke out we had been working for four months on very carefully prepared estimates—the Estimates for 1914–15. They were the index of the approved services for which this House had voted money. During the remaining eight months of 1914–15, to the expenditure under these Estimates for approved services, there had to be added the new expenditure consequent upon the operations of the War. At present in this year, 1915–16, as my hon. Friend said, we have only technically before us £1,000, a token Vote of the total Vote voted by this House. That is to say, the Navy Estimates for 1915–16 are, technically; a grand total of £17,000. For the rest, we have drawn, and shall draw, upon the Vote of Credit. In due season the sums expended, as far as we are concerned, will be submitted by the Accountant-General of the Navy to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff for due examination and check. That is the procedure so far. As far as concerns our endeavour to check expenditure at the outbreak of the War all proposals and decisions involving expenditure, not provided for in the Estimates of 1914–15, were referred, before action, to the Accountant-General, the Financial Secretary, and myself. After a few days—I am dealing now with the very early days of the War—when the first urgent pressure had in a degree relaxed, the officers who were responsible for the expenditure were called together for conference with a view to consider how best we could secure a detailed review of the expenditure incurred outside the approved services of the year.

  1369
  The result of a number of conferences, when great consideration was given to these matters, within a few days after the outbreak of hostilities, was this: That a weekly return of all expenditure was to be made to the Accountant-General of the Navy. That has continued ever since and down to this week. The Accountant-General collects this information; the results are brought together and discussed at the weekly meeting of the Finance Committee. My hon. Friend asked concerning a Finance Committee. I admit it is not constitutional in the way he imagines. This Finance Committee consists of the Financial Secretary, the President, the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, the Additional Civil Lord, the Accountant-General, and the Assistant-Secretary for Finance. Week by week we meet. I should like to ask the hon. Member to note this, for I am quite sure that when he asked this question he desired to inform himself as to exactly what we were trying to do. Week by week the expenditure is brought by the Accountant-General before the Finance Committee. Our liabilities are stated; we see how far we have gone—what is spent; what is outstanding. This Committee, composed as I have stated, have all officers before them who have responsibility and of whom they desire to ask questions— superintendents and others who may be responsible for expenditure in any particular matter. That is the procedure, and it is carried forward week by week at the Admiralty. I may say that the Committee does meet weekly. In point of fact the Committee has met a good many more times than weekly, although it is described in the Admiralty statement of the distribution of business as being called together weekly.
  From the very first it became known that serious inconvenience and delay might arise through strict adherence to the procedure of obtaining Treasury sanction by correspondence to all expenditure which by established rule required the approval of that Department. That delay in getting Treasury sanction by correspondence might, it was felt, have very serious results, so far as the fighting services were concerned. The Treasury, thereupon, proposed that instead of the usual formal correspondence, the sanction of that Department, where required, should be obtained through a Standing Emergency Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury
  1370
  is President; that that Standing Emergency Committee would, if necessary, sit day by day; and that it would be called together, if necessary, at half an hour's notice to have placed before it requisitions which might be urgent, and to which we desired the sanction of the Treasury. That system has worked with extreme rapidity and smoothness, and it has been of great assistance to us. That, shortly, is the machinery which has been set up in our Department, and in connection with the Treasury for checking and supervising, as the expenditure is running on. Having made that statement, I feel I cannot sit down without expressing my great gratitude to Sir Alfred Eyles, the Accountant-General of the Navy, and his staff, for the assistance they have rendered me in this scheme for the control and supervision of expenditure, not only since the outbreak of hostilities, but at all times; and I desire to pay an equally generous tribute for the assistance he has rendered in these matters to the Assistant Secretary for Finance Duties, Mr. Baddeley.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I shall be able to tell my story in a very few words; I need not occupy the time of the House very long in describing what has been done. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the audit referred to the state of affairs which was disclosed by the Report of the Committee on the South African War. He wanted to know whether the War Office had learned the lesson. Since that time the War Office has thoroughly overhauled and reorganised its system of dealing with operations on a great scale in a time of war. The regulations have been embodied, to a certain extent, in Part II. of Field Service Regulations, in which my hon. Friend will find the administrative side divorced from the military side; and in addition elaborate preparations made in time of peace for dealing with emergencies. There was, of course, the undoubted and enormous advantage of the advent of Lord Kitchener to the War Office, because we had provided in one and the same person the man who had had actual experience in the field of the need for the assistance of a financial adviser. We had, too, at the same time a man in authority at the War Office who was able to see that these men were fully and completely provided. My hon. Friend asked if steps had been taken to secure a Contemporaneous audit so as to prevent the accumulation of arrears.

  1371
  Yes, a long time ago we sent out a financial adviser to assist the Commander-in-Chief.
  We sent out an adequate staff of accountants—I forget for the moment exactly how many went out, but I think between twenty and thirty—in order that a careful watch might be kept upon expenditure in France from day to day, and almost from hour to hour. We get periodical reports, not formal reports, but reports of a more or less informal character as to the progress of the work. I am happy to say that while we, of course, cannot secure that there can be no mistake or no arrears, the system is working generally well, and things are being cleared up as we go along. In addition to that, my noble Friend the Secretary for State appointed a Committee in the War Office itself to keep a careful watch upon current and future expenditure. In the early days of the War, when things were moving with extreme rapidity, when the Army was expanding to an almost incredible extent, it was obviously impossible to keep in as close touch with all these various matters as one could wish. Now that the Army has become what it has, and while it is no longer expanding with the same extraordinary quickness as marked the earlier efforts, we have opportunities of looking forward and taking under review the future as well as the present condition of things, and of co-ordinating supplies, orders and cost.
  A Finance Committee, whose special duty it is to concern themselves with this aspect of administration, was appointed by my hon. Friend, and the Committee, although it meets informally on many occasions, has also formal sittings when proper examinations are carried out. I may say that, in addition to that, the control of the Treasury, although it naturally could not be exercised with the same degree of pressure in the early days of the War as in the time of peace, has undoubtedly become a very real control within the last few months. I would only say that, at any rate, the financial side of the War Office administration realises the extreme need—the urgent need—for the prevention of waste, for the practise of economy, and we are devoting our attention to it as closely as we can. With regard to the prevention of waste, the Secretary of State is issuing a circular letter to the officers commanding the various districts calling their attention to the extreme
  1372
  urgency of this question, and inviting them to take every possible step to-see that the need for economy is duly brought to the attention of everybody under their command. I can only say we shall welcome any suggestions of a useful character which can be made to improve our system.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Prime Minister has adopted an expedient which, I think, is unique in the experience of this House. He has made a speech in reply to the former part of the Debate, and that speech has been succeeded by two other speeches from the Government Bench. It reminds one of the days of Israelitish history, when Moses won a battle, having had his right hand and his left hand upheld by his friends on either side; but on that occasion Moses was present all the time. On this occasion we find ourselves, after two hours of an important Debate on a Vote of Credit for £150,000,000, without a Cabinet Minister on the Bench until the Home Secretary has come in. I think that is not fair to the House of Commons or to the importance of the Vote of Credit which we are discussing, and I protest as usual, though probably ineffectively. I was also sorry that the Prime Minister in what reply he did give to the points that were raised, took no notice at all of a suggestion that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) when he suggested that this Government ought to extend an invitation to the pressmen in France to come over here in some more considerable numbers than they have come, in order to convey to the people of France some idea of the serious nature of the feeling with which the people of this country are actuated with regard to the War. It is a common impression, and one sees evidences of it every day, that we are supposed not to be taking the War seriously enough, and not to be doing enough work. That allegation frequently comes from the Press of France, and I think it would be worth the Government's while to remove that impression. The suggestion thrown out as to the way in which it could be done, I think, merited some reply from the Prime Minister, and if it were a case of inadvertence I hope it will be considered later, and something may be done in that direction.
  But the reason I want to intervene in the Debate at all is to put a question which, presumably, cannot be answered

  1373
  now that the Prime Minister is gone. I want to refer quite shortly to the phrase that is being used so frequently by our Cabinet Ministers with reference to the War and the position in which the nation is supposed to be at the moment. Ministers of the Cabinet have deliberately stated that the nation is in grave peril, and I want to ask some responsible Minister of the Cabinet, especially when they are asking the House to give them a further Vote of Credit for £150,000,000, what they mean by loose talk of that kind. I think that all of us appreciate the fact that we as a nation are prepared to face whatever facts are placed in front of us. We are prepared to meet the situation at any moment with any kind of sacrifice. But if Ministers of the Cabinet say, as they do say now in public, that the nation is in grave peril, then they have started a use of words which will deny them the use of more superlative words if the nation ever happens to be in that position. Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, whether he can give the House and the nation some information of a later kind than has yet been given with regard to the military and naval situation? The Prime Minister promised the House and country some considerable time ago that Sir John French should send us bi-weekly dispatches in order that the country might be kept in touch with our Forces in Flanders. Those bi-weekly dispatches or messages continued for only a very few weeks, and latterly there have been very large intervals of time between them. It does seem to me that it is worth while the Prime Minister seeing that those messages are sent to the nation, in view of the confidence that is reposed in the Commander-in-Chief in Flanders, and in view of the extreme anxiety on the part of the people in this country to get some kind of information about the War.
  Then I would remind the Home Secretary, if he is interested at all in the points being put by private Members, as he is the only Member of the Cabinet present, that sonic considerable time ago the French Government issued a review of the War from the commencement up to a certain point in their achievement, and that review of the War was published in all British newspapers and amazed the public here by the frankness with which the French Government and the French people faced the facts as they had happened to them in the War. This House is going to
  1374
  adjourn very shortly. We are going away, as the Prime Minister told us, until the middle of September. By that time thirteen months of War will have passed over our heads. We have had nothing from our Government except the dispatches which have come to hand from time to time, either from Flanders and now later from the Dardanelles, that give us any connected idea of the purposes being pursued, or, for that matter, of any future purposes which we are striving to achieve. I do think the Government ought to take the nation much more fully into their confidence in regard to the War. They take them very fully into their confidence in regard to the provision of everything for the War, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible at the moment, will agree that the people of the country have loyally responded in every direction—in money, in men, and munitions—to every appeal that has been made. I do ask him to consider this from the point of view of those of us who are not in touch with the same sources of information as he is. I do not mean anything by what I am going to say, but I do think that this kind of thing deserves some comment.
  We are told, for instance, that the people at home do not realise the nature of the War. We are told that our working men do not realise the nature of the War, and one of the methods that the Government adopt to make our working men realise it is to take a mob orator off Tower Hill, send him round the trenches, fetch him back to this country, give him letters from Lord Kitchener and Sir John French, and put him on a music-hall platform to make speeches to people who attend music halls. I do think that those of us who represent large industrial constituencies who, when we go down to our constituencies, are expected to be able to give them some confidence with regard to what is taking place in Flanders and in the Dardanelles, are in actually a worse position than a mob orator who is taken off Tower Hill and personally conducted round the trenches at the front. I do not want to complain. I do not want to do that myself. I would rather be doing the duties we are sent here to perform; but I do ask the Home Secretary if he does not realise that the public at home are starving for information, and that they feel that, if they had some information which would enable them to conclude that what we are doing in Flanders and the Dardanelles had a purpose which they did

  1375
  not understand but which could be achieved very shortly, I am perfectly sure the whole nation would be straining at the leash to get at the work which has to be done, rather than be coaxed into it by all sorts of devices—by posters, lectures and leaflets of this committee and that committee. I am reminded that that is largely due to the fact that the Government, wisely or unwisely, have from the commencement of the War allowed no proper Press agency at the front to communicate intelligence to the people at home. The old system of war correspondents has gone, and the men who have been sent out now are selected men, and the same kind of stuff is percolating through to a series of newspapers. We do not get the many phases of view we used to get when the old war correspondents were at the front. However, it is a question for the Government themselves to devise the means by which the object can be obtained. I only want to impress upon my right lion. Friend that I want him to believe that those of us who have been moving about in our constituencies, who really are in touch with the fathers and mothers of the boys who are with our forces and the men who are being wounded and killed, know that those people are starving—that is the only word for it—for mere information with regard to the War, and I do hope my right hon. Friend will, in taking this Vote of Credit for £150,000,000, really try to give us more satisfaction in that way, and thereby create a closer feeling of co-operation among the whole people with what is going on at the front.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish to say a few words on two topics, aeroplanes and inventions, one of which—that of aeroplanes—has been somewhat exhaustively dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Brentford. With regard to aeroplanes, I would simply indicate on broad lines what seems to me a possibility. I think this country is very fortunate in regard to the question of war in the air that the German mind is at present hypnotised by the Zeppelin idea. The Germans have been buoyed up with great hope and great faith, perhaps unwarranted, as to the possibilities of the Zeppelin, and, in spite of repeated failures, they have persisted in the work of constructing Zeppelins. If they had been entirely free from that obsession, and if they had devoted their minds and their high, scientific, technical
  1376
  knowledge to the question of building aeroplanes, I think they would have seen possibilities which they would have developed, and which would have finally made their aeroplane service enormously more formidable than the Zeppelins. I believe, therefore, this country has every reason to congratulate itself upon the fact that the German mind has become hypnotised with the idea of Zeppelins. The hon. and learned Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has pointed out certain possibilities of the aeroplane for the purpose of reconnoitring and scouting and1 also as a striking force. It is only necessary to indicate that all the elements of the problem have been separately solved, and all we need do is to combine them in order to assure ourselves that we have the possibility of building a great force which will secure for us the complete dominance of the air, and which would prevent enemy aeroplanes appearing within any area contiguous to our own aeroplane force and that of the Allies, thus securing for us complete mastery of the air. All the main elements of this problem have been separately solved, such as the question of how long aeroplanes can remain in the air, the distance they can traverse, the power, speed, and rising faculties, the bombs they can carry, the machine guns they can carry, and even the wireless services they can man. That all these problems have been solved successfully has been shown in the various sporadic raids which have already been undertaken on the part of our aeroplanes at various points of the Western front and on the middle part of the Western part of the French lines, as, for instance, in the successful raid on Chauncy.
  The difficulty in the way of providing a strong fighting force of aeroplanes is not the material difficulty of execution; it is not to be found in the difficulty of any single part of the problem. The aeroplanes can be obtained and the pilots can be trained. The question of supplying bombs is already solved, so that the only difficulty that now remains is the psychological difficulty—that is to say the difficulty of convincing the authorities that here is a question the proper handling of which indicates the true line of safety and ultimately the line of victory—so to seize their minds with that faith or conviction that they will throw themselves with the greatest energy into this problem of building aeroplanes, so that once and for all

  1377
  we may attain the conviction, even before we actually realise it, that this country and its Allies mean to obtain complete dominance of the air.
  With regard to the uses which a strong striking force of this kind can be put I will indicate one, namely, in regard to that most difficult of all questions—the proper means of defence against submarines. I think there are two ways in which aeroplanes can operate so as to greatly limit the danger of submarine attacks. I believe—but I will not give details—that in the development of our aeroplane service lies the possibility of solving that problem, and providing us with an efficacious defence against submarine attacks. Before leaving this particular question I would like to refer to one point made by the hon. and learned Member for Brentford in regard to what he said about a separate Department for aeroplanes, and particularly a Ministry of aeroplanes. I am inclined to think that this has almost become a necessity, because there is a very great difference in the way in which any particular subject is tackled; if, on the other hand, it is left to a sub-department of a great office, it is not so efficiently dealt with as if it be left to an entirely new Department filled with new energy, and possessing great officers of State. They generally have the faculty of magnifying the importance of their own office. That would be a distinct advantage, because once this work is undertaken it ought to Toe pressed forward with the greatest energy and vigour, so that in the shortest possible space of time this country and its Allies would in this respect be in a position of enormous advantage.
  I would like to emphasise the fact that this suggestion points out not only a way to victory, but almost the only way which is now open to us. The great operations on the Western Front have up to the present resulted practically in a stalemate, neither party having made any decided advance. Both are locked together, but an enormous and speedy development of our aeroplane service might turn the scale of that balance and secure victory for this country. I will leave that question now in order to deal with the broad principle of the question of inventions. I know there has been lately instituted in this country a Commission for dealing at least with the co-ordination of the scientific work of this country. We have had very meagre details of this work and its character, and we do not know the work it contemplates taking up. We do
  1378
  not know whether it includes the question of inventions within its terms of reference, because that question rests on a somewhat different footing. One principal question is the co-ordination of the scientific work of the country, and another is the question of new inventions. What I would like to suggest is that the Commission which has been appointed should rather be a final advisory and consulting Commission, and that there should be formed another Commission, perhaps of less responsibility and greater freedom. What I am speaking of now is not a matter in the air, for my suggestion is based on a model which has been conceived in France and carried to a very great success.
  Shortly after the outbreak of the War a number of scientific men in France came together of their own initiative and formed a Commission solely for the purpose of dealing with inventions, not merely those which had reached a tangible shape, but even suggestions of inventions. Proceeding on the principle that many men who are not experts and who lack scientific training nevertheless have sometimes valuable ideas which, if seized upon and developed, might be brought to a useful fruition even during the course of this War, they formed this Commission and divided it into three parts: the first dealing with the mechanical side of inventions, the second with the electrical aspect, and the third dealing with chemical questions. Members are elected to serve on these separate sections of the same Commission according to their special knowledge in these great branches of the work. One of the most prominent members of the Commission told me that they had never rejected any suggestion whatever, no matter with what slight credentials it came before them. They examine every suggestion thoroughly and, until they have satisfied themselves that it lies outside the possibility of a useful realisation during this War, they do not finally cast it aside. Having examined any suggestion which seems feasible and useful, they then apply the greatest power of their own special technical knowledge in order to make it as practical as possible; and it is only after they have brought it to that condition that they submit it to the permanent Commissions of the great services of the Army and the Navy which were in existence before they came together. In this way they relieve the great State Departments of an enormous amount of preliminary work, and they present to

  1379
  them suggestions in a much clearer form than the inventors themselves could have reached; and thus they render the work of the experts of the great services of the Army and Navy much more efficient, and save them a vast amount of time.
  I think it is quite possible that we in this country could deal with this question of inventions on similar lines. We might retain the Commission which has already been chosen to perform the final work of advising, at the same time giving free scope to subsidiary Commissions in order to prepare the work and submit various feasible and practicable suggestions which have been worked upon by their brains and brought to the most feasible and practicable shape. Since I took up this question I have been inundated with letters and suggestions which have even induced me to sympathise with the War Office itself. It seems to me that inventions can be divided into three classes. Some of them are inspired, others inspired idiots; and the third—well, they are not inspired, and they are by far the largest class. It is precisely the suggestions of that class which this preliminary Commission could eliminate and finally conserve. In order to show that this point is of some importance I will indicate one or two successes in this respect which have been achieved in France. One is the scheme of dropping innumerable showers of darts or arrows from aeroplanes, which have done considerable damage to the enemy, although some means of defence against them have been found by the Germans, and the Germans have shown us the sincerest form of flattery by imitating this method. Another point touches the investigation whch is now proceeding and which is at the very point of being realised respecting an explosive bomb of far greater power than anything that has yet been used in the course of this War. This is now being actively worked upon by the best scientific brains in France, and I believe it will soon be a great factor in this War, and it may have an enormous influence upon our operations on the whole lines. I will not name the bomb, and still less will I refer to its constitution, but I can assure hon. Members that it will become practical in the course of this War and if it does become of enormous benefit to our Allies it will be as the child of this Commission of Inventions to which I have referred.
  1380
  I would also, in order to stimulate my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) indicate what has been done by the other side. We have a notion in this country that the Germans are very methodical and scientific, but that they are somewhat unimaginative and slowly adaptable to new ideas. The notion is not true. The Germans have even, during the course of this War, shown wonderful adaptability, although I do not think that arises from any particular lightness or imagination of their mind; but from the fact that they have been so imbued with science that they follow resolutely, and as a matter of course, the indications of science. And so, proceeding on these lines, they have reached the same results as those who were less scientific but more endowed with an imaginative faculty. The Germans were beginning to run short of the raw materials for their high explosives. They took a method, which until recently had been hardly more than a laboratory method, or a matter of experiment shown to students; having seen the necessity they launched out with great energy and decision, and they converted this into an enormous industrial work. Thus, they have completely obviated one of their greatest difficulties, which was the shortage of material for nitrates, nitric acids, and so forth, which is one of the forms of raw materials for the various high explosives.
  Another instance of their adaptability was shown in the case of copper. I had a chance of seeing the fighting near the Argonne, in the month of January. The Germans were already beginning to run short of copper, so much so that they were commencing to destroy the picturesque-ness of their own soldiers by depriving them of their pickel-haubes, and melting them down for shells. Copper was running short, and they turned their scientific skill into other directions. They first used brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc, and then they made various experiments with other alloys of zinc, and finally they reached such a stage that they can now laugh at the shortage of copper. Another shortage of which they felt the necessity was that of rubber. Again they applied their scientific skill, and they heve been able in a sufficiently practical manner to overcome the shortage of rubber by using a sort of synthetic rubber.
  Although the Germans have done very many wonderful things during the course of this War, or even during the last

  1381
  six months, I do not think there is one instance where they have really originated a new method, or seized upon an entirely novel or original idea. I believe that most of the instances that I have quoted, and I could extend them, have come from the French side, but the Germans have shown an adaptability which arises from high scientific training, and, of course, common sense, in using these methods which are indicated by science, and, once the way is pointed out, in striking determinately into that way. I would conclude by drawing this moral, and saying, in the case of aeroplanes especially, the way has been indicated. The principal difficulty is not one of material but is a psychological difficulty, and I hope that there will be a great pressure of public opinion, if nothing else, brought to bear upon the War Office, so that they will be led—I will not say compelled—into this way of taking a leaf from the Germans themselves; and, once having seen that clear way to victory, may they strike into it with the utmost resolution, vigour, and energy, so that within a comparatively short time the Under-Secretary of State for War will be able to announce to this House that the question of the predominance of the air has been solved and that no German aeroplane dare show its nose within a certain area which is under the control of the aeroplanes of the Allies, and that this great arm is not only performing functions of scouting and reconnoitring work of all kind, but that it has also become one of the most powerful and striking arms of the Forces of the Allies.
  Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down suggested that the real difficulty in connection with the supply of aeroplanes for the Government and the Army was a psychological difficulty. I should like to disabuse him of that idea at once. It is wholly unnecessary to bring pressure to bear upon the War Office in order to convince us of the importance of the Air Service. I would like to refer to the remarks which were made by the Prime Minister not many minutes ago, assuring the House that we are not only duly impressed to-day or yesterday, but that we have been impressed from the outset of this War, with the enormous importance aircraft play, and must play, in all operations of war. Those matters have been considered, as I say, by the best brains in the Army, by the best mechanical brains that we could obtain, for many months past. The responsible authorities have been con-
  1382
  sidering all these questions as to the increase as rapidly as possible of the Air Service. I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to make an announcement as to what steps have been taken—it would not be proper that I should do so—but a policy has been decided upon, and that policy is being carried out as rapidly as it possibly can be.
  I was asked more than a month ago in this House to state some of the steps which were being taken in order to carry out that policy. I then indicated that one of the most important of them—I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that it is one of the most important—was the increase of the number of training schools for pilots. Of course, we cannot have an indefinite increase in the number of those schools without a very large increase in the machines with which to teach the pilots. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), in the course of his observations, stated that while it was true we had increased our training schools from one to eleven we had only taken over a number of the civil flying schools. It is not at all in accordance with the fact to say that is all we have done. While it is true that we have taken over two such civil schools for flying, we have increased our original one to eleven. The hon. Member for Brentford again referred to the time which it took to replenish the depredations caused by accidents or by gun-fire upon our aircraft. That is really only the same difficulty which is found in replenishing diminished ranks in the Army at a considerable distance from your base or from your supplies. Obviously, when you lose a certain number of machines, it must take a little time in order to make them good, but I think when the facts become known it will be seen that an extraordinary short time has been taken to make good those losses. With regard to the losses, I would say that the wasteage, of course, has been very large, as I dare say the House knows. Again, I cannot go into figures, but they have been all made good, and an enormous number more have been supplied. It is, of course, a fact that you cannot constantly fly in the air without such accidents happening, not only accidents which occur through something which you cannot foresee, but also through gun-fire and shell-fire from the enemy.
  The only other point which strikes me, and on which I think it is desirable that some statement should go out from the War Office, is the question of the height at

  1383
  which aviators fly. I think the hon. Member stated that one officer was put into a machine which could not climb and was probably exposed to great risk, and that we were giving orders which were calculated to be very dangerous to our flying officers. I wish the hon. Gentleman and the House to realise that there is a definite minimum height below which officers are not allowed to fly across the German lines, and any officer or man who crosses the German lines at a height below that minimum is contravening instructions. I am bound to say I do not believe that it is ever done, and if it has been done it is possibly an isolated instance of someone who has done something which he ought not to have done. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman complained of the fact that there were not sufficient non-commissioned officers and men in training, but that is one criticism which has been made. I would say that we are training many more non-commissioned officers and men now. The reason for the temporary abandonment, not the complete abandonment, but the diminution in the number being trained at one time, was that it was found that non-commissioned officers and men were very extravagant in aeroplanes, and we had not a sufficient number of aeroplanes to allow them to make experiments. There was a considerable diminution in the number of non-commissioned officers and men being trained, but now we are expanding the number very much, and as we have many more non-commissioned officers and men to select from, we are able to select the best, and we are training a considerable number more.
  If I may just for one moment, I will turn to what the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) said upon the question of inventions. He is, of course, aware of the Committee of which Lord Fisher is chairman, who will be able to coordinate all the inventions which come before them. Prior to the appointment of that Committee, there was at the War Office—and I presume there was at the Admiralty—a very efficient body. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, or, rather, his correspondents, who have convinced him of the very troublesome and difficult position in which such a body is placed by the innumerable suggestions which come both from the inspired and, I think he said, from the insane.
  Mr. LYNCHindicated dissent.
  Mr. TENNANT: At any rate, if they do not come from the insane they come from persons who are only partially inspired and partially insane. I do think that we have a right to ask for the sympathy of those who have listened to the suggestions of either. It did not require the hon. Gentleman to convince me or to convince many people of the scientific attainments of the German race. That has long been one of the things for which I think people were allowed to admire the Germans. They have no doubt scientific training and scientific energy. We in this country do not profess to scientific training, though we have great scientific men. There is no pretension to scientific training in the rank and file; but, in spite of that, we have been able to produce great scientific men and the greatest amount of scientific appliances which command the admiration of everybody. It is a remarkable fact that we have been so prolific in the inventions which have been produced by scientists. I can only say, in conclusion, that the formation of this Committee ought to give the House and country confidence that the productions of these fertile brains, which are brought before us from time to time, will receive, not only most careful examination and consideration, but will be investigated by men of the most eminent knowledge and scientific attainments themselves.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: Earlier in the afternoon the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) made a statement as to the policy of the Government in financing the War so largely by borrowed money. Other hon. Members took a like point of view, but the Prime Minister, in his speech, did not refer to that subject, and I therefore rise to press some further arguments on the attention of the Government in relation to this matter. This is the fifth Vote of Credit which the Government has introduced into this House. There was a Credit in August, a Credit in November, more Credit in March, further Credit in June, and still more Credit in July. Can one wonder that the financial authorities in the City, as well as ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, and a notable personality like Lord St. Aldwyn, have drawn the attention of the Government to their policy in this matter? In the early months of the year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when introducing his Budget, stated that, as the War might last for six or twelve months, the Government proposed to delay

  1385
  the introduction of the new Budget for some months. But in view of the statement by the Minister for Education (Mr. A. Henderson) last Saturday, that the War would probably last another year, I was hopeful that the Government would have taken immediate steps to introduce new taxation proposals. July is nearly over, the Recess is looming in the distance, and yet the financial plans of the Government have not matured. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last week stated that he hoped to take reasonable measures in connection with taxation, but, having warned the country, importers of foreign articles will be quick to heed that warning, and traders who pay Excise Duties will clear goods from the bonded warehouses, while importers of foreign articles will hasten to deliver and clear goods from the Custom Houses, and thus be able to exploit the country for their own benefit.
  Is it fair to direct taxpayers that the Government should increase, as they will have to increase largely before the year is out, the direct taxation? Budgets are introduced into this House, and Income Tax payers are given several months to pay. But on this occasion the convenience of the public is being brushed aside, and the public are told that they will require to wait further months before the financial proposals of the Government are introduced into this House. I submit it is not fair to the direct taxpayers that the full truth of the financial situation should not have been told by now. Let me put a further point. Comparison is made to-day between the amounts of taxation raised during the Napoleonic War and the present period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that this War will be a short war in comparison with the long-drawn-out Napoleonic War. Is it not a very sound argument for immediate increased taxation that because this War is going to be short in comparison with the long-drawn-out wars in those days the Government should have brought forward by now their proposals for immediate increased taxation? I admit you cannot make an absolutely fair comparison between the policy of the Government in those days and the policy of the Government to-day. Each must be considered on its merits; but I would remind the House that the expenditure of the Government in this War, relatively to past wars, is much greater, and hence, having created this kind of artificial prosperity, they should not have allowed many months to elapse without introducing further taxation.
  1386
  After the restoration of peace, I think every Member of the House will agree, will come the darkest financial period in the history of this country. The excitement and glory of war will have vanished and disappeared. But peace will aggravate the hardship and increase the burden. Peace will not bring, as it generally does, plenty. Peace after this War will bring increased taxation, far higher than it is to-day. After the War is over America will be challenging our commercial supremacy in the neutral markets of the world, and our ability to meet that competition will be checked and retarded by the failure of the Government to bring forward now their proposals for increased taxation. May I remind the House of the financial sacrifices which, so far, have been demanded by the Government. Take the first eight months of the War—from 1st August last year to the end of the first financial year. The cost of the War was £362,000,000; the taxation raised for War purposes amounted to £15,000,000. If we deduct from that sum of £15,000,000 the amount required to pay the interest on borrowed money, what is there left to pay for the capital cost of the War? Take again the period of the first twelve months of the War. In that period the War will undoubtedly have cost £722,000,000, and probably more. The taxation this year for War purposes will amount to £58,000,000, and, as by 1st August, when the first four months of this financial year will have elapsed there will either be due to the State, or collected by the State, one-third of that sum—£23,000,000. Add that to the sum of £15,000,000 collected last year, and we have for the first twelve months of the War a total sum of only £38,000,000 raised by taxation to pay for the cost of the War, and if you deduct from that the amount required to pay the interest on borrowed money I would like to ask the Government how much is left to pay for the cost of the War? The sacrifice asked for is inadequate in amount and in proportion to the needs of the situation.
  The War has raised the cost of the necessaries of life, but through the policy of the Government the luxuries of the people today stand at the same price as they were before the War started. We have the extraordinary contrast that in a time of increased imports and restricted exports, the Government deliberately, by their policy, allow foreign luxuries to remain to-day at the same price as they were before the War started. The present abounding

  1387
  prosperity will be followed by a period of adversity, and delayed action will lengthen and deepen that period of adversity. Will the House be surprised if people ask, as they will do, "what did the Government do during this time of abounding prosperity?" when, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, uttered last week in this House, "the treasure chest containing the savings of the past was opened, and golden coin scattered in every direction."
  The last point I would put is this: Is this fair to our soldiers, who may return in 1915, 1916, or 1917? What stories will they hear when they do return? They will be told stories of untold profits made by coal owners and coal distributors, by ship owners and by owners of houses where troops are billeted; stories of high wages and war bonuses. Will they not question, and rightly so, why the State allowed individuals to profit in this life and death struggle of the nation? Is it fair to our soldiers when they return that they should find, as they will, taxation higher than it is to-day, when the savings invested in the United States of America and in other parts of the world have been spent, thus restricting the ready flow of food-stuffs into our ports? Is it fair, when we are borrowing money past generations have saved, and distributing that money amongst the present inhabitants of Great Britain, that our soldiers when they return should be asked, as they will be asked, to suffer with us and to share with us, not only the commercial depression that the War will bring, but the extra financial burden of the War?
  I am sorry to say that the apathy of the Government in this matter is appalling. You have, on the one hand, untold economic prosperity in Great Britain to-day; you have, on the other hand, untold slaughter in France and the Dardanelles. Will the Government, I ask, redress this balance, masters and men making large profits and good wages, and men giving their lives for their country? I press this point on the Government. I ask them in the very early days after the Recess if they will not place on the Table of this House their proposals to tax, and to tax highly, luxuries. Will they charge 16s. in the £ on war profits, and will they tax the increased income of every individual in this country? I hope they will not allow further months to elapse before they lay their proposals before this House.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very earnest appeal to the Government and some very searching criticism, but he found himself in the same difficulty as all of us do who address the House at this time of the afternoon, namely, of finding a Government to criticise or deal with. Having regard to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War has already spoken, and looking at the Front Bench opposite, I am constrained to believe that any criticisms I may have to offer with regard to the Government must be addressed to the Solicitor-General.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Or a Junior Lord of the Treasury.
  Mr. McNEILL: Although I should like particularly to address myself to the Solicitor General, much of what I want to say will have to be addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for War, although he has already addressed the House. I rather regretted that when the right hon. Gentleman was replying just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks)—
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I say that it is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman and myself to mention that he told me before I left the House that he did not propose to speak, and it was not through want of courtesy to him that I was not in my place when he spoke. I should have been here if I had known that he was going to reply.
  Mr. McNEILL: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity of removing the false impression which was given to the House, I am sure quite unintentionally, by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, at the end of his speech, left the impression on the House that my hon. Friend had indulged in a criticism, not to say an attack, upon the Flying Service of this country. I am sure that those who paid attention to the speech of my hon. Friend must have realised that, so far from that being the case, he very strongly eulogised the Flying Corps and the aviators who are at the disposal of the country, and that he only made the criticism, which neither the Prime Minister nor the Under-Secretary has so far satisfactorily answered, as showing that the Government, having this magnificent body of men at their disposal,

  1389
  have not yet fully realised the full purposes to which that new branch of the Service might be put if it were developed to the utmost capacity to which science can now develop it.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am very sorry if I did not convey the impression to the hon. Gentleman that we, the Government, were fully alive to it. I specially rose in order to say so. In regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), it is true I did not intend to make any observations on the matter after hearing everything that fell from the Prime Minister. It was only out of courtesy to the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) that I thought some observations from the War Office were desirable, and incidentally I took the opportunity of dealing with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Brentford.
  Mr. McNEILL: I hope that nothing I have said was in any way unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not intend them to be so. What I say is that neither of the replies which have come from right hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown, by the action of the Government, any proof of that realisation of its importance which the right hon. Gentleman tells us in words the Government have entertained. I am not competent, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, to deal with the technicalities of the Flying Corps, but there is one small aspect of it to which I should like to refer, because it goes in the direction of showing that the criticism of my hon. Friend was justified. A very important branch of the Flying Service is the instruction of our pilots and observers. If my information is correct—I have no reason whatever to doubt it—the type of aeroplane which is being employed, or rather one of the types being employed for instruction at the present moment, is the Bleriot monoplane. As long ago as 1912, in consequence of a fatal accident which occurred with that type of machine, an order was issued by the War Office that the Bleriot monoplane was not to be used for the purpose of instruction. Only on the 22nd June in the present year another fatal accident occurred with that particular type of machine. It is recognised, I am told, by experts, as being the most dangerous type of aeroplane, and it has certainly been superseded by later types of the biplane, the machine which I believe is used at the front. I do not know for what reason this dangerous machine is
  1390
  still used for the purpose of instruction, unless it is that we are so short of the proper machines for use that they are obliged to fall back upon an obsolete machine which ought not to be in use.
  Mr. TENNANTindicated dissent.
  Mr. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman indicates dissent. Then I am entirely at a loss to know why it is. It is extremely wrong that this machine, which has been condemned as being dangerous, should be used at present, as I know it is being used in more than one school of instruction for the instruction of our pilots, therefore needlessly endangering their lives in acquiring the knowledge of what at the best is a very dangerous service. I do not know whether any Cabinet Minister is going to take part again in this Debate. If not, I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary for War paid no attention to some remarks which fell just now from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), which I thought had considerable weight. We are going to pass a Vote of Credit for another £150,000,000, and, as the hon Member observed, Parliament will shortly be adjourning for many weeks. The Government must recognise, in these circumstances especially, that nothing could be more important during these coming critical weeks than that the public should have the utmost confidence not only in the Government, but in the information which they receive. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh used the rather striking expression that many people in this country are simply starving for fuller and more correct information with regard to the operations of the War. It has been said in the House and in the Press over and over again that there is no desire in any quarter, either in the House or the country, for information which could be of value to the enemy, or which for that reason ought to be passed over in silence.
  I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman, merely as an illustration of the useless and, I think, mischievous reserve which is sometimes maintained by the Government, of an episode, of perhaps no great importance in itself, which I brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House in a question the other day. A good many weeks ago in the public Press a great deal was made of the fact that the British Army had succeeded in taking and occupying the

  1391
  position at the front known as Hill 60. The importance of this position in a tactical sense was explained to the country, and a great deal of very legitimate congratulation went through the country at this feat of arms. A good many weeks passed by and no further information was given in regard to this particular position, until a dispatch of Sir John French was published the other day. In that dispatch the Field-Marshal, in the course of his narrative, said that an attempt had been made by the Germans to recapture this position on the 1st May and that it had been repulsed. He then went on in words to the effect that a more persistent and severe gas attack enabled the enemy to reach that position on the 5th May. I thereupon put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him whether there was any and, if so, what reason why this information had been withheld from the public during all the weeks that had passed between the 5th May, when it was recaptured by the Germans, and the publication of Sir John French's dispatch? I used an expression which brought upon me the dignified reproof of the right hon. Gentleman. I ventured to say that this withholding of information was
  "deceiving the public "
  I am quite prepared at any time to accept in a humble spirit any reproof from the right hon. Gentleman. I am not at all too proud to accept that reproof when I am convinced that I am in error, but so far am I from being convinced that I was in error on this occasion that I now deliberately repeat that the withholding of this particular information, under the circumstances, was deceiving the public. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to me was a very extraordinary one. He began his answer by intimating that, in point of fact, the position had never been recaptured by the Germans, although Sir John French declared in so many words that it had been. The right hon. Gentleman said the real fact was that this position since the early part of May had never been held by either side.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think what I suggested was that at the present moment it is not in occupation by either side. I did not say from a definite date. Perhaps the hon. Member has my answer with him.
  Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry to say I have not got it here, but the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is certainly at fault. He can obtain his answer very easily. I will pledge myself to it that the right hon. Gentleman said that from the 5th May this position had not been occupied by either side, and then he used a remarkable paraphrase. He said that the final decision which had been reached by the fighting in the early part of May had been in doubt, or words to that effect. What I particularly wished to bring to the attention of the House was that I wanted to know why this information had been withheld officially, and on that point the right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer which I dare say was quite complete and accurate, and of which I do not complain. He said that they at the War Office had received no official news about this matter until they received the dispatch of Sir John French.
  Mr. TENNANT: Hear, hear.
  Mr. McNEILL: I am not going to stop to comment upon the very extraordinary circumstance that the War Office should have been left for several weeks in ignorance of the recapture of a position by the Germans which had been represented weeks before as a position of some importance.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: And which we all in the House knew had been lost.
  Mr. McNEILL: Considering that this fact was perfectly well known in many newspaper offices, I wanted to know why newspapers had not been allowed to publish this news, which they had received from independent sources, and, while I was not in a position to make an assertion on the question of the Censorship, why the Censor had refused leave for the publication of this news? What was the right hon. Gentleman's answer to that? I venture to say it was one of the most amazing replies ever given by a Member of the Government in this House. He intimated that there had been no suppression of the news by the Censor, because the Censor had allowed to be published the German wireless news which contained the information. I assert that it is a little humiliating that we should have this practical intimation from a Member of the Government that on a matter of considerable interest, if not of importance, we are to regard the German news as fuller and more accurate than that which we can derive from our own sources.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. TENNANT: I should like the hon. Member to realise that my answer to his supplementary question was to the effect that every message which has come through to us has been allowed to be published, and I gave as an instance this wireless message from a German source. It was the only one we had had, as I have informed the House before. The only other message we had was Sir John French's dispatch, which was published as soon as it could be. There was no single message which came to the War Office that was suppressed, and therefore to say that we were deceiving the public I said was not true.
  Mr. MCNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has now considerably expanded his answer. It was not in answer to a supplementary question, it was in answer to my question on the Paper that he said—it had no particular point unless it was so intended—that the passing by the Censor of the German wireless news disposed of my suggestion that there had been any censorship at all. The obvious and the only meaning of that is that we are to accept the German wireless news, if it has been passed by the Censor, as news upon which we can rely for the account of the operations of our own Army. That is a very deplorable state of affairs, and I am perfectly willing to leave it to the judgment of the House whether under those circumstances I was not, and am not, justified in describing the transaction as deceiving the public. The only reason why I bring it up now is that during the coming weeks when Parliament will not be sitting I very much hope that the Government will, so far as can be done consistently with the public safety, allow the fullest and most accurate information to be published concerning the operations of the War. Really from the very first the Government have seemed to proceed upon the assumption that this country would not stand news unless it was rosy news. In point of fact, the country is better able than the Government themselves to bear reverses when they come, having confidence that those reverses will in their turn give place to victory at the hands of the gallant men who have our fortunes in their keeping, and I hope very much that we shall have no repetition of that sort of suppression of public news, or the allowing of public news to be suppressed, and telling the country that they are to rely upon the German wireless news for their information.
  1394
  There is another point on which I wish to say a word. I have for some time past taken a profound interest and have looked with very great seriousness upon the question of the import of cotton from America to our enemies, and I heard with very great satisfaction what fell from the Prime Minister upon that point this afternoon. He certainly left the impression upon the House that the Government has been recognising this an an extremely grave factor in the present situation. He even went so far, which is a very rare thing for an occupant of the Treasury Bench, as to admit the fallibility of himself and his colleagues. I do not know that we could expect the Prime Minister to go further than that. But at the same time the Prime Minister, among his many gifts, has certainly the very great gift of making us all think that he is giving the most serious consideration to a subject which many weeks may pass without affording any actual proof of. On this particular point of the export of cotton the Government, as we know from answers and from Debates, has been giving its most anxious consideration for months, and some of us have really become rather impatient to know whether that consideration is ever going to issue in action. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, in a very impressive passage, spoke about the great difficulties of deciding upon a policy about which there was a great deal to be said on both sides, and on which there are alternative lines of action. He told us that we had to consider not merely whether there were certain advantages in the proposed course, but whether the disadvantages were not greater than the advantages, and he told us that he was weighing one against the other the alternative courses which could be pursued. That, of course, gives the impression of a very judicial frame of mind and a very satisfactory weighing of evidence. But the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise that while he talks about weighing the advantages and disadvantages of every alternative course of action he is, in point of fact, at the same time taking one definite course of action. Since the very beginning of the War the Government have been pursuing-a very definite and precise policy in this respect, although alternatives have been suggested to them from time to time, and many of us feel not merely that the Government has been too long in weighing the pros and cons of different alternative courses but that it has actually from the first been pursuing a

  1395
  policy which many of us regard as a very disastrous one. After what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon it would be presumption in me, and probably in any Member of the House, to speak with any sort of dogmatism as to the policy which the Government ought to pursue, but there is this to be borne in mind. Prom such sources of information as are open to the public we are led to believe, and I think it is probably the truth, that the predominant feeling in the United States, among the thinking and instructed portion of the nation, is not merely that our course in the United Kingdom, but that their course in the United States, would be rendered much more easy than it is at present if cotton were made absolute contraband of war.
  It is not at all difficult to understand why that should be so. We know quite well that the feeling in the United States has been one not merely of neutrality but of friendly neutrality towards this country. I believe the great majority of the American people, at any rate of those who have influence in Government circles, is anxious, so far as they can, consistently with their neutrality, to make that neutrality beneficial to the Allies. They are not at all ready to do anything to put greater difficulties in our way, but at the same time the American nation and the American Government, very rightly and naturally, are extremely 10th to see inroads made upon doctrines which they have accepted and which have become traditional doctrines with themselves as regards their municipal law and as regards their acceptance of international law, they feel that if cotton had been made absolute contraband of war from the first we could have brought to bear, in support of our action in keeping it out of Germany, a great body of precedent in international law which has sprung from American action. We could draw precedents from the law which was created by American jurists at the time of their own Civil War, and consequently what is felt in America is that if that had been done they would then be able to allow our action to pass, when supported by precedents of that character, which they find extreme difficulty in allowing to pass without protest under the existing state of affairs, because they felt that to do so would be inconsistent with the doctrines of law which they have always accepted and are always prepared to maintain. I assume that has been fully
  1396
  before the minds of the Government from the first. The Prime Minister this afternoon when replying to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) said nothing upon this point. Of course we appreciate the reasons for his reticence, and none of us wish to press either him or any Member of the Government to go too fully into the matter now. We feel that that must have been present to his mind. But at all events I hope that the Government will realise that these considerations weigh very largely, not only with us in this House who have taken an interest in the subject, but with a large section of the Press which guides opinion in this country and which has argued this case very much on the lines I have put to the House. After what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon I think we may hope that before very long a much more definite and consistent policy in this respect will be promulgated and followed by the Government. If that is so, I, for one, think not only that it will be of immense advantage from the supreme point of view of bringing the War to a speedy and successful conclusion, but that it will also have a very beneficial effect in increasing the confidence of the people of this country in the Government generally and especially in the manner of conducting the War.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not wish in any way to represent that I hold a brief for the War Office, but as I happen to be perhaps the only person in the House who was present at the recapture by the Germans of Hill 60 I may be permitted to say a word in explanation of what I think must have taken place on that occasion. I speak from recollection which I have not been able to refresh since that time. Hill 60 was a salient sticking out of the enemy's position, the capture of which was important, and its capture was represented as an act not only of great bravery and daring but of great skill on the part of the Army in France. It was counterattacked by the Germans with a mass of concentrated fire which rendered it impossible for any man to live on that salient, and it had eventually to be given up. The withdrawal of troops from it had to be conducted in secrecy, which was vital to their safety, and it was conducted by the officers in command with singular success and speed and with singularly little loss of life. It was essential that their withdrawal from the hill should not be known to the Germans. It could not therefore have been made public in this House

  1397
  until some time after these operations had actually taken place. When they had taken place, and the troops had been withdrawn, the matter ceased to be of urgent importance from the military point of view. I have no brief for Sir John French in the matter, and I do not know what his object was in not communicating with the War Office, but the importance of Hill 60 having passed, from the military point of view, I have not the slightest doubt that it got merged into the innumerable conflicts which were taking place all along the front, and that is the explanation why the War Office were not communicated with upon the subject until some time in June, and consequently they themselves were not in a position to make any mention of it to the public. I have refreshed my mind with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tennant), which is quite clear upon the point. He explained to this House that after 5th May Hill 60 was not occupied by either forces, German or British. His answer is quite clear upon that point, and I think it ought to relieve the War Office from the charge, or rather from the suggestion, which has been made in the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. It. McNeill).
  I would like to say a word upon the actual Vote of Credit itself. It has not been mentioned in the Debate—or, at any rate, it has not been noticed in the Debate —that the Votes of Credit and the Loans which have been made come to almost identical amounts. The total of the Votes of Credit is, I think, £1,012,000,000, while the Loans which have been made by the Treasury up to the present time, leaving out of account Treasury Bills, amount to £1,000,000,000. If that means anything at all, it means that the whole cost of the War is being financed out of Loans. I think that is a bad thing. It is quite clear that, after the War is over, unless you meet a great deal of the necessary cost of the War out of taxation, you will be faced with this position, that your expenditure in peace times will be greater than your expenditure in war time, from taxation, because the whole of the cost of the War has been met out of Loan. The amount of Loans when the War is over must be something like £1,400,000,000 or £1,500,000,000, and is may be £2,000,000,000. The interest upon that will be something like £80,000,000, and to that, if you are to create a Sinking Fund equal in amount to that which has been found necessary during peace time, you will have to add
  1398
  one-third, which comes to something like £75,000,000. You will be paying in interest and Sinking Fund alone something like £75,000,000 a year. At the present time you are only raising out of taxation for the War £68,000,000 a year. What will be the result of this? Supposing the War lasts the time which it is anticipated, you will be paying out of taxation a greater sum for war expenditure than you are paying when the War is actually going on. That, I am sure, is a false financial position, which will bring this country into very considerable discredit in the markets of the rest of the world.
  What is the position which really ought to be adopted? You are raising for the purposes of loan already the equivalent of two years' savings of the people. Those savings amount to something like £400,000,000 a year. You have already borrow ed £1,000,000,000, which represents two and a half years' savings of the people. How can you possibly continue along a path of that sort? By the time this House reassembles I suppose we shall have spent something like £850,000,000 of the £1,000,000,000 borrowed. I do not think that is an overestimate of our expenditure up to that time. What are going to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals when the House meets again? We have had a great deal of reference both in and out of this House to what happened in the Napoleonic times. I do not think it has ever been noticed in all the references to the expenditure of that day that the amount raised by taxation then was the equivalent of one-twelfth of the whole of the national income of the country. The amount then raised by taxation came to something like £40,000,000 a year, which represented about one-twelfth of the national income. I am not talking about national revenue but national income.
  Mr. McNEILL: That is only an estimate.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is approximately true and it is relatively true. National income can, of course, only be estimated at the present time. Let us take the period of the Crimean War. We raised £70,000,000 during the time that war lasted for war expenditure, of which one-half came from taxation. The revenue of the country in those days was something like £600,000,000 or £700,000,000. The amount, therefore, raised by taxation in those days was one-twentieth of the national income. They were less heroic then than in the Napoleonic times. Supposing you raised

  1399
  in the course of this War one-twentieth of the national income for the purpose of meeting war expenditure. The national income is estimated to be something like £2,500,000,000 (twenty-five hundred millions). In order to satisfy the financial canons which have obtained in the past you must raise at least £150,000,000 out of taxation in order to make the burden of the War expenditure borne by the taxpayer of the present time equal to the burden which his forebears bore. As my hon. Friend opposite says, you really must not reduce these things to a rule-of-three sum and pick out the precise mathematical percentage that you can bear this year because you bore exactly the same percentage in previous years. Some such sum as that must be suggested as the proper amount to be contributed by the taxpayer of the present time towards the cost of the War, unless you are going to put an improper burden upon the taxpayer of the future, and unless you are going to seriously damage the credit of this country all over the world.
  It is upon the credit of this country that the continuance of this War depends, and it is not only the maintenance of the War here, but the maintenance of the War by our Allies and by our Dominions, whom we are financing for the purposes of the War. In the opinion, up to the present, of all impartial observers abroad, especially from the point of view of the American financiers, the credit of this country has been wonderfully maintained. The credit of this country, I think, has depreciated on the New York Stock Exchange something like six or seven points since the beginning of the War, while the credit of Germany has depreciated something like fifteen or sixteen points, and that of France ten or twelve points. We have, therefore, up to the present time maintained our credit in the eyes of the American nation—which is the great neutral financial nation—on a hgher and a better level than that of our best friend and of our great enemy. The credit has been maintained at that high level before we raised the Loan. It will be very interesting to see how high that credit is going to stand when we have raised all that Loan and got in our £650,000,000 from the people of this country. It will be interesting for this reason, that we have exhausted by the late Loan one and a half years' savings of our people. Therefore, our only reserves
  1400
  in the future, so far as our own people are concerned, are economies, and so far as other people are concerned, our reserves depend upon the amount of interest we are able to pay to them for the sums we require from them. We cannot offer to the foreigner—to the American or other foreign market—a security of 4i per cent, which he would for one moment look at. Therefore, if you want to raise your money abroad you must certainly offer a higher percentage. If you wish to raise your money at home you must impose upon yourselves, either by voluntary action, or it may be by taxation, a much greater amount of saving and economy than you have adopted up to the present time.
  I have put the figure at at least £150,000,000 which you will have to raise by taxation, and that corresponds curiously enough to the amount of this Vote of Credit. This is not the time or the occasion for the Government to go into the question of how the money which the Vote of Credit gives them the right to spend is to be raised. It is quite clear that that is not the duty of the Government now, but, on the other hand, I do think that it is the duty of Members of the House of Commons to remind the Government that when they come here, as they must come here for more money in the autumn, they must do two things. First of all, they must make the taxpayer of the present bear a burden which would be equivalent to that which was borne by the taxpayer of the past in times of certainly equal, if not of greater, emergency. In the second place, they must impose on the people of this country a system of taxation which will force them to be economical, and, by the economy which they will be forced to practice, to supply the Government in the future with the funds which they will not be able to raise from outside, except on most onerous terms.
  Mr. MORRELL: I would like to support the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) and by Members in all parts of the House to the Government to call upon the taxpayers of the present time to bear a larger proportion of the cost of the War than they are now bearing. We have had everywhere lately a very welcome recognition of the need of increased economy, if we are to succeed in this War. We recognise that this is going to be very largely a struggle of finance between the groups of nations concerned,

  1401
  and success will depend upon our power to hold out the longest. For this purpose it is absolutely necessary that reckless and wasteful expenditure should be curtailed, and that everything possible should be done to conserve our resources. We have had speeches made by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary for the Colonies on the necessity for private economy and national thrift. Pamphlets are also being issued, I believe, and we are now going to have a thrift campaign. I am the last to deny the necessity for these speeches or for these pamphlets. No one can look round the country at the present time without seeing that amongst a large class of persons there is still practically undiminished expenditure upon luxuries and in the way of extravagant living. I do not deny that very large sacrifices have been made, and are being made, but we have to remember that we are living in a time when the incomes of many people are very inflated in consequence of the War and that, except amongst the professional classes, very large profits are being made. For that reason there is a good ground for the appeals that have been made by the Prime Minister and others to the nation to exercise thrift. The Prime Minister is in the fortunate position of a man who not only can give advice to the nation in this matter, but who can see that his advice is carried out by the simple method of taxing luxuries and by putting a larger amount of direct taxation upon the richer classes than they have hitherto borne. I think that unless steps of that kind are soon taken the country will find itself in a very serious financial position in regard to this War. I do not now wish to repeat all the arguments which have been used as to the proportion which has been borne by taxation and by loan. It is quite evident that we are now paying almost the entire cost of the War by loan and practically no portion by taxation, and that at a time when incomes are inflated in consequence of the vast expenditure upon arms we are taking no toll whatever from these great profits to pay for the War out of which these men are making such profits. I think that that is a very serious position, and I regret that during the whole of this Debate, although speeches have been made from all parts of the House, by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason), the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno), the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), and the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. G. Collins), and latterly
  1402
  by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and although all these powerful appeals have been made to the Government, neither the Prime Minister himself nor any Member speaking from the Treasury Bench, has made any reference whatever to this question. We have private appeals for thrift, but we have no indication that the Government are going to take this matter in hand, and are going to see that we conserve our resources in the best possible way by putting taxes on luxuries at the present time, and thus ensuring that we shall be in a better position to pay for the War.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): In reply to the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) I must confess that this Debate has come with some surprise to me, for I have always understood since this War began that the occasions on which Votes of Credit came before the House were as a rule utilised by the House for the purpose of considering the conduct of the War, reserving, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the question how the money ought to be raised, either by loan or by taxation, to some other Debate. The hon. Member for Greenock who made so forcible an appeal to the Government in the early part of the Debate, has made a similar appeal for the conviction which he holds, I think on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and has often told us on suitable occasions how necessary he thought it was that there should be an increase of taxation, and on each occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor have agreed that there is no difference whatever between the views of my hon. Friend and the views of the Government on this point. It was only a few weeks ago, in the Debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, that various suggested Amendments were postponed for consideration on the acknowledged ground that this financial year differs from all other financial years, so that it would be necessary to have a second Finance Bill this year; and that can only mean one thing: that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is coming down to the House of Commons for the very reason which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this afternoon, and for the very reason which the hon. Member for Greenock, and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) mentioned this afternoon—because the Government believe that the taxpayer

  1403
  ought to be called upon to pay a greater share of the cost of this War than he has been doing up to the present time.
  It is quite impossible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock has said, to allow the soldier to come home in 1917 and find that we are borrowing money to pay the interest on the money which we have borrowed. But, then, we are a long way from 1917 yet. We are a long way from the end of this financial year, the arrangements for which are subject to emendation, by reason of the fact that it would be necessary, in order to put the finances of this War on what all are agreed is a more satisfactory basis, to increase the amount of taxation. In 1914–15 the War taxation amounted to £18,990,000. In 1915–16 the estimate is £68,500,000. In 1916–17 the estimate on the present basis is £72,000,000. You ought to compare that, not with the ultimate cost of the whole War, but you ought to take it with the avowed intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase taxes in the proportion of the expenditure on the War which we have now already incurred. It does not follow, if I may say so with all respect, that any new and future loans will differ from the other loans, because we have taken the savings of the people for one and a half years already, because the loans which we have raised are largely to be spent in this country, and will be back in the pockets of the people by the time that we ask for the new Loan and will be available for the future assistance of the Government, one can hope, if the War is prolonged.
  Further it does not necessarily follow that by taxing the people of this country you promote thrift. It is quite true that if you take money out of their pockets by taxation they will have less to spend, but unless you first convince them of the necessity of saving, and unless you first convince them that they have a margin to save, every increase in the cost of living is followed by a demand for an increase in wages, and the consumption of luxuries goes on the same as before. The two things must go hand in hand. You must, when you have to tax, tax for war purposes the people who are in sympathy with you in your desire to reduce the cost. The burden does not press on all alike. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Burnley said, that there is a large number of people who are enjoying greater incomes now than they enjoyed in times of
  1404
  peace, and there are many other people who are enjoying less. When proposals for taxation come before the House I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will come with a larger demand on the people who are enjoying more, and will refrain as far as it is possible under any known system of taxation from increasing the burden of those who are already suffering serious privations from the War.
  Mr. HIGHAM: I desire to call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War to some complaints which have been made to me in reference to the subject of munitions. The most serious complaints are in connection with the fuses. If you take fuse, number 100 Mark I., which is used by the Ordnance Department for the 3.3 high-explosive shell and the 4.5 and 6-inch shell, the disadvantages of these fuses are so manifold that the makers of munitions have not hesitated to say that the use of that shell can only be due to a great mistake on the part of some person responsible for the making of it—I do not mean the makers of it, but on the part of those who are responsible for the adoption of that type. I do not ask for a reply to-day, but I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the difference between that fuse and the one which is used by the French Army. In the first place, the French fuse was invented between the year 1899 and 1908. They spent nine years on the invention. They perfected it in 1908. It has stood the test of seven years' manœuvres and of eleven months' warfare, and has never been changed the whole time. Our fuses are being changed at the present moment almost every week. The suggestion of the ammunition makers all over the country is that there should be a serious alteration in our type of fuse, which has not yet stood the test of a single month's actual warfare.
  A serious point in connection with the matter is this. I have here a French fuse —[exhibits fuse]—and the bronze part of it, which is the most important in the French fuse of the "soixante-quinze "guns, the efficiency of which no one contests for a single moment, contains only 4¼ ounces of bronze. The result is that when the shell is fired this little bronze fuse is dissipated into the smallest fragments which no one can pick up owing to the manner in which they are scattered about. The British fuse contains 32 solid ounces of brass, which lands in the enemies lines,

  1405
  and cannot burst in fragments, so that it can be picked up by the enemy, taken into his own foundries, and reconverted into the fuses which he requires. I have not seen the German fuses, but the munition firms tell me that they contain only 4½ ounces of bronze, so that if we fire from our cannons only 40,000 shells per day— and we are making efforts now to produce 100,000 as soon as we can—or if the Germans only pick up 40,000 fuses, they get enough brass to make 300,000 fuses per day of their own. There is nothing more serious before the War Office at the present moment than this particular fact.
  There is another disadvantage. If you manage to make 100,000 fuses per day, containing 2 lbs. of brass, instead of 4¼ ounces, you lay upon the transport of this country every day the necessity of carrying 100 extra tons of metal and shipping it across the Channel, putting it in motor wagons, and conveying it to the base, and transporting it from the base to the firing line. There is an enormous waste of money, effort and labour there. We are hearing appeals for thrift all round us, but French fuses are being made for 7s. 6d. each, while the British fuses are being made at 15s. each, and they are not a bit more efficient. I will not say that they are less efficient, but they are costing double the money. If you make up to 100,000 fuses a day, then you are wasting on the price of the fuses alone £40,000 per day of English money. That is over £250,000 per week. We are told that the French fuses would not fit the British shell. That is quite true, but the only alteration required is that the aperture in the nose of the shell shall be made rather less. It is not half so serious an alteration as the alterations that have been set down in this fuse during the last few days.
  There is an advantage in another respect, because the aperture in the nose of the British shell is so large that a plug has to be made to stop it up to prevent, I suppose, the dirt getting into the shell, and our gunners have carefully to screw the plug out and throw it away before they begin to insert the fuse into the shell. If two men are side by side with French and British made shells and fuses, the man who is handling the French shells can put fuses into three shells while the English gunner can only put a fuse into one shell. Now for the shell itself. Everyone who has seen one of these shells knows that there is a band of copper around it. The
  1406
  French band of copper is a plain, simple, straight band, which has only just the slope necessary to bring it down to the flatness of the shell. As to the British copper band, I cannot give a better illustration of its shape than to say that it is in the shape of an exaggerated note of interrogation. There are ever so many curves all the way down, and it takes the workmen six times as long to shape the copper band before it is put on the British shell as it takes to make the copper band for the French shell. If you take both fuse and shell, the whole thing is the fad of the expert and nothing else. If you consider the advantages and disadvantages there is no comparison as between the British and the French fuses.
  I said that we were changing our mind from week to week. During the last seven days a suggestion has been sent down to the munition makers, that instead of using two pounds of copper they were to use steel, and copper plate that steel. In making the British fuse there are eighty-seven separate gaugings required, and in every part it has to be fitted to the ten thousandth part of an inch, for if there is the least variation, then the whole fuse is of no use. Every man of business knows, and every expert knows, that you cannot take this fuse and use steel with a deposit of copper upon it. The solution is deposited unevenly, and this is not only a disadvantage, but fatal, having regard to the number of places in which it has to be deposited. It is utterly impossible to measure to the ten thousandth part of an inch when the steel is receiving the copper plating, though that is necessary if the plug has to be inserted properly. The consequence would be, I am afraid, that a large number of the fuses made according to this new method will be unfit for use, and I think the suggestion to which I have referred is the silliest that possibly could be made.
  To pass from the technical point to the ordinary business point of view in regard to business matters, I know a firm which has been supplying material to the War Office. They quoted gross weight, and intimated that if the empties were sent back they would allow for their value. The value of the empties came to £120 or £150 out of the whole value, but only about £5 worth of the empties have been returned. The amount of credit for the small returns was taken off the invoice, but the invoice was sent back with the explanation that gross weight was to be charged for. The

  1407
  firm replied that they had given credit for goods returned; they received no answer, and the money was paid to them in gross. In the case of another firm, they supplied from 80,000 to 100,000 cases of jam. They asked that The cases should be returned. The supplies were sold in this country. As to the jars, the pottery firms cannot get clay to make them, nor can they get labour. The maker of the wooden cases cannot get timber to make cases, and labour is scarce with everybody as well. The value of empty jars and cases was about £3,000, and the cases, which under the arrangement were to be returned, have not been sent back. The goods were delivered by the railway wagons, which returned empty week after week. These business methods are enough to sicken any business man in the country. I have attended meeting after meeting to speak about thrift, and when I mentioned thrift, where these matters were known, I was laughed at. They told me to go back to the House of Commons and tell the War Office that they were to use businesslike methods such as were adopted by every business house in the country. But I cannot get anything done. I have spoken privately, and I have spoken in this House, but I cannot get anything done. The empties which could be returned by the War Office in this country would amount to thousands of pounds per week.
  I pass on to another section of complaints. There is a firm in Lancashire who have large iron forge works, and who were commandeered by the War Office at the beginning of the War; they had asked scores of times at the War Office about obtaining war badges, and yet they had not got a single one up to the time I was spoken to, and their men are regularly leaving to enlist. Another firm in Lancashire, one of the eminent firms in the textile machinery trade, with over 10,000 men, were practically idle, so far as the War is concerned, for the first eight months. They have been so idle in connection with the War that a firm which gave them an order for £70,000 worth of machinery had that machinery delivered in five weeks. Hundreds of small firms make kitchen appliances, but this firm to which I refer have the finest machinery in the world, and they could make most of the goods that are wanted by the War Department, yet this big firm has been left aside all these months with orders for only canteen
  1408
  kitchens. Last Thursday week the War Office wanted 10,000 hand grenades to be shipped last Tuesday. They asked the same firm that their men should work night and day—from Thursday, over Friday, Saturday, and all day on Sunday—in order to produce the shells. They did work, and they did not complain, nor do I complain of that; what I complain of is the inconsistency of management which leaves a firm idle for months and then suddenly asks for continuous work upon an order. There is an engineering firm in Lancashire which can make cannon and other things, and the representative of that firm last week but one was at the War Office and Munition Office for three consecutive days to get business. They could make almost anything that is wanted by the War Department. All this makes Lancashire business men sick of the Government's methods. These are not minor details of which I am speaking. Some of them are of exceedingly great importance in their direct effect in dealing with the War. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would seriously take in hand some of these complaints. I do not believe for a minute that a Minister has any right to stand up for any incompetent servant, I do not care who that servant may be, I do not think a Minister ought to be allowed to shelter any man who makes blunders, or is incompetent for his work, though I must confess I have very little hope of any serious reform in the War Office. In my opinion it is necessary to take two or three of the principal offenders and hang them in front of that great building in Whitehall, and leave them hanging there as an example and a warning to all who serve in that Department.
  Sir HAROLD ELVERSTON: In regard to the complaints which my hon. Friend has just made I would add one other. Last week I was talking to a Lancashire engineer, who complained that he had returned to him from France about 1,000 of these plugs, which the hon. Member has described, merely because the handle of the top which the man uses in unscrewing the plug was a thousandth part of an inch away from the gauge. He is saying things about the War Office, and is using language compared with which that of my hon. Friend is very mild indeed. I wish to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary for War, and it is that he should issue instructions that the transfer of men from the Royal Army Medical Service Corps to the fighting line should cease. I have before

  1409
  me an appeal from members of the Society of Friends pointing out that the men who have joined the Army Medical Service Corps did so on the distinct understanding, or in the belief at any rate, that they would be employed, not in fighting, but in relieving the wounded in the field. It is a work which does all honour to these men. They have shown that they are prepared to face danger in warfare, and I think that the understanding on which they joined ought certainly to be kept. The members of the Society of Friends who have written to me on this point think that they are suffering from a distinct breach of faith on the part of the War Office. I certainly think that if it is necessary to transfer these men from the Service into which they entered, it ought not to be into the fighting line, but into the Army Service Corps. I have been engaged in recruiting, and time and time again I have heard complaints as to breaches of faith by the War Office, and I can assure the Government that it has really a very serious effect on recruiting. If the War Office officials were more in touch with the sentiments of the people in various parts of the country, I am quite sure that, in matters of this kind, and also in matters dealing with such things as bounties, National Reserve men, and allowances to dependants upon soldiers, they would act in a very different way from the way in which they are acting at the present time.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I desire to congratulate my hon. Friend (Mr. Higham) upon his excellent speech. We are getting on in the criticism which is being slowly directed against the administration of the War Office, and it will before long be known to the public what is the position of Members of this House who, up to the present, have given the Government a free hand, but whose criticisms directed against them are resented. I am sent to this House by numbers of men who are shortly leaving for the front. These men are going out to fight without the War Office equipping them with machine guns, but if the Government had had any business organisation behind them they would have been able to send these men out thoroughly and properly equipped, to meet the enemy who is equipped in every detail.
  My first complaint against the War Office is that on the 30th of December last an offer was made to supply a minimum of 20,000 machine guns of the Colt pattern, the first
  1410
  delivery to commence within six weeks. That offer was pigeonholed by the War Office, and in reply to a question which I asked to-day I was informed by the Financial Secretary that General French was not even acquainted with the offer. The attitude of the War Office was that they were not going to take any type of gun except the gun that they considered to be their standard—that is, the Maxim. It is not in the interests of the nation that I should disclose how many machine guns we are at present having made in this country, but I am entitled to say this, that our actual wasteage of guns at present is larger than the number of machine guns we are making to-day. That being the case I asked, Why did you refuse to use this gun when you knew last October that the War had developed into a machine-gun war, and why did you reject the gun which is the standard weapon of the United States Government and of the Canadian Government and of other Governments? The War Office may think that all the ability and all the brains rest in Whitehall, but they might, at all events, give the Americans some credit that when they equip their Army and Navy they give them a gun which is capable of doing effective work It is perfectly outrageous that the Government should say when this offer was made that this gun was not suitable. I do not say that this gun is as good as the Maxim gun, but there is not a single officer at the front, including General French if he were asked, who would not have welcomed this gun, but nobody would consult them. We had to have thousands of men to hold the first-line trenches, whereas the German trenches have been held by a few men with machine guns.
  What is the reason why these guns were not ordered? The Treasury have not placed any difficulties whatever in the way. The Minister of Munitions has placed no difficulty in the way of the War Office having all the money they wanted for the conduct of the War. What did they do? They simply turned the offer down. When I asked them in this House they did not even know that they had had the offer. It always takes about half a dozen questions to elucidate anything in connection with the War Office, since they always endeavour to evade the main issue, but I think the country ought to know who is responsible for refusing to order a gun which would, if the Army had it to-day, be invaluable. [An HON. MEMBER "Who is the head of the War Office?'] I have

  1411
  never thought it right in this House to attack General von Donop. I have always gone to the head of the War Office, Lord Kitchener. I do not believe in going to subordinates, and in Parliament we have a Minister responsible and not subordinates. My hon. Friend the Eye-Witness with the Canadian Corps, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir Max Aitken) is a well-known, distinguished Canadian officer, and what do the Canadians say about this gun that was turned down by the War Office? The Canadian Contingent brought this gun over, and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne tells me that this Colt gun held up several German assaults, and had given entire satisfaction, and yet our men are left to fill the first line of trenches in thousands when they could have held those lines with a tenth of the men if they had been supplied with these machine guns. Then we are told we are not to criticise the War Office. Who is responsible, I ask? Someone must be responsible. I do not know whether it was brought before the attention of Lord Kitchener or not.
  To-day the Prime Minister tells us that he is the servant of the House of Commons, but really people sitting on these benches may regard such a statement as a pure farce. In point of fact, the Executive at the present time gags the Press and gags the House of Commons. The House of Commons is servile just as much as the Press is servile, with the exception of one single group who have the courage and honesty to deal with these scandals which have arisen. Let us see where all this leads to. The Prime Minister says he is the servant of the House of Commons, and yet although we have men who are responsible for this shortage of munitions, for the shortage of guns, and the shortage of machine guns, not a single change has been made and the same men who made those errors are still in the War Office to-day and have not been removed. What has been the object of my Friends and myself who have moved in this matter. We have had no object to serve except to see that the War was conducted efficiently and to turn out all those men who have failed in their duty.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: We do not get credit for it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not care whether I get any credit for it or not. I am doing my duty, and I am going to con-
  1412
  tinue to do so to the best of my ability. The Prime Minister goes down to Newcastle and he makes a speech, and he tells the people that the movements of our Armies and of our Allies have not been hampered for want of ammunition and want of munitions, and when he comes back here he will not tell us who gave him this information. We all know he said it believing that what he said was absolutely true.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He said it again in the House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It was amazing the indignation there was from everyone in the front who knew the truth. The War Office, apparently, did not know whether Hill 60 was taken or not, although everybody in the House knew, so that what I am saying is not surprising when they do not even know what is actually going on at the front. I put down a question today with regard to the spoon-feeding of Canadians. The Canadians are spoon-fed with lies. Let me tell the House what happened. A representative of the "Canadian Gazette" had an interview with an officer who had returned from the front. That officer stated at that interview that he was very disheartened when our reply of shells was one shell to twenty shells of the Germans. He then went on to say that the men were as happy as could be when they had a good backing of artillery. Will the House believe that the Censor struck out the first part of the sentence, that the enemy had been firing twenty shells to our one, and left in the latter part that the men was as happy as could be when they had the backing of good artillery. That is the kind of spoon feeding on lies we have had in this country. It is said, if you are going to ask questions which have been censored in the Press, it is an abuse of the position as Member of Parliament. I am not going to accept any marching orders from a clerk in a Censor's office. I have my duty to perform. What did the Government tell us? They said that the Press would hot be criticised or assailed in any way by the Government so long as they kept to actual criticism of Ministers, and if information was not given to the enemy. What is there in that statement made to this representative by this Canadian officer that the Germans were firing twenty shells to our one. The Germans knew perfectly well they were firing twenty shells, though the officer did not speak the truth, because many Canadians tell me that the proportion was not

  1413
  twenty to one but rather more than thirty or forty to one, and that at a time when the Prime Minister tells us our operations were not impeded for "want of munition.
  Let me come to another case of an interview that was entirely struck out. The manager of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Mr. Butler, had an interview with the London representative of the "Canadian Gazette, "and in that interview he said he had made repeated offers of shells to the War Office. He said they were prepared, I will not say in what period of time, to deliver 5,000,000 shells for the use of the Army, and that was in January last. He also said that Canada could multiply her output of munitions four or five times if the Government had ordered, but they had not placed the orders. He said he had seen General von Donop and that he said munitions were not required. I could give any number of cases where people had seen General von Donop, who had refused to place orders for shells and said we had enough. Mr. Butler in this interview said it "was grossly unfair for the Government to send the hon. Member for Black friars (Mr. Barnes) and other people to Canada to take skilled workmen away out of the Canadian factories which were working short time, and that if the Government would only place orders with Canada the Canadian manufacturers would see that the Government got the munitions. All that was censored. That is a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government, because there is not one single part of that interview which any Minister could get up and say would be harmful if the enemy knew, because the same statements had been made by an hon. Member on the other side of the House nearly two months ago. Notwithstanding that, the Canadian people are to have their skilled men taken away from Canada and are not allowed even to complain or send a message through the Press of an interview with the manager of one of our great industrial firms. So much for shells. I could go on multiplying cases, because it is perfectly well known that the War Office have refused to accept offers, and we have now to rely on a man who will carry on the business in a very different way from that in which it has been carried on in the past.
  I will now come to the next point in what I call the deliberate misrepresentation of the War Office. When I first came to this House I asked a question about a
  1414
  series of confidential telegrams during the War, and a Minister got up and gave me an answer which was a deliberate lie. That is fourteen or fifteen years ago. An Under-Secretary came to me and said, "Do you know anything about these telegrams?" I replied, "I happen to have copies of them in my pocket. "I afterwards put another question, and the truth at last came out. These people who answer Parliamentary questions take a kind of fiendish delight in saying that they have successfully evaded questions in Parliament. My right hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for War is becoming an adept in the same art of evading the main issue by some humorous remark which takes the House away from the question to which an answer is desired. There is nothing more difficult than to get out the truth in answer to a question. Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, says that a Member must have only three or four shots, and as a rule we do not get those. A Minister is generally able to evade the question. I will give a case in point. In the early part of April I wanted to know whether we were paying a royalty to Krupps on fuses. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) asked a similar question, and the answer was that the War Office were making inquiries. I then gave notice of the following simple and plain question:
  "To ask the Under-Secretary for War if lie will say the amount of patent royalty paid by Hip Majesty s Government on each fuse manufactured in this country since the present War; whether on all orders given to manufacturers, a royalty is reserved; and to whom is this money payable?"
  The answer was:—
  "Mr. Baker: Krupp's British patent, to winch I assume that the hon. Member refers, expired in July last, and no royalties are payable as from that date. I understand, however, that private arrangements existed between the patentees and two firms in this country, under which payments might continue. Inquiry is being made into the terms and legal effect of these arrangements under present conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1915, col. 1285, Vol. LXXL]
  That did not carry us much farther. I put down another question:—
  "To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing Krupp's patent for fuses expired last July, he will say who are the two firms in this country who entered into private arrangement with Krupp's to continue the payments; whether His Majesty's Government have paid these two firms and other firms a price for fuses which includes a royalty of 9d. per fuse and in some cases 1s. per fuse: whether this represents a charge of £5,000 per day; and will he say why should His Majesty's Government pay loyalty on a patent which has expired?"
  When I framed that question I thought I had covered every point and that the War Office could not wriggle out of it. However, you cannot make sure that a Minister

  1415
  will answer every point in a question.
  Let us see what the answer was:—
  "Mr. Baker: Royalty, as such, is not being paid by Hi3 Majesty's Government. The firms in question
  I will not say who they are, but I know who they are, and so do many other Members. Why should not the House know the firms who entered into this arrangement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] I will come to that a little later.
  "The firms in question, before the War, made commercial agreements with the patentees by which, in return for the disclosure of certain trade secrets relating to these fuses, the payments were to be continued after expiry of the patent. These arrangements, no doubt, affect the prices charged, but, as I have already stated, the legal position under present conditions is now the subject of inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1915, col. 1818, Vol. LXXI.]
  A fortnight ago another question was put down, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office—who was new to the Department—got up and said that he knew nothing about the business at all; he did not know even that the patent had expired. What happened was this: On all orders given out by the Government they have allowed a royalty of from 9d. to 1s. to be paid in respect of this Krupp patent. The patent expired last year. Why have the Government since that date allowed to the manufacturers, as stated in the order, a certain amount of money in respect to that patent which was to be paid into a special fund? I know what the answer will be: That instead of that money being paid to Krupp's we are going to take it and hold it against future liabilities when the War is ended. What is the good of taking your own money out of your own pocket and keeping it as a reserve to meet an unknown contingency at the end of the War? If this patent has expired—as it has —what right have the armament firms who entered into a bargain with Krupp's to continue to have the royalty paid? It is not honest. Where is the consideration? The Government are paying armament firms for a patent for which at any time the Government need not have paid them if they did not think fit to do so, and in this case the patent has expired, but the royalty is still being charged. That is not business.
  As to what my hon. Friend said about these people at the War Office being hanged, I am thoroughly in agreement with him. I should like to take a hand in getting rid of these incompetent people. But here we are at the present time against such conditions that we must wait. Not
  1416
  that I approve of the policy of "waiting and seeing "which the Government have pursued with such masterly inactivity for the last two or three years. When the truth as to how the War Office is being conducted is known, if the House of Commons does not move, the country will. It is all very well for the War Office to get up and say, "We have got a great organisation which has grown from a few hundred thousand to three millions of men, and you do not make allowance for that "We make all allowance for it, but what we ask the Government to do, and what we want them to do, is to do what Germany did at the outbreak of war. Instead of getting all the dug-outs and half-pay officers, who would never have earned £100 a year in business—it is not their fault; they have not been brought up as business men—they should have done what the Germans did. At the beginning of the War Germany called together all the heads of the great industries, and gave them control, the management, and the running of the commercial side of the War Office. Our War Office did not do this. Here everything is settled by Lord Kitchener in the War Office. There has been no decentralisation.
  The Army Clothing Department is the only one that has worked well, and that Department in point of fact has been managed by a committee of business men, over whom my hon. Friend presides. They have not been hampered by the War Office. The committee is one composed of business men, people who are in the trade, and who knew what they were about. In this case the Government selected men of honour and integrity, men in whom they could trust, and these men have run the clothing department in the War Office in a businesslike way. In consequence we have not only got sufficient clothing for the troops, but more. Take every other Department which has been centralised in Whitehall. What do you get? I have lived for a good many years within two or three miles of a military camp, and one gets to know men connected with the camp. I get regular letters from the front, and I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has now given Members of Parliament the privilege that their letters from the front are not to be opened. Therefore officers know now that they can write to any Member of this House without the fear of getting their communications opened. That is a very valuable privilege. Let the War Office remember

  1417
  this: That men are coming back from the front on leave and mean to let the country know the truth. The War Office have stifled and gagged the Press, but the people who are coming back from the front, that is the men who come back on leave, have arranged between themselves to let the country know what the real truth is.
  With regard to the Press Censorship, I am not going to deal with the Canadian case in which an answer was given in the House to-day. The right hon. Gentleman asks me: "Are you going on all night?" If necessary I will go on all night, and next week and the week after. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the matter is not of sufficient importance, while the Government of which he is a Member brings in a Bill last night to deal with the question of grouse shooting in Scotland? They take up the time of the House with a Bill of that description, and we are not to discuss a question of vital importance! We must devote time to discussion on grouse shooting, which appears at all events to be of some importance to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, whilst apparently we have not to deal with the question which is after all vital to the interests of the nation! The right hon. Gentleman may think that the centre of intelligence rests at the War Office. He thinks so; we think otherwise I We are sent here by great industrial constituencies, and we are not going to be kicked by the Government. We are going to take every possible occasion we can in a humble way of letting the country know what is the state of affairs, owing to this gross incompetence on the part of the War Office, who are responsible, for example, in sending out my Constituents, who are leaving next week or the week after for the front, not armed with machine guns on account of the gross incompetence of the War Office in refusing orders for guns which, at all events, in the opinion of Canadian officers at the front, have saved them, and would save many other lives of those who are now going out from among my own Constituents. The right hon. Gentleman asks: "Am I going on all night?" Yes, Sir, I shall go on just as long as I like I am not going to be brow-beaten by any man sitting on that Front Bench, and least of all by anyone associated with the War Office.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to call attention to one or two matters to which I have directed the attention of the War
  1418
  Office on a previous occasion. I would like to thank the Under-Secretary for War, who, so far as he is personally concerned, has always attended with very great care to the matters that I have had to address to him. Any remarks I am about to make do not affect his Department, but as I understand it, more particularly that Department in charge of the Financial Secretary. My complaint is this: I have received a great many complaints that the War Office does not supply in some convenient centre in Scotland samples of the things which they require. I have a letter here from a firm in Edinburgh, of which I am sorry to say I did not keep the address. I called at the War Office with this letter, which said that the firm had been asked to send prices for certain things to the War Office by 26th February. They were told that they would have to refer to Woolwich, where they would get their specifications. The firm immediately wrote to Woolwich and asked them to supply the specifications for this particular article. I am sorry to say that the reply did not come until 25th February, which was one day before the estimate had to be in the War Office. As the things which they required necessitated this firm, after the specifications were supplied, getting into touch with other firms, what may be called sub-firms, the original firm could not send in their estimate by 26th February.
  They wrote to me and asked me to see the War Office and get them to send out, with their applications for prices, specifications for the articles required. I called at the War Office. In my innocency I left the original letter there, and they promised to go into it. I have received no reply. I cannot get any information. I should like to give another case which was also sent to me from Edinburgh. On April 29th, a firm wrote to me to this effect:—
  "We are conducting a business which makes all kinds of canvas goods. We are on the Government list under this name. The only method by which we can see the samples of goods required is by going to Woolwich. We have already sent to Woolwich to inspect samples, so as to be able to tender. Firms from which we receive other variously priced articles make it necessary that in each case we journey to Woolwich. That is almost an impossible thing to do. At Glasgow Chamber of Commerce a few samples are shown, but every time we have gone to inspect a particular sample it was not amongst those. If samples were left on view at Glasgow, or similar places, it would help the matter. We would ask yon to look into this, and see what can be done, as we can be quite useful at the present time in certain kinds of Government work, but we find it almost impossible to arrange under existing conditions. We shall be glad if you will give the matter your attention."

  1419
  I sent that letter to the War Office, and a little later I called at the War Office. Indeed, I have sent two or three letters to the War Office with a view to get some information, and I am sorry to say I have been unable to do so. In case the letter was lost I wrote to the firm and asked it to send me a copy, and that I sent to the War Office. I have a letter in reply, saying:—
  "Mr. H. W. Foster has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 12th July, bringing to his notice suggestions by Messrs. Thomas Rankine and Son, for a centre in Scotland, where samples can be inspected by firms tendering for the War Office, and to say that the matter will receive his attention."
  Is it fair after three months to send me a letter saying that the matter will receive attention? I thoroughly support the observations which have fallen from my hon. Friend. There is great dissatisfaction in the country on the part of business people because they are not allowed to render service to the country which they think they can render. It is a very simple matter. I raised this question in the early days of the War. I suggested that these samples should be supplied to some centre in Scotland. It is still under consideration. I repeat, it is not fair. Edinburgh and Glasgow and other towns in Scotland are a long way from Woolwich, and samples of the articles required should be placed in convenient centres of Scotland, so that the people of Scotland should have an opportunity of tendering in a proper manner. The hon. Member for Mansfield referred to the satisfactory way in which the tailoring was carried on. I am bound to say that something is to be desired in this matter in Edinburgh in respect of some of the battalions. At the time battalions were waiting for their clothing, 55 per cent, of the tailors and tailoresses of the city were on short time. We were unable to get tenders, while tenders were sent to America. That was not fair; that was not business.
  We had a good deal of criticism from the Opposition Benches, more particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who said these things should be carried on in a businesslike manner and that there should be a business man associated with the Government. I do not see much alteration since the Coalition Government was formed in the matter of business arrangements. What the Government should have done at the outset of the War was to divide the Board of Trade, the Office of Works, the Admiralty, and the War Office into different sections, and to
  1420
  have asked Members of the House who knew particular trades—those, for instance, who understood the wood trade— to form a sort of Committee of this House to help and advise. The same thing precisely applies to shipping. There is far too much resting on the President of the Board of Trade. I question whether there is a man in the Government who has worked harder than he has, but no man can do the work resting on his shoulders and if that big Department had been divided into different sections, and Members who knew something about particular trades had been asked to advise the Government on those points and render them assistance, I believe that in these different Departments there would have been a different state of things. What to me is so sad is that when men are willing to render any service they can to their country, business methods, and the help which business people could have rendered to the Government, have been so completely despised.
  I regret having to speak in this way, because I recognise to the full that the Under-Secretary of State for War has done his best. It is only fair to say this is not directed against him personally, because he and his Secretary have shown the greatest courtesy. They have worked exceedingly hard. What we do complain is that the War Office as a whole on the business side has been deplorably deficient. I sincerely trust that we shall have placed in some convenient centre of Scotland samples of articles required by the War Office, and that the Department in asking for tenders should at the same time accompany their letter with specifications of the articles they require, and not wait for a fortnight, or three weeks, when it is too late to send tenders in. It is a matter of considerable concern to Scotland. I have purposely avoided asking questions in the House because I think the War Office should be free to attend to its business; but one gets tired of waiting for months, and I trust that, as a result of this Debate, we shall have better methods of business carried out in the War Office.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: It is extremely depressing, I think, for an ordinary Member of this House, and I believe it is very depressing to people in the country to hear of these indictments against the War Office, such as those made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Higham) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), and no sort of

  1421
  answer is really given to them. Those indictments made in the House are only what every Member of this House is hearing every day. We are hearing of the gross incompetence of the War Office—that the War Office is a sort of corporation; that the War Office has got no soul. It is inexplicable to me that the head of the War Office, the Secretary of State for War, does not give some sort of answer to all these indictments made against the War Office. We have nothing to complain about the Under-Secretary, and I do not want to make any charge against any of the officials like Von Donop, or any of the other people whom some persons blame, because if anyone ought to give an explanation about this matter, or anyone is to blame, it is the head of the War Office. I do not wish to make any charge against Lord Kitchener, but Lord Kitchener is the Secretary of State for War, and Lord Kitchener is the man who ought to defend the War Office and say whether these charges are true or whether they are not true.
  Thousands of our troops we are told have died for want of ammunition and machine guns. Something has been said about hanging someone. I do not want particularly to hang anybody, but what I want to be assured is that these men who have proved themselves so grossly incompetent shall not continue to have a chance of being as incompetent in the future as they have been in the past. What guarantee have we in this House—what guarantee has the country—that the same mistakes, the same gross incompetence will not be exercised in the future as in the past? We have no guarantee. The same men are there. It is true we have got a Coalition Government. If rumours are true, the Coalition Government was formed to save someone who ought to have been brought to book by the late Government. The country is getting very uneasy and very depressed. We are always hearing these things, and are getting depressed about them. We want to know whether we are really going to win this War. We hear that the reason we cannot win is the gross incompetence of the War Office in not having provided our soldiers with ammunition. All these things were known. The shortage of machine guns was known last September. I remember seeing in the paper myself that we were very badly provided with machine guns in comparison with Germany. Ten months had gone by and we were still short of machine guns; and then we hear from the hon. Member
  1422
  for Mansfield—and it is not contradicted— that thousands of a good machine gun were offered to our Army. If these offers had been accepted, thousands of lives would have been saved, and yet if any hon. Member criticises the Coalition Government he is supposed to be unpatriotic. I do feel very strongly that those men who are responsible for this state of things ought not to have the chance of doing the same thing again. I think it is really about time somebody spoke up. The hon. Member for Sowerby made a very eloquent speech. He said firms in Lancashire, who were pining for orders and were slack, could have made the same things six months ago that they are making to-day.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: And machine guns.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: They could even make machine guns, and they went to the War Office, who said: "Oh, yes, when we want you we will send to you"; and only when things come to a crisis are they employed at all. These things ought not to have been, and those who allowed them ought not to be in a position to do so again. Lord Curzon said in the House of Lords, the other day, that we are in grave peril, and if that is so, it is quite time something different was done at the War Office. Lord Kitchener is the head of the War Office, and he is responsible for all these things, and unless he can give some proper explanation why all these things have happened, and who is to blame, I, myself, shall blame Lord Kitchener, and very soon the country will want to know why the head of the War Office is not brought to account the same as any ordinary Minister would be. If Lord Kitchener has failed, he has failed, and if he has failed he ought to go.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916, for general Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all

  1423
  measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Mr. KING: I take this opportunity of calling attention to the note attached to this Vote of Credit. We were told in the course of the Debate on the last Vote of Credit that the note was equally authoritative with the terms of the Vote itself. As I protested on that occasion, I am very glad that the Prime Minister now recognises that the Vote itself is the authoritative and operative part, and that the note is nothing more than an explanation. Personally, I should like to say how pleased I am that the Prime Minister has in this way asserted again the rights of Parliament as against mere official explanations. At the same time I should like to express my gratitude for the testimony which the Prime Minister gave, and which, indeed, has been taken up in all parts of the House in the course of the Debate this afternoon, that the House of Commons has its rights, its duties, and its privileges at the present time. In view of the demands that have been made from all sorts of quarters that the House of Commons ought to cease to sit and criticise, or say or do anything at all, except to register the ipse dirits and approve all the mistakes of Ministers. Personally I feel extremely gratified to the Prime Minister for again asserting the rights and duties of the House of Commons.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday).

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, the sum of £183,752,254 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."— [Mr. Montagu.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment, read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."
Resolution agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Grants for Public Works.)
  (1) For the purpose of local loans, there may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners the following sums, namely:—

  (a) For the purpose of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of four million pounds:

  (b) For the purpose of loans by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of four hundred thousand pounds.

  (2) The sums so issued shall be issued during a period ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purposes of those loans comes into operation, and in accordance with the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887.
  Sir. F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "four, "and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
  I am not sure that that is the right amount to insert, but at any rate that point can be determined when we are deciding whether "four" shall stand part. This Clause provides that the National Debt Commissioners may issue "For the purpose of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of four million pounds." This is not the proper time to give power to the National Debt

  1425
  Commissioners to issue to local authorities such a large sum as £4,000,000. The Treasury have appointed a Committee to supervise new issues, and one of the references to that Committee is that they shall issue no money as advances to anyone except that which is necessary for the purpose of carrying on the War, or public health. Now the Treasury are asking for power to lend £4,000,000 to local authorities from now until next year. I have looked back for five years, and I have found that the sums mentioned in the Public Works Loans Bill have varied between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. It seems to me that the lower sum of £4,000,000 is not in any way an adequate reduction in view of the circumstances of the moment. There can be no doubt that the most extravagantly minded people at the present time are the public authorities. They do not seem to know that any war exists, and they are desirous of spending money on electric light undertakings, wash-houses, and all sorts of extraordinary things, just the same as in the past. There is one thing which is likely to tend to prevent them, and that is the dearness of money. When the State has to borrow at 4½per cent., it is perfectly evident that local authorities will have to pay considerably more for their money.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to us in the city and tells us that we ought to be economical. The Prime Minister at the Guildhall also tells us that we ought to be economical. Gentlemen below the Gangway say, "You ought to put down your motor cars and not have any chauffeurs. "Yet, at the very moment when all this is going on the Treasury come and propose that £4,000,000 shall be lent to the local authorities. First of all, it is evident that the Treasury have got to get that £4,000,000, and they can only get it by issuing local loans, which will be in competition to the War Loan. That is an evident fact which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is conversant with these things, will not deny. Therefore, I am not at all sure that I ought not to insist that nothing is put in at all, and that no money whatever during the continuance of the War should be lent to the local authorities. If they want money, let them go into the market and get it at the ordinary rate. Do not let them come and ask the House of Commons to pledge the credit of the nation for this money. In any event, the sum of £4,000,000 is absolutely absurd when it is compared with the sum
  1426
  lent to local authorities in ordinary times. If we can get the word "four" left out, we can then determine what we shall put in.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think it was obvious from the hon. Baronet's speech that this is not a proposal that the local authorities should spend £4,000,000. All it is is that the National Debt Commissioners may, not shall, issue a maximum of £4,000,000 to finance the loans which are approved by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. That is all. It is permissive, and the raising of the money depends upon the activities of a perfectly independent body, the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who are very rarely discussed in this House, but about "whom I should like to take this opportunity of saying that they do their work voluntarily, without pay, at infinite cost to themselves of labour and of time. They are all, as the House will see by the list, well known and busy men, and they are in accord as closely as the hon. Baronet would wish with the Treasury and with the public opinion of the country at the moment in trying to save money and to economise. They are not likely to grant loans out of this £4,000,000 save in particular cases where the demand appears to them to be absolutely irresistible. Last year new loans granted between 1st April and 9th July were £1,380,743.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is July, 1914?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes. The corresponding figure for this year, instead of being £1,380,743, is £189,503. I give that figure as an example of the fact that the Public Works Loans Commissioners have the very same objects and ends in view as animate the hon. Baronet in moving this reduction. As to the reduction itself, I do not think the hon. Baronet, if he will forgive me saying so, will be doing any good service by striking out the Clause altogether, because if he made the local authorities go upon the market for their loan they would pay a higher rate of interest. It would not do the money market any good, and it would not do public economy any good. But we do not want to keep a higher figure than is necessary. The commitments at the present time are about £2,255,000. If no new policy which leads to the issue of local loans is adopted by this House, after consultation with the Public Works Loans Commissioners, I think it would be safe to put in the figure of £3,000,000. If that

  1427
  has to be exceeded later on, then it will be necessary to introduce another Bill, and the hon. Baronet will be able to exercise his judgment as to its merits, but for the moment if he would withdraw his Motion to leave out £4,000,000 and substitute £2,000,000 I should be quite prepared to let him move, or to move myself, to leave out £4,000,000 and to insert £3,000,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think we had better leave out the £4,000,000 first, and then, when we have left that out, we can decide what we shall put in. I may possibly accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think it would be a mistake this year to take out £4,000,000, because no local authority now is really undertaking any new work.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with you.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think if you would read and watch the proceedings of the local authorities—
  Sir F BANBURY: I am a member of the Treasury Committee, and therefore I know what the local authorities are doing.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The hon. Baronet is mistaken in the sense that they are not undertaking any new work. They are economising the same as the House of Commons is economising upon its civil expenditure, but local authorities have undertaken under their private Bills to construct certain work They are now making very gigantic water-works, perhaps sewerage works, and other public works which they have undertaken to do under private Bills many years before the War commenced. If we were to stop them borrowing, it would be a very serious matter for them. Moreover, if you were to prevent the local authorities from borrowing during the construction of the works many of them perhaps would be in a very serious position. They cannot go now, as they did in former years, and borrow upon their own security; they cannot go into the open market; they are bound to come to the Public Works Loan Commissioners this year, and I hope my right hon. Friend w ill not even take out the £4,000,000 and insert £3,000,000, though if he says that later on he might amend it by increasing the amount, then there would be no serious injury, but I am afraid, if
  1428
  we were this year to curtail and restrict local authorities who are executing these big works we should do them very serious injury. I can assure the hon. Baronet that if he will watch the proceedings of the local authorities he will see that they are now all restricted. It is, in fact, proved this year by the number of Bills presented. I am sitting upstairs on the Local Legislation Committee, and there are very few Bills coming before Parliament. Next year I think there will be fewer still. They are economising in the same way as we are attempting to economise in this House.
  Sir J. D. REES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be led away by the hon. Member who last spoke, but will adhere to his excellent intention. It only needs to be an ordinary member of the public to realise that local bodies are still engaged in extravagances of all kinds. They are putting up buildings that are not required, they are making excellent roads perfect, and they are otherwise spending money of which at the present moment every penny is wanted for the War. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech rather overlooked one thing. He said that if public bodies were deprived of this means of getting money they would upset the market, as they would have to pay higher rates. I only wish that they would find it necessary to pay so much that it would make it impossible for them to go on with many of their projects. Some step is necessary to make local bodies exercise greater restraint and adopt a policy of economy.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: We have just listened to a speech made by an hon. Gentleman who knows nothing whatever about what is happening. I have long been associated with municipal corporations, and I know what they are doing. I say the speech just delivered entirely misrepresents them.
  Mr. KING: I must dissociate myself entirely from the views of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). My experience is that the local authorities are exercising the greatest possible amount of restraint and economy, and even parsimony, for they are neglecting necessary work in order to save money at the present time. There are many cases where new expenditure is absolutely necessary. I live in a parish of which the normal population is 4,000. We have

  1429
  water supplied by the local authority. At the present moment the population exceeds 30,000, because we have a camp with j over 28,000 soldiers in the parish, and, in consequence, we need an immediate expenditure of £2,000 in order to supply the camp with water; yet the hon. Member for East Nottingham will not allow us the necessary money to give our soldiers decent water to drink and decent water to wash in. There has been the greatest possible difficulty in the matter. I have myself tried to assist in getting a loan of £2,000, in order to carry water to this
  Question, "That the word 'two' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Word "three" there inserted.—[Sir F. Banbury.]

  CLAUSE 5.—(Powers of Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland with Respect to Sale of Holdings Subject to Annuities.)
  (1) The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, as regards any holding which is subject to a charge in respect of an annuity in their favour created in pursuance of the enactments mentioned in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act, may exercise the same powers of, or in relation to, sale as are exercisable by the Land Commission under the enactments mentioned in Part II of that Schedule;
  camp, and yet the hon. Member would j prevent our soldiers having the benefit of that water supply. On behalf of absolutely necessary schemes, I protest against the powers of the Public Works Loan Commissioner being curtailed, and I trust that due consideration will be given to this point of view by the Financial Secretary for the Treasury.
  Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 56.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES.

  [9.11 p.m.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clough, William

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Middlebrook, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  King and Mr. Hogge

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Keating, Matthew

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Brace, Wiliam

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sutton, John E.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  O'Grady, James

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Gulland, John William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Younger, Sir George

  Hancock, John George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  James Hope and Mr. Walter Rea.

  Hinds, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  and those enactments, shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply accordingly.
  (2) For the purpose of giving effect to this Section, rules may be made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in the same manner as rules may be made by the Land Commission under Section fifty of the Land Law (Ireland), 1881, and any enactments amending that Section.
  (3) Where the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have exercised any of their powers under this Section, a certificate under their common seal as to any one or more of the following matters, that is to say, as to the amount of the original advance, the amounts apportioned, the portions of land charged respectively therewith or discharged, and the amount due in respect of the charge, shall be conclusive evidence of the matters therein certified.
  Mr. MONTAGU: This is a Clause which on its merits might be introduced. I had hoped it would be uncontroversial, but it changes the law, and representations from those concerned have reached me protesting against this novelty, and I therefore beg to withdraw it from this year's Bill.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.—LOANS BY THE PUBLIC WORKS LOANS COMMISSIONERS.
    Loan under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, 1861 (24 and 25 Vict., c. 47).

    Name of Borrower.

    Amount of Loan.

    Amount to be written off.

    Eyemouth Harbour Trustees

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    10,000

    0

    0

    200

    0

    0

    PART II.—LOANS BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS, IRELAND.
    (1) Loan under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1847 (10 Vict., c. 32).

    Name of Borrower.

    Amount of Loan.

    Amount to be written off.

    £

    s.

    a.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Patrick Taaffe

    250

    0

    0

    37

    16

    11

    60

    0

    0

    9

    10

    2

    100

    0

    0

    15

    17

    0

    Leslie Wren

    100

    0

    0

    80

    11

    10

    Daniel Dalton

    200

    0

    0

    53

    4

    0

    (2) Loans under the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., c. 46).

    Name of Borrower.

    Amount of Loan.

    Amount to be written off.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Michael Counihan

    1,000

    0

    0

    546

    11

    5

    (3) Loans under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (44 and 45 Vict., c. 48, s. 31).

    Name of Borrower.

    Amount of Loan.

    Amount to be written off.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Patrick McGoey

    …

    40

    0

    0

    6

    9

    4

    William Tollan

    …

    500

    0

    0

    264

    1

    10

    Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Can we have some reason given why these debts should be written off as bad? They seem to be a very considerable percentage in some cases.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The small loans to individuals that have been written off are not written off as irrecoverable, but are transferred from the assets of the Public Works Loan Fund to the Exchequer. If ever they are recovered they will be an asset to us. Full details of them are to be found in the White Paper already circulated to the House, with the reasons therefor. It was printed on the 15th July. This is absolutely in common form.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a word as to the corporation?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman refer to the Eyemouth Harbour trustees?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Yes.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find in Clause 4 a long preamble, which deals with surplus herring brand fees. It is simply the repayment of a loan which is dependent upon the herring brand fees, an ancient charge on the herring industry, which has fallen off considerably this year owing to the War. That is the reason for its inclusion.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.

    PART I.
    The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 46).
    The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 (35 and 36 Vict. c. 32).
    The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (44 and 45 Vict. c. 49), s. 31.

    PART II
    The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (44 and 45 Vict. c. 49), s. 30 (Conditions annexed to holdings whilst subject to advances).
    The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885 (48 and 49 Vict. c. 73), s. 15 (Power to sell subject to annuity).
    The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (50 and 51 Vict. c. 33), s. 18 (Charging Order for securing repayment of advance).
    The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (50 and 51 Vict. c. 33), s. 21 (Writ of possession).
    The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896 (59 and 60 Vict. c. 47), s. 38 (Sale of Holding by Land Commission).
    The Irish Land Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7 c. 37), s. 65 (Power to Land Commission to obtain possession of holding).
    The Irish Land Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7 c. 37), s. 67 (Amendment of 59 and 60 Vict. c. 47, s. 38 (3) with respect to apportionment of annuity).
    Mr. MONTAGU: As a result of leaving out Clause 5 this Schedule will have to be struck out. It is a consequential Amendment.
    Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to insert instead thereof the words recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, lines 12 and 14, and page 2, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer as Amendments to be moved on recommittal."
  The reasons for recommitting the Bill will, I think, upon explanation, commend themselves to the House. On the Second Report of the Select Committee I explained to the House that it was intended to invite the National Relief Fund to contribute to the new statutory Committee the sums which they intended to spend upon separation allowance and other purposes in regard to soldiers and sailors. It was thought at the time that inasmuch as it was proposed to set up a new body which would, to a certain extent, be responsible to this House, it would be preferable that the sums which were distributed by the National Relief Fund should pass through the hands of this new statutory body. After the Bill had reached its present stage I attended a meeting of the Committee of the National Relief Fund,
  1434
  and I found that while some members of the committee fell in with the views which had recommended themselves to the Select Committee, others did not think that they would be justified in handing over the funds which had been entrusted to them by the public to be administered by any other body. I am sure the House will agree with me that it would be undesirable to have a question of that kind decided by a majority of the Committee. I felt that inasmuch as all the members of the Committee regarded themselves as trustees for this fund, if any number of them felt strongly they would not be acting in accordance with the trust committed to them, I ought not to have pressed them to hand over any part of their funds to be administered by the statutory body. Accordingly, in that new state of facts, it became necessary to consider what should be done in regard to the position of the statutory Committee. In the Bill as it now stands we proposed that there should be on the statutory Committee two representatives of the governing body of the National Relief Fund and two representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is the body through which the National Relief now expends the money devoted to the service of soldiers and sailors.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It dispenses a very large sum on its own account as well—very large indeed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no doubt they do, but they were introduced originally into this Bill because they were the body through whom the National Relief Fund's money was being expended.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They were simply the medium.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course, the moment it becomes necessary, as I think the House will agree it does, to remove the representatives of the governing body of the National Relief Fund from the statutory Committee, it also becomes necessary to remove the representatives of the particular association who are the medium through which the National Relief Fund acts. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is not the only body through which work of this kind is done. They were only inserted in the Bill in the first instance because they were in association with the National Relief Fund, from whom they expected to receive a considerable amount of money. If the National Relief

  1435
  Fund disappears as the body mentioned in this Bill, there is no reason why the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association should be represented any more than the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society, or a number of other bodies, all of whom have been doing extremely useful work of this kind.
  It must not be supposed that because we feel it necessary in the new circumstances to invite the House to remove the representatives of the governing body of the. National Relief Fund and of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association the statutory Committee and the local committees will not hereafter include representatives of both those bodies. That is quite another matter. It will be seen that in the composition of what I hope hereafter will be twenty-five members of the statutory Committee, twelve shall be appointed by His Majesty, and it will be very much to be expected that amongst those twelve there will be included persons who have special knowledge, either by association with the governing body of the National Relief Fund or through working in connection with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, of the particular kind of work which the statutory Committee will hereafter have to perform. Another six members are to be appointed by the Royal Patriotic Committee—the General Council of the Corporation—amongst whom no doubt will be found again persons who have special knowledge of this particular kind of work, and when we turn to the local committees, I have no doubt whatever that the local authorities will necessarily include amongst the appointed members of the committee persons with the special knowledge which the active members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have now acquired. It is only in order to put the newly-formed statutory Committee in direct and proper relation to the new facts that I now ask the House to recommit the Bill in order to move the Amendments which I have placed upon the Paper.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Before the Bill is recommitted I should like to ask one or two questions. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Executive Committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund to continue to supplement the Grants?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no authority to speak on behalf of the executive of the National Relief Fund, who are in no way
  1436
  responsible to this House, and I could not pretend to make any statement as to what they intend doing.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Then I think, following this Motion, it is the duty of the Government to carry out Section 2 of the Report of the Select Committee, which stated definitely that one of the functions of the statutory Committee and the local committees is to supplement the grants in addition to separation allowances. I think the State must do that now. If they cannot obtain the money from the executive of the Prince of Wales' Fund, it is essential, in my opinion, that this Committee should do its work. The only other point I wish to raise is that in the Bill as printed, on page 3, line 13, it is not in accordance with the Amendment passed on the Report stage. The first Sub-section of Clause 2 reads:—
  "For the purpose of assisting the statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough, and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than 50,000, and the council of which so desires, and for any borough or urban district."
  Here ought to come in the words "having a population of not less than 20,000." These words have been omitted. There is an error in the print and I wish to point it out, because there is an obligation upon these boroughs or urban districts councils, with a population of not less than 20,000, to apply to the statutory Committee to become their own local committees. It is very important that these words should be in. I would like, also, to have a statement in regard to Clause 4. I refer to the new Amendment that was carried regarding the giving of information and advice, especially where payments are unduly delayed. I think there ought to be a statement, because it is not in the Clause, that it will come within the power of the Committee to communicate with the War Office and also with the Admiralty in case of these delays. There is no instruction or indication in this Clause to that effect. It was understood that they would have that power.
  Mr. McKENNA(was understood to say): They will have that power.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member want to extend the reference?
  Mr. McKENNA: He does not want that.
  Sir J. D. REES: Were the Royal Patriotic Fund parties to this? Were they consulted?
  Mr. McKENNA(indistinctly heard): I told the National Relief Fund.
  Colonel YATE: I think all those who are interested in this Bill must be very much disappointed by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill has now been entirely altered. He has taken out the representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and of the Prince of Wales' Relief Fund, and so far as we can see we are now to have a Committee which is purely an official committee—a committee practically of permanent officials. We all know what permanent officials are. They have their own duties to do in their own offices. Their business is to do their day's work, and to get home to dinner. It is unfortunate to put them on a committee of this sort, the work of which is extraneous to their ordinary business. They have no interest in it, and they will only want to get through the work as quickly as they possibly can. The real live interest in the Committee was that imparted by the presence of representatives of the voluntary societies. They are the people who do this kind of work with care, sympathy, and intelligence. Now they are to be removed entirely from this Bill. Personally, I would have liked to have seen on this Committee representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, the Disabled Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society, and the Officers' Families Fund. With these voluntary workers on the Committee we should have real sympathy and interest in dealing with the people. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the separation allowances have been administered up to now by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. Now that he has removed the representatives of that association from the Committee, is he going to remove the separation allowances from the scope of this Bill, or is he not? I think that to swop horses in midstream, as the newspapers say, and to take away the beneficent administration of these allowances in the middle of the War, will be a very great mistake. In my own county we have a representative of this association in every district; we have an agent in every village. Only today I had a complaint from some poor woman that the War Office had sent for her paper, and that she could not get it back and could not get her money. I
  1438
  referred the matter at once to the representative in the district of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. If you take that agency away, all the poor women who draw separation allowances will have most terrible trouble to put up with. If representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association are not to be put upon the statutory Committee or upon the local committees, the separation allowances ought to be taken out of this Bill altogether. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do?
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: I would like to add my voice to the protest raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I can quite understand the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not succeeded in drawing a certain amount of money from the Prince of Wales' Fund, and I can quite understand that he may think it right to strike the representatives of that fund off the list of members of the statutory Committee. Of course, he is the watchdog of his Department. I understand his action in that respect, but I do not agree with it. To strike off from the Committee the members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, who have nothing whatever to do with the National Relief Fund, seems to me to be entirely unnecessary. Ever since the outbreak of the War this association has taken this duty of administering separation allowances upon itself, and has done it well and thoroughly. I do not think anyone will deny that. The members of this Association are people thoroughly conversant with the conditions of those who come before them from day to day, and one of the most important things is the sort of sympathy that is shown between the members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association Committee and those who go to them for assistance owing to the delays of the War Office in regard to their separation allowances. I think you are making a mistake by removing the representatives of this Association from the committees. In view of the fact that this Association has done this work so well during the whole of the eleven months of the War, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the decision he has taken and allow, at least, the representatives of this Association to be members of the statutory Committee.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I wish to speak as strongly as possible in favour of the proposals made by my hon. and gallant

  1439
  Friend (Colonel Yate) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson). No one who knows what has been going on during the last ten months can fail to know the excellent work that has been done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that because the National Belief Fund have not complied with his desires that therefore they must be deprived of their representation. The fact that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association was represented upon the Committee did not, however, depend merely upon the circumstance that they were the conduit pipe, so to speak, of anything granted by the National Relief Fund, but upon the work they have themselves done, the great assistance in money that they have given, the knowledge that they have of the work required, and the benevolent and sympathetic views that they have shown in connection with this particular work. Because the National Relief Fund has refused to give the grant that the right hon. Gentleman expected, it seems to me that to deprive the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association of their representation upon the Committee savours of a good deal of rancour in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He cannot forgive the National Relief Fund, and he wishes to punish this Association through the National Relief Fund. I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman is not easing the passage of this Bill by this concession to a rancorous feeling. Deprive if you like the National Relief Fund of its representation, but do give the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association that representation to which they are entitled by the generosity of their abundant contributions, by the hard work which they have done, and by the knowledge which they have gained during the last ten months in helping those who are to benefit by this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not appreciate the criticism that this will be an official committee. There are twenty-five members, of whom eighteen are elected directly by public bodies one way or another, while only seven are official. With regard to the exclusion of any body, such as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, this Bill gives power in any locality to appoint representatives of that body on a local committee. If you look at page 2 of the Bill, you will see that the constitution of the local committee is such as is approved
  1440
  by the council of a county borough and so on, the only stipulation being that that body must elect the majority of the members of the new committee. If you have in a locality a Soldiers' and Sailors' Association which has been doing excellent work—
  Colonel YATE: Make it a right, and not a favour!
  Mr. HOGGE: There is no fear that any efficient body doing this work at the present moment will be excluded. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to expect some contribution from the Prince of Wales' Fund. One of its great duties, which has been taken over by this Committee, is the duty of finding employment for disabled soldiers and sailors. The Prince of Wales' Fund was created for the purpose of alleviating civil distress, and was meant largely to apply to a period of unemployment at the end of the War. Therefore I think that the contribution towards one contributory cause of unemployment, a large number of disabled soldiers and sailors being thrown on the community, was a fair contribution to expect. However, now that he has not got it, I am quite as well satisfied—and I hope that the House is also—for this reason. Obviously now the Chancellor of the Exchequer must find us the money to run this Bill properly. That is the great gain of the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now to move. We are now sure that for the purpose for which this Bill is created we shall not have to depend entirely upon voluntary contributions, as was the case in the original draft of this Bill. We shall now be assured of the State doing what it ought to have done from the beginning if the work was to be done properly, that is finance this particular work. Therefore I welcome the changes and hope that the House will agree with them.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I desire to get some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not quite sure whether he is going quite far enough in reference to a matter to which I have already referred. As I pointed out on the Report stage of the Bill, there would be great duplication of work if one committee had the task of measuring separation allowances, and another committee the task of making advances on separation allowances. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Local Government Board who was in charge of the Bill said that he agreed entirely

  1441
  with me. I should have thought that this Bill should be recommitted and that the matter might be put right now. I raise the point now in case that I should be prejudiced hereafter, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give me some assurance that the promise made on the Report stage will be carried out, and that if the matter is not dealt with in this House on recommittal it will be dealt with in another place in accordance with the pledge given.
  Mr. McKENNA: The pledge stands good.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I quite understand the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes up with regard to the equal treatment, as he put it, of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association and the National Relief Fund in this matter, owing to the fact that, in the particular case in question, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association are distributing the money which comes from the other body. But I do say this, that I am sure that there will be universal disappointment at the failure to recognise in some adequate way the work of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association throughout the Kingdom. I do not know what would have happened to many dependants of our soldiers at the beginning of this War if it had not been for the instant action of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association in their localities in providing money which the Government were very slow to provide, when not a shilling of public money was distributed at all, except the funds which they themselves possessed and which were dispensed with very great care and prudence. Although there are most excellent societies of that type there ought to be some sort of right on the part of these people to have representation, if not on the central at least on the local committee. The right hon. Gentleman told us, and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said, that this is not necessarily—and I agree to a large extent—a sort of permanent official committee, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell the House now that he is going to take care of this matter. He will have the nomination of those members to a large extent, who are to be appointed, and he will have a great deal of influence in other respects in the selection of the permanent officials who are to form the various bodies who have representation on the Select Committee. Is he not in a position now to say how he proposes to exercise it? Can he say
  1442
  that he will recognise on the central body the immense services which this particular association has rendered, and take care to see that some representation, at all events, is given to it in the choice of the men of whom he will have the nomination and control? At any rate I do think, with regard to the local committees, that they ought to have some right in the matter, and not merely the hope that they will be selected or used by the local authorities. I do think that we are on delicate ground. There is universal admiration of the work of this society, and there is very keen gratitude on the part of those who have been dealt with very fairly and generously by it, and who would be very glad to see some recognition for what it has done.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I think that the changes that were made in this Bill are, on the whole, an improvement. On the Committee State of the Bill I only withdrew my Amendment in reference to the National Relief Fund when I was assured by the President of the Local Government Board that the presence of two representatives carried with it no financial obligation so far as they were concerned. I think that the Member for East Edinburgh is wrong in thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the right to look to this fund for money for the disabled soldiers and sailors. The National Relief Fund has already contributed some £2,000,000 for purposes in connection with military charities since the beginnng of the War, and the larger part of this money, in my opinion, ought to have been a direct charge upon the Exchequer, because it was work for which the nation was itself directly responsible, and therefore I am quite sure, so far as disabled soldiers are concerned, that the finding of employment for them is a matter which ought to be a direct national responsibility and a direct national burden. On the other hand, there will be large demands later on, I am quite sure, in regard to civil stress, and it is necessary, I think, that at least a very considerable part of the Prince of Wales' Fund should be retained for the purposes of the civil stress that may easily arise at the end of the War. With regard to the question of represen-sentation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, I do not believe that anyone will dispute the good work they have done during the period of the War. At the same time, we see that there are jealousies

  1443
  between that association and various others of a military character. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What jealousies and what other societies?"] I have received protests from them, among them one from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Health Association, who wished to be represented on this Committee. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They ought to be!"] My point is that there does arise friction between the different organisations doing this kind of work, and obviously they ought to be on the Committee or off. It is a point which can be easily argued, but so far as money from public sources is concerned we ought to have ourselves the largest amount of public control over that money, and there is no reason why those organisations with great experience of this work should not be represented on the local bodies. I believe that their claim would be entirely met, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal does represent a change for the better, and not for the worse, so far as the Bill is concerned.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer as Amendments to be moved on re-committal.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.)
    (1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), consisting of twenty-nine members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.
    (2) Of the said twenty-nine members—

    twelve (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less than two shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;

    one shall be appointed by the Treasury;

    one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;

    one shall be appointed by the Army Council;

    one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland;

    six (of whom some shall be women) shall be appointed by the General Council of the Corporation;

    two shall be appointed by the Governing Body of the National Belief Fund;

    two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.

    (3) Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.
    (4) There may be paid to the chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
    (5) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
    (6) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum, and the Statutory Committee may appoint sub-committees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such subcommittees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act. Subject to this provision, the Committee: shall regulate their own procedure.
    (7) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for reappointment: Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office.
    (8) The Statutory Committee may employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "twenty-nine" ["consisting of twenty-nine members"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "twenty-nine," and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "two shall be appointed by the Governing Body of the National Belief Fund; two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association."
    Colonel YATE: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us any assurance that these various societies will be put on the local committees—the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, the Disabled Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society, and the Officers' Families Fund? Will representatives of those organisations be represented as a right on local committees?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would gladly give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the assurance he asks for if it were in my power to do so. Under the Bill local committees have to be formed in accordance with the scheme which is given to the statutory Committee. I have no doubt that the statutory Committee on every occasion will have regard to the proper representation on the local committee of those bodies if the persons are actually fit for the duties and have a practical knowledge of the work to be done. May I take the opportunity of saying that the omission of these words
    1446
    does not in any way suggest that the work of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has not been fully appreciated by the Government. On the contrary, we recognise to the full the admirable work they have done. In regard to the constitution of the statutory Committee, it will be seen that there is on the Committee no representation of any body except a body which is in some respects a public authority responsible to this House in some degree or another. What appears to be an exception to this is the six members appointed by the Royal Patriotic Corporation, but they are appointed by a body which has to report to this House, and although not responsible, it is nevertheless brought under the executive body, whose conduct is from time to time considered by this House. It would be quite an anomaly to put on a body of this kind persons representing an association which, so far as this House is concerned, is completely irresponsible. It is for that reason that the representatives of the National Relief Fund were quite properly, as everybody admits, removed from the statutory Committee, and that these particular associations have been removed. It would be a mistake to assume that our action in any way is a condemnation of them. So far from that, we have the most high admiration for the work they have done.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to give any undertaking with regard to the local committees, but in his speech in moving this Bill he referred to Clause 1, the first Sub-section of which says that twelve of the Committee shall be appointed by His Majesty. In regard to this the right hon. Gentleman is in the position to give a much more definite understanding. He must be himself to a great extent the nominator of these twelve, and is he prepared to come to an understanding that he will consider the claims of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association in the nomination? He himself in Committee distinctly gave us to understand that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association might look for nomination amongst those twelve. Can he give us any undertaking that their claims will be carefully considered by him?
    Mr. McKENNA: Most certainly, I should certainly consider persons of obvious suitability to be appointed, but in appointments of this kind it would be impossible-for me to give an undertaking. I should

    1447
    not be doing my duty unless I most carefully considered all the appointments.
    Colonel YATE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the other two societies, the Disabled Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society and the Officers' Families Fund.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (on re-committal), considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. HOGGE: I suppose it will take some little time to get this statutory Committee set up, and to secure a vice-chairman. There are a great many claims already pending, particularly those for separation allowances, for which more funds are wanted, and I trust that when those claims are sent in the people will not have to wait very much longer. They have been waiting a fairly long time already, and the sooner their claims are expedited the better.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether somebody in this House will be prepared to answer questions on behalf of the Statutory Committee. This will practically be a public body, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that as in the case of the Insurance there should be a responsible Minister prepared to answer any questions.
    Mr. McKENNA: This will generally be the responsibility of the Treasury, and so I can imagne that in certain cases the War Office would answer, and in other cases the Admiralty. As to the other point of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I will inquire as to what steps can immediately be taken.
    Queston put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION) [ALLOWANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and of moneys provided by Parliament of Superannuation Allowances to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Dublin Divisional Justices, and the Stipendiary Magistrate for Chatham and Sheerness."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have the pleasure of seeing the Front Bench full for the first time for some weeks, and I think we might have some explanation of this Resolution.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The Bill which we propose to found on this Resolution is necessitated because of an Act which was passed last September, since the War broke out, called the Superannuation Act, 1914. That Act was passed on the recommendation of a Royal Commission which sat on the Civil Service, and was designed to regulate and define the pensions which are granted to Civil servants. It was passed by general consent and was thought to be in proper form. It had one unexpected result, that it was considered that the provisions of the Bill apply to Metropolitan police magistrates. That was not the intention of the House and was no part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission upon whose Report the Bill was founded. It works injustice in those cases, because the magistrates, who were appointed in the belief that they were under the same conditions as all their predecessors, found that they unexpectedly came under the provisions of that Act. We think the right course is to define in this Bill what the scale of pensions to Metropolitan police magistrates is. They are persons who can only be appointed after very long experience in their profession, and I do not think it will be disputed that the general measure on which their pension has hitherto been calculated is right. We propose to take the opportunity of saying that no Metropolitan magistrate shall be pensionable unless he has served five years and he would only then, of course, be entitled to so many sixtieths. We further propose to put the pensions of police magistrates, as in the case of pensions of other judicial officers, upon the Consolidated Fund.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. KING: This is not emergency legislation at all, and has nothing to do with the War; and, secondly, although a new charge is being put upon the public funds, although hon. Members are crying out for economy, when it comes to a lawyer getting a pension there is no cry for economy at all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Walter Bea.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Payment of Dividends, etc., Payable to Enemy.)
    (1) Section two of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), which relates to the payment to the custodian of dividends, interest, and profits payable to or for the benefit of enemies, shall extend to sums which, had a state of war not existed, would have been payable and paid in the United Kingdom to enemies:—

    (a) in respect of interest on securities issued by or on behalf of the Government or the Government of any of His Majesty's Dominions or any foreign Government, or by or on behalf of any corporation or any municipal or other authority whether within or without the United Kingdom; and

    (b) by way of payment off of any securities which have become repayable on maturity or by being drawn for payment or otherwise, being such securities as aforesaid or securities issued by any company;

    and in the case of such sums as aforesaid (other than sums in respect of the payment off of securities issued by a company) the duty of making payments to the custodian and of requiring payments to be made to him and of furnishing him with particulars shall rest with the person, firm or company through whom the payments in the United Kingdom are made, and the said Section shall apply accordingly, and as if for references therein to the date of the passing of the principal Act there were substituted references to the date of the passing of this Act.
    (2) Where the custodian is satisfied from returns made to him under Section three of the principal Act that any such securities as aforesaid (including securities issued by a company) are held by any person on behalf of an enemy, the custodian may give notice thereof to the person, firm or company by or through whom
    1450
    any dividends interest or bonus in respect of the securities or any sums by way of payment off of the securities are payable, and upon the receipt of such notice any dividends interest or bonus payable in respect of, and any sums by way of payment off of, the securities to which the notice relates shall be paid to the custodian in like manner as if the securities were held by an enemy.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section "securities" includes stock, shares, annuities, bonds, debentures or debenture stock or other obligations.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. CAVE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would let us know something about this Clause.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir F. E. Smith): The effect of Clause 1 is such that it is not very likely to provoke any very attractive Debate. The Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914, which was an emergency Act, provided that in cases where dividends, interests, and profits were payable to or for the benefit of enemy subjects in this War such payments should be diverted, and should be handed over to a custodian, the custodian in question being the Public Trustee. It was found when this Act was in operation that there was a not inconsiderable omission, because in the hurry of drafting it the case of dividends and interests on securities issued by or on behalf of the Government had per incuriam been omitted from the scope of the Act. It will probably be the view of the Committee that the same principle which applied to dividends, which in ordinary cases were payable to alien enemies, should be made applicable to cases where the interest on securities issued by the Government would otherwise be payable to alien enemies. There are certain subsidiary provisions, but what I have stated is the effect of the Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We are much obliged for the explanation, which apparently is that, owing to the hurry in which the original Act was passed, the mistake occurred. Is it wise, therefore, when you are rectifying a, mistake which occurred in that way to be in a very great hurry about this Bill, and to propose to take all its stages to-night? I am not particularly objecting, but I think it is a mistake to do so. I do not refer to this particular Bill,

    1451
    but I do hope, in the case of further Bills, that we will take the Second Reading only, and then take the Committee and Report stages and the Third Reading if necessary on another day, and not all the stages on the one day.
    Sir F. E. SMITH: If there is any general feeling in the Committee that they would like to consider the Bill a little more attentively, there is not the slightest desire to prevent them from doing so. But if nobody who has read the Bill can suggest any one objection to any one of its Clauses I would suggest, without prejudice to the general force of the hon. Baronet's objection as applied to other Bills, that this Bill might be allowed to pass.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not object.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: As this Bill was not printed until five or six o'clock to-night—
  Sir F. E. SMITH: It was in the Vote Office before four o'clock.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I went at the usual time after Questions and there was not a copy to be had then. I have read the Bill since, and I see no objection to it. But it seems to me rather wrong to pass Bills of this kind, which are of a technical nature, without their having been printed in convenient time. I think that such Bills ought to be printed in such time that we can examine them before Second Reading.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Solicitor-General has a copy, my hon. and learned Friend has a copy, and I also have one. I, unfortunately, am only a layman; therefore my opinion is not worth much. But as far as I can make out, the Bill is a very good one, and it is wanted. I would suggest, however, that if we take the Second Reading "without further discussion, we might take the Committee and other stages tomorrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Walter Bea.]

  SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: Would the hon. Member tell me what is a Special Act? I presume that it is one of the emergency Acts passed during the past year?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): Perhaps I might explain the object of the Bill. Special Acts are all the Acts embodied in Private Bill legislation generally. If my hon. Friend looks at the Bill he will see that clearly stated in the definition Clause. As to the object of the Bill, there are a large number of undertakers, local authorities, statutory companies and others, who take powers under Special Acts to construct works and acquire loans. The period within which the works are to be constructed or the loans finally repaid is limited by the Special Act, and when the undertakers desire an extension of the period they have to procure another Act. That is an expensive process, but one which is properly imposed upon them in ordinary times when it is their own fault if they have not completed the works or repaid the loan within the statutory period. Now on public grounds connected with the War it is obvious that it is nobody's fault that these works cannot be completed, or the land bought. The larger the powers the greater the restrictions imposed by the Treasury with the sanction of this House upon the issue of any new capital.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Clause 2, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, says that the expression "Special Act" means a local or private Act. But it goes on to say "and includes any public Act of a local or private nature." Does not that rather extend it; if so, in what way?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In this way: that, there are certain Acts which are considered to be and are referred to here as affecting private Bill legislation. There is a public Act, for instance, which lays down that five years is to be the period imposed

  1453
  in private Bill legislation, but by reference only it states private Bill legislation. The Bill is very carefully drawn so as entirely to exclude any obligation imposed by this House in public and general Acts. That has been the object of the drafting. I propose to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend and only ask for the Second Beading of this Bill now, and, with the assent of the House, to take the further stages at the first possible opportunity.
  Mr. HOLT: There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is all very well to allow the postponement of time during which you are going to execute certain works. I see no harm in that. But if you are going to postpone the time during which the local or public authority is going to exercise an option of buying a man's property, you may inflict a very great hardship upon the person concerned. I hope that the Government Departments, when they have made up their minds that they are going to carry out the powers given to them by this Act, will not allow local authorities to remain in a state of doubt as to whether or not they will make use of the powers. It is one thing to postpone a piece of work and another thing for the public body to make up their minds whether or not they will execute their powers. It might inflict a very great hardship upon the people with regard to whom they are going to execute the powers. I would like to feel assured that the Government Departments will not allow people to keep options and rights in suspense hanging over the heads of those who are to be deprived of their property until the local authorities have declared their intention.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite appreciate the force of the remarks of my hon. Friend. I may say that any Clause as to compensation was purposely omitted from this Bill, because there is in similar legislation, or rather in the ordinary legislation, when an extension of time is granted, a compensation Clause. In this case there is no fault on the part of the undertakers at all. It is a national matter, and there is no compensation payable except by the nation. It was, therefore, not thought that under the circumstances any compensation should be paid by the nation in cases of this kind. The public Departments concerned propose to take exactly the course suggested by the hon. Member. There is introduced a limit to the extension which can be given at any one time. It is for twelve months and no more. I can under-
  1454
  take that this power, for which we are asking for the public Departments, will only be exercised in the public interest and with due regard to private interests, and that no extension of time will be given for the benefit of any particular undertaker but solely in the public interest.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  CUSTOMS (WAR POWER) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps the House would like a short explanation of this Bill, as it is to some extent a reference to former legislation. There was a Proclamation against trading with the enemy issued on 9th September last which replaced the original Proclamation at the outbreak of the War, and under that Proclamation, the main Proclamation that governs any trading with the enemy, the term "enemy" is expressly confined to persons trading in an enemy country, and the terms of that Proclamation exclude persons of enemy nationality who are not resident or carrying on business in an enemy country. Those persons are not affected by the Proclamation. On 18th September this House passed an Act which really legalised the Proclamation, and a further Act was passed on 10th March called the Customs (War Powers) Act. Under that Act certain powers were given to the Customs authorities to prevent trading with the enemy—powers in regard to the import and export of goods through the ports of this country—enabling the Customs authority, as part of their duties, to demand such proofs and such declarations as would satisfy them that no trading with the enemy was going on. That has proved satisfactory, with certain minor Amendments which have since been assented to by the House; but, generally speaking, that was satisfactory so far as trading with the enemy is concerned in the enemy country.
  It has latterly come to the notice of the Government, however, that certain enemy firms were carrying on a very large business in China, in Siam, in Persia, and in

  1455
  Morocco, and that these enemy firms were maintaining large commercial enemy interests in those countries, and, being unable under present conditions, fortunately, to obtain a full supply of goods from enemy countries, they were, by indirect channels, procuring the goods to sustain their own enemy commercial interests in those countries which I have named, from Great Britain. I think the House will agree, in the first instance, that it is very desirable to prevent that going on, and under the present law, which I have indicated, the Customs can only carry out their duty, under the Act to which I have just referred, when the trading which is going on with the enemy is that defined in the Royal Proclamation, that is to say, persons actually residing in enemy territory. The effect of this Bill is to extend the power of the Customs to treat as trading with the enemy goods not only destined for an enemy country but to an enemy person or an enemy firm resident in the four neutral countries I have named. That is the exact effect of this Bill, and it goes no further than that. If the House assents to the principle, I propose to follow the same course as with the other Bill—to take the Second Beading now and the other stages at a later date.
  Mr. HOLT: Surely the Bill must go a little further than the hon. and learned Gentleman says. He says it is to deal with trading with the enemy in China, Morocco, and the other two places he mentioned—countries in which something like extraterritorial rights are being carried on. Does the term "neutral" not equally affect trading with other countries?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I omitted to say that before this Bill was introduced a Proclamation had been issued forbidding trading with the enemy in those four countries. After issuing that Proclamation, which we thought was legitimate, we came to the House to ask for powers to carry out the terms of the Proclamation. The Bill does go wider than that, and would enable us by a subsequent Proclamation to extend the prohibition to trading with the enemy firms in any other neutral country.
  Mr. HOLT: I think that is very objectionable. Any person who is connected with the Financial Department of the Government of this country knows that it is exceedingly desirable to stimulate the export trade of this country to the highest possible level. Now we are bringing in a
  1456
  Bill obviously to restrict it and put every sort of impediment in the way of trading with foreign countries by asking them to prove that the person they are trading with is not a person of German nationality. I know a good deal about trading in China, and it is very doubtful whether it is a good thing to stop trading there. If you stop trading with enemies you will strengthen the position of neutral countries. I do not know whether those responsible for this Bill are conversant with trading in China, but the effect of stopping trading with Germans in China will only increase the trading of the Danish Corporation. Taking the case of China alone, it is not certain that the prohibition of trading with the enemy is going to be good for British traders in the long run. You have to consider what is going to happen after the War.
  Personally, I do not like giving these very wide powers with regard to trading with the enemy. We all know the original proposal, that you were not to trade with a person who was resident on the further side of the enemy's trenches, and that we all understood. If you are now going to-bring in a general prohibition against trading with individual enemies in every part of the world, you will bring about a state of commercial confusion which will do you more harm than the enemy. The whole question of trading with the enemy is purely a question of balance. If we can get 25s. and the enemy 20s. I am in favour of trading with the enemy, but if the enemy gets 20s. and we only get 15s. it is better not to trade with the enemy. The only justification for this is, if you believe you are the stronger of the two parties, anything that will injure both parties is advantageous to you. Of course, if you have the worst position it is to your disadvantage. Upon this matter of trading with the enemy an enormous amount of nonsense has been talked. It is only on these grounds that I believe the prohibition of trading with the enemy, even in Germany, can be defended, and it can only be justified on the ground that you are stopping a practice that is favourable to the weaker side. If you go much further than this you will produce greater damage to this country than you are doing damage to the enemy. I think we have every conceivable reason for improving our export trade and conserving our financial resources. I do hope that the Government will be a little careful how they proceed with this kind of legislation.
  Mr. CAVE: The observations of the hon. Member have ranged very far indeed, and I think that with regard to some of the things which he has said we should not be disposed to agree with him. Many hon. Members would entirely disagree with him as to the character and desirability of trading with the enemy. Really the points which he has raised, and in which I can see that he takes a deep interest, do not arise upon this Bill as I understand it. The Government yielded, as most of us know, to very great pressure from British traders in China and elsewhere, and after consideration, indeed, long consideration, issued a Proclamation which makes it illegal for British traders and British persons in China, Persia, Morocco, and Siam to trade with the enemy there. The Proclamation has been made, and the position of things at present is that whereas British subjects abroad are prevented from trading with these enemy traders British subjects at home are not under the same disability and can trade with them without incurring a penalty. The effect of this Bill, as I understand it, is that where the trader here makes a declaration, a solemn declaration, that the goods which he is shipping are intended for a certain person or a certain place, and when, as a matter of fact, the goods go elsewhere he shall be subject to a penalty. For myself, I think that is in itself a desirable thing. Without pledging myself to every word in the Bill—no doubt it will be considered in Committee—I do think that the principle of it is a right one. I may say—I have seen a good deal of it—that it has happened sometimes that where we have been preventing neutral traders, for instance, from sending their goods to enemy countries, all the time British traders have sent their goods directly or indirectly to the very same destination, and it acts very unfairly indeed upon the neutral trader. That is the kind of thing I should like to see stopped, and I hope that more and more those who are concerned in the export of goods from this country will be dealt with in the same way in this respect as neutral traders. Therefore I think it is right under this Bill to treat the British exporter in the same way as the British trader abroad, and that both should stand on the same footing.
  I should like to see the principle of the Bill extended a little further, although I dare say it cannot be done under this Bill. There are many cases, I see hundreds of
  1458
  them in the course of my work in connection with contraband, where declarations are made by traders as to destination and where the declarations are not observed. It is very difficult to impose or to exact a penalty in those cases. In some cases you can enforce the bond which is given, but where no bond is given you have very little remedy except to remember the offence when next the trader comes for an export licence or something of that kind. I should like there to be the possibility of imposing a severe penalty in those cases as well as those referred to in this Bill. At all events, I think the principle of the Bill is right; and, while there are a few words which may require consideration in Committee, I hope that the House will pass the Bill on its Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITIEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 4.—(Seat in Council Disqualification far Parliament.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir J. D. REES: I understood that the question whether a peer is to be capable of being a member of the Council of India and also of sitting in the House of Lords, was to be considered in the amending Bill?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): It is not for me to make any announcement on that point. I think in another place it was stated that this was a kind of subject which might properly be considered in connection with an amending Bill, but that it was entirely improper to consider it in connection with a Consolidation Bill.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. man undertake to consider it?
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Duties of Council)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir J. D. REES: Since the Government of India here does not mean the Governor-General in Council, but, on the contrary, the administration of the country, will the hon. Gentleman note, when the amending Bill is being prepared, the desirability of using the word "administration" instead of "government" with a small "g"?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is a point which might be considered in the amending Bill, but it is rather difficult to avoid the phrase in this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 52.—(The Province of Agra.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir J. D. REES: Have we passed Clause 36?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Sir J. D. REES: I did not hear it called.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not rise. It is not customary to take the Clauses individually, but it is usual for an hon. Member to draw attention to a Clause as it comes along if he wishes to make any observations on it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Do I understand rightly that under this Clause 52, while it is admitted power exists, and is repeated here, to create the Province of Agra a governorship of a Governor in Council, the province of Oudh might also be added to that province, so that there is under this Consolidation Bill power to create a Governor in Council of Agra and Oudh? Do I rightly understand there is no power of creating a legislative Council because the old Act gives power to create the constitution of Governor in Council, which at the time of the Statute of 1833 referred simply to the Executive Council, legislative Councils not then being in existence? This is a point of very considerable importance, and in view of the recent action in another place with regard to the creation of an Executive Council for the United Provinces, considerable interest attaches to the construction of this Clause. I do not wish to go at length into this question. If I have stated what is correct—it is the outcome of my study of the question—I shall be glad to know that that is so from the hon. Gentleman. If not, or if he has any doubt upon the point, I would ask him kindly to consider it in connection with the amending Bill. I have not put down any Amendment, because I thought that would delay matters.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The political implications in this Clause or the political inferences that may be drawn from it are not the primary subjects of consideration of it at the present moment. All that I am concerned to do is to defend the proposition that Clause 52 embodies the law as it stands. That is the point to which the Joint Committee gave particular attention, because of the fact that attention had been drawn to this Clause and the possible use that might be made of it. In the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Commons last year it was proposed that a Presidency under a Governor in Council should be constituted for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. On closer examination it became clear that this Clause could not apply to the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, for the very good reason that Oudh was only annexed in 1856, and that the power which gave the discretion to appoint a Governor with a Council was given in 1833 and 1823. Consequently, it was seen that this Clause could not apply to the whole of the United Provinces in any case, and for that reason Oudh was left out of the Clause.
    It would be possible, of course, to alter the boundaries of Agra afterwards, but at the same time the hon. Member is quite correct in his statement that if this Clause were used and a Governor in Council was constituted for the Province of Agra, that would merely be an Executive Council. You could not, under this power, establish a Legislative Council, which, in fact, could only be constituted under later Statutes—the Act of 1861 and so on. The Joint Committee, therefore, had to redraft the Clause and pass the Clause in this form, in which it differs from the form originally proposed. That was in consequence of a closer examination of the law on this particular point. I have no doubt whatever that this Clause now correctly reproduces the law. The Joint Committee could not leave it out, although it would be almost impossible to use the power that remains without further legislation by an amending Act of Parliament. On the other hand, it is the law as it stands. It might conceivably be made the foundation of a political argument, therefore in a Consolidation Bill which does not admit of Amendments, I think the Joint Committee came to the right conclusion in leaving the Clause in this form.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 63.—(Constitution of the Legislative Council.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir J. D. REES: Sub-section (4) provides that when and so long as the Indian Legislative Council assembles in a province having a Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Commissioner, he shall be an additional member of the Council for the time being. There is no similar provision for the Governor in Council. Some provinces are under Governors in Council and some under Lieutenant-Governors in Council, and some under Lieutenant-Governors without Council. It is provided that where a Governor-General in Council is for the time being in a Governor's province, the Governor is a member of the Governor-General's Executive Council, and here it is provided that where the same Governor-General in Council sits in a Lieutenant-Governor's or Chief Commissioner's province, such Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Commissioner is ex officio a member of the Legislative Council. It is nowhere provided that the Governor is a member of the Legislative Council when a Governor-General in Council sits for the purpose of making laws and regulations in a Governor's province. I have reason to believe that, owing to the fact that when these earlier enactments which are dealt with here were passed, there were no Legislative Council, this anomaly has resulted, and it has not yet been noticed anywhere in dealing with the Bill. It certainly should be noticed and remedied, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to note it for the amending Bill.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, what he is now suggesting is an Amendment which cannot properly be embodied in a Consolidation Bill, but must be taken note of. It is an Amendment which cannot be considered here.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 96.—(No Disabilities in Respect of Religion, Colour, or Place of Birth.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir J. D. REES: There is no provision here, nor can I find it anywhere else, for a class of natives of India who are num-
    1462
    bered by millions, and that is the subjects of the native States. It is provided that:
    "No native of British India, nor any subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any office under the Crown in India."
    This is called the Indian Magna Charta. A resident in one of the native States owns primarily allegiance to the ruling chief, and I am not sure what his position is as regards any allegiance to His Majesty. It is not mentioned here at all. It must be owing to some oversight, or the fact that the matter was never considered in the earlier enactments. I have not seen the point noticed anywhere. It must clearly be one that requires attention, not for Amendment now but for consideration when the Bill is prepared.
    Mr. ROBERTS: That would be a distinct amendment of the law. If the hon. Member will look up the original Act of 1833, he will see that this Clause follows it exactly. There has been no oversight. Clearly we could not alter the law on that point on a Consolidation Bill.
    Mr. CAVE: As an old member of the Consolidation Committee—I forget for how many years—I may say that that Committee is exceedingly careful to do nothing but consolidate. They have always thought it their duty never to admit into a Consolidation Bill what is an amendment of the law. If the House could not trust us to do that they would have to consider every Clause of every Consolidation Bill. Because that course has always been followed the House has passed our Bills without long debate. I think my hon. Friend's observations are rather fitted for another occasion than that of the passing of this Bill.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not urge the amendment now. I am endeavouring to facilitate the passing of the Bill by asking that these matters should be considered when the amending Bill, which is due immediately after the War, is prepared.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 115.—(Ecclesiastical Establishment.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has handed in a long table of Amendments, which are, so far as I can see, Amendments of the law, and, as it seems to me, quite contrary to the understanding on which this Bill was sent to a Committee.
    Mr. KING: I will not trouble you or the Committee by moving these Amendments. I understand, however, that an amending Bill is under consideration. Therefore, if they have before them the points in which I am interested, they can consider them. I must take this opportunity, however, of raising very briefly a very big subject to which I have from time to time drawn attention by question in the House. For at least four years I have called attention frequently, by questions which I have put to the Secretary of State for India, to the position of ecclesiastical establishments there. They present, in my opinion, a very grave scandal.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really must point out that this Bill obtained a Second Reading on the understanding that it was a Consolidation Bill. These Amendments are amendments of the existing law.
    Mr. ROBERTS: It was stated in another place that an amending Bill was coming forward, and if the hon. Member would be good enough to send to the India Office a list of his Amendments and ask that they should be considered in relation to that amending Bill it may, perhaps, meet his point and secure the attention he desires.
    Mr. KING: On a point of Order. You have allowed a distinguished ex-Indian official (Sir J. D. Rees) to raise repeatedly, on various Clauses, points which he admitted were questions for subsequent legislation in an amending Bill. Have I not the same right to suggest on one Clause of the Bill one or two points for the subsequent amending Bill? I appeal that I may be allowed to have the same privilege and right that has been allowed to the hon. Member.
    The CHAIRMAN: He did not move any Amendments. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has, however, handed in a page of Amendments.
    Mr. KING: I distinctly said that I did not intend to move those Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then I will propose the Question, "That Clause 115 stand part of the Bill," otherwise there is no Question before the House.
    Mr. KING: On that, may I point out that it is a very great pity that in treating a subject of this kind the whole of this Section has not been allowed to drop? The whole law might have been consolidated except in respect of this Section in regard to ecclesiastical establishments. These establishments represent a very great scandal. I have attempted in three successive years to address the House upon this subject in connection with the Indian Budget. I have not once had the opportunity in those three years of speaking a single word upon this subject, and now, apparently, I am not allowed to have two minutes. I can only say that I have always had the greatest courtesy and patience shown to me by the India Office on this subject, and I am very much surprised that I am not allowed to have the same on this occasion.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  COTTON (FLEET ORDERS).
  COTTON (FLEET ORDERS).
  BREWERY COMPANIES (ENLISTMENT OF EMPLOYES).
  BREWERY COMPANIES (ENLISTMENT OF EMPLOYES).
  MENTAL TROUBLES (TREATMENT).
  MENTAL TROUBLES (TREATMENT).
  RECRUITING STATISTICS.
  RECRUITING STATISTICS.
  WASTE OF RIFLES IN FRANCE (ALLEGED).
  WASTE OF RIFLES IN FRANCE (ALLEGED).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  BRITISH ALUMINIUM COMPANY, FOYERS.
  BRITISH ALUMINIUM COMPANY, FOYERS.
  ENEMY TRADING IN CHINA.
  ENEMY TRADING IN CHINA.
  Income-Tax Assessors.
  Income-Tax Assessors.
  Lower Bann (Water Power).
  Lower Bann (Water Power).
INDIA.
  OPIUM SALES (ASSAM).
  OPIUM SALES (ASSAM).
  ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENT.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENT.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (PARKS, &c.) BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES' FACILITIES BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
  WEARDALE AND CONSETT WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 138.)
  MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. (No. 139.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton).
PORT-GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ASHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons,agreed to, with Amendments.
MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
  BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.

    NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
    SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MASSY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case returned from the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Colonies (Annual)—
No. 847. St. Helena (Report for 1914);
No. 848. Fiji (Report for 1914):
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—No. 5,449.
Greece (Consular District of Salonica, 1913):
Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907—
Return giving particulars of cases in winch persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 31st March, 1915:
Local Taxation (Scotland) Account—
Return showing—

1. The principal statutory provisions affecting payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account; and

2. The amount of such payments for the financial year, 1914–1915:

Factory and Workshop (Lighting in Factory and Workshops, Departmental Committee)—First Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire and report as to the conditions necessary for the adequate lighting of factories and workshops—

Volume I. Report and Appendices;

Volume II. Summary of Evidence.

Minutes of Evidence:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
India (Progress and Condition)—Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1913–1914. Fiftieth Number:
Munitions of War Act, 1915—

1. Provisional Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals, made in pursuance of section 15 of the Act, by a Secretary of State as far as relates to offences, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters;

2. Provisional Regulations made by the Minister of Munitions in pursuance of section 4 (5) of the Act, with respect to the general ordering of the work in a controlled establishment:

Intermediate Education (Ireland)—Rule constituting Tramore an additional centre of examination in 1915:
Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1906 (Dispensing Powers)—Report by the Board of Trade of the cases in which they have exercised their powers under section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, during the year ended 31st May, 1915 (in continuation of H.C. 329 of 1914):
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the following Councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

1. Burnley Corporation;

2. Cheltenham Corporation:

Polling Districts—Order made by the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council, constituting a new polling district in the Parliamentary Division of Elland, and assigning a polling place thereto:
Winter Assizes Acts, 1876 and 1877—Orders in Council, dated 13th July, 1915, respecting Winter Assize Counties Nos. 1 to 7 for the Winter Assizes, 1915:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Order in Council, dated 13th July, 1915, approving a memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to Regulations respecting Naval Instructors for temporary service in the Royal Navy:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
London Corporation—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1914–1915: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed for To-morrow.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (RAVENINGHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS, HARBOURS, TUNNEL, GAS, &c.) ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the House will remember that in the month of March emergency Bills similar to this one were passed in respect of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was found necessary, owing to the great number of students serving his Majesty in the present war and the large number of others whose ordinary academic studies were interfered with, to facilitate changes in the University status. This is a similar measure with a similar object applying to the four Scottish Universities. The Ordinances Which are applicable to the Scottish Universities and to the Joint Board of Examiners which deals with the preliminary examinations are made under certain Acts of Parliament—the Scottish Universities Acts; and the Ordinances are subject to the approval of His Majesty in Council. They describe in detail the various courses of study, the examinations, and so on, and in order to simplify the procedure required by the times it is suggested that joint action, as your Lordships will see from this Bill, may be undertaken; because in ordinary circumstances the provisions of existing
484
Ordinances can only be superseded by the enactment of a new Ordinance. I hope, therefore, that the House will see no difficulty in treating the Scottish Universities on the same lines as those on which the old Universities have been treated, and also to some extent the new Universities where they have applied for alterations in their powers.
I think it might interest the House to have one or two figures about the Scottish Universities of a very creditable character, as are those, as we all know, of the English Universities. There are 853 students of the University of Edinburgh on one kind of war service or another, and there are 457 who are cadets of the Officers Training Corps. Of the University of Glasgow there are 600 students described as being on service, and 250 who are engaged on munition work. In the case of Aberdeen there are 277 students serving in the Forces, and 112 in the Officers Training Corps. And at St. Andrews, which we know is a smaller University, there are 140 students and no fewer than 20 members of the teaching stall serving. Those figures reflect great credit on the Northern Universities, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for noire than a moment, but I think it would be ungracious, as Chancellor of one of the Scottish Universities, were I not to welcome not only the Bill which the noble Marquess has introduced but the tone of the kindly remarks which he used regarding the great exertions of the Scottish Universities in the national crisis. I was prepared to say on behalf of some of the Scottish Universities, at any rate, that both teaching staff and undergraduates have made great sacrifices in this war. I do not think it necessary to add anything to what the noble Marquess has said, but I was not aware that he had been supplied with the figures he has given. So far as the University with which I am concerned goes, we give a very cordial welcome to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): In asking your Lordships to resolve the House into Committee upon this Bill, I should like briefly to call to your recollection the reason which led your Lordships to grant a Second Reading to the Bill on June 30. I then pointed out to the House that the Bill was the outcome of the work of a Joint Committee which was, I believe, originally called into existence by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, for the purpose of consolidating the Criminal Law. In the course of their work it became plain that if their labours were to be fruitful it was essential that there should be some simplification of the forms of procedure in criminal cases, and this Bill, which was designed for that purpose, was accordingly introduced and brought before your Lordships' consideration. When your Lordships granted the Second Reading of the Bill it was upon the express understanding that it would at once be referred to the Joint Committee for consideration. The joint Committee have considered the Bill and recommend certain alterations in it, one at least of which was designed to meet the objection taken by Lord Parmoor when the Second Reading was under discussion. These Amendments are now before your Lordships, and if you assent to the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, I shall ask your Lordships to permit the Amendments to be taken together, unless any noble Lord thinks they are the proper subject of criticism or improvement. I may say that your Lordships' House will not be unprotected if such a course is taken, for I believe these Amendments have the approval of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY indicated dissent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, I hope they have the approval of the noble and learned Earl.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY again indicated dissent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I regret they have not the noble and learned Earl's approval, because his authority is unrivalled and accepted by us all. But I
486
believe I am at least right in saving that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has examined the Amendments with some care and is satisfied that they carry out his wishes in this respect. Put shortly, the object of this Bill is to accomplish two things, both of which I am sure will meet with your Lordships' approval. The first is to secure that when a man is charged with any crime the nature of the charge shall be stated in plain, simple, and formal language; the second is that when this is accomplished no trivial and no unsubstantial technicality should be permitted to place impediment in the path of justice. The Bill is designed for the purpose of carrying out those two objects, and I ask your Lordships to resolve the House into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I regret to say that I differ from the policy and in a great measure from the drafting of these Amendments, as well as from the original mode in which this Bill was framed. I confess I am amazed that the noble and learned Lord should have given us no reason why this Bill, which I will show your Lordships in a moment contains very serious controversy, should be introduced at this time. I am by no means disposed to raise any questions of conflict. I have carefully abstained for some months from saying anything which might in any way embarrass the Government either as it is or as it was a short time ago. But in the first place I should like to know, with regard to what is here proposed, what evil is being removed. Whatever may be said about the technicalities of the law, one object has been attained by the extreme rigidity with which the Criminal Law has been administered—that is to say, that a man on his trial should know exactly what he is charged with. That object has been attained, I think, in such a way that an objection to an indictment is hardly ever heard of in these days; and what appears to me to be a wanton passage into entirely new ground has been devised now in regard to matters which have been settled by centuries of decision. I do not mean to deny that there have been sometimes absurd objections taken, and sometimes as absurdly agreed to; but I think one must go a little deeper than to the drafting of the indictment with regard to that.

487
There is no doubt that the blood-thirsty nature of the Criminal Law at one time was such that the Judges were keen, in favorem vitœ, to give heed to objections which common sense would not recognise. Be that as it may, the decisions such as they have been so far as they affect the form of indictment, and so on, have now been going on for some centuries, and I think they have exhausted the ingenuity of anybody to find out anything new. But every one of those decisions has gone by this Bill. It would be impossible, I think, to go through the farce, as it would be, of stating in Committee the sort of objections that appear to me to be very serious indeed to some of the provisions here. That would involve long debate and some discussion as to what the law is. But let me take one example, and I will ask the Lord Chancellor to answer me. I find that instead of everything being plain and clear you have to measure the indictment; it is to be so many inches long, and so forth. What I want to know is this. Suppose it is an inch too long, or not long enough, as may well happen. Is that a fatal objection? If it is not according to rule which assumes the exact measurement which as I say the indictment must present then according to ordinary principles of Criminal Law the indictment fails. What is to happen? The ordinary powers of amendment, I need not say, are not applicable. Is the indictment bad or is there to be a new indictment, or is the person to escape conviction by his indictment being half an inch too short? What is to happen? We understand an Act of Parliament, and if anything is not in accordance with an Act of Parliament we know what happens. There is no amendment possible here. You must have a new indictment, and I should have thought a new finding of the Grand Jury, because the indictment is the finding of the Grand Jury. I shall have a word or two to say about that presently. But be that as it may, I want to know what is the effect of these provisions.
Again, you have not drawn a distinction between misdemeanour and felony. That is a very important distinction. It was more important, perhaps, some few years ago than it is now, because a conviction for felony involved a forfeiture; but in some of the sympathetic legislation that has been going on the forfeiture was abolished, and you have a man about to be hanged making his will now. That by the way.
488
But you have under the present law a distinction such as has prevailed for centuries, and with very good practical effects—the distinction between felony and misdemeanour. And be it observed that you are not reforming the whole Criminal Law by this measure, nor, I think, going any way towards it; but the effect is that the distinction between felony and misdemeanour is got rid of and you may confuse the two; although the form of trial is different, you may have both a misdemeanour and felony comprehended in the same indictment. I see there has been a somewhat vain attempt to amend that anomaly by saying that all the rights shall exist—the right of challenge, for instance. As your Lordships are aware, the right of challenge exists in felony but not in misdemeanour. But I see a provision in this Bill that all the rights shall be the same although you may try both together. That, I suppose, is to add clearness to it!
I am not pretending to go through all the objections that occur to me. This is a matter which would really take months to go through and see the effect of. To my mind nothing could be more undesirable than to introduce new technicalities into the law. We have settled them now—as I say, it has taken centuries to do it—yet now you are going to have a new tribunal set up, and the Lord Chief Justice, with some person familiar with the Criminal Law to help him, and certain other persons are named, are to be given power of altering, of obliterating, of doing anything they please with the rules and to substitute other rules for them which are to come before Parliament. That is one of the modes in which you are going to simplify the Criminal Law. I am not either in health or strength able to go through all the objections that there are to this. But I cannot imagine anything more likely to introduce confusion, anything more likely to render the administration of the law extremely difficult. It is to be remembered that a great many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, although I believe they do most admirably the work they have to do, are not trained lawyers. To find out whether a man is accused of a felony or misdemeanour now is easy enough, but you cannot find that out if you mix both up together. If anybody desired to have a mixture of the law in such a way as to render it absolutely confusing to persons

489
not trained in jurisprudence I should put this forward as a specimen of great success in that department.
I am not, as I say, able to go through all the objections. But I want to have answers to the questions I have asked. What will be the effect of the indictment not conforming to the law in respect of the size of the parchment, or, indeed, I ought even to correct that, because it is not only that it is to be of parchment, but it must be either parchment or durable paper. I might add to my illustration by asking, suppose it is not on durable paper, will the indictment be bad and will the man be discharged, or will he be charged on a new indictment? And imagine the state of mind of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions when he has the objection put before him which I have now put—namely, that the indictment does not fill so many inches, as it ought. What is he to do? I put before my mind a Chairman of Quarter Sessions to whom that question is put by a defending counsel when his client has been convicted, and I should like to know in what way it can be managed, if it can be, so as to let justice be done. This is one of the fanciful theories that have been suggested to alter the whole Criminal Law without the least reference to those rules which centuries of experience have established.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble and learned Earl, whose authority in these matters we all regard with reverence, should be displeased with this Bill, but I cannot help thinking that his displeasure arises from a misapprehension. The point of form to which he adverts is susceptible of a very simple explanation. At present indictments are on parchment, and are lengthy and full of all kinds of antiquated and obsolete verbiage, and there was produced before the Committee a very recent specimen which was a foot in length, and an educated man would have taken a long time in understanding what it meant. What it meant was capable of being stated in one sentence; practically it was this, "You are accused of obtaining a certificate by telling a falsehood as to your nationality on June 1." What the Bill proposes is simply this, that "an indictment may be on parchment or durable paper and may be either written or printed, or partly written and partly printed" in order to make the thing quite sure, and in one
490
sentence to tell the man, who is generally uneducated, what he is charged with in intelligible language. Then comes the sentence to which the noble Earl took exception. "Each sheet on winch an indictment is set out shall be not more than twelve and not less than six inches in length"—that is to say, not a tremendously long thing which you have to unfold as if it were an ancient manuscript—"and not more than fourteen and not less than twelve inches in width, and if more than one sheet is required, the sheets shall be fastened together in book form." That is all. Surely there can be nothing very wrong in that; and there is in this respect no alteration whatever in the law; nothing in the offence is changed in the least degree. It simply means that an uneducated man is to be told in short, simple English of what it is he is accused.
The other point to which the noble and learned Earl referred—namely, that there should be joined together for the future in an indictment a misdemeanour and a felony—is an alteration of the law, I think the only alteration of the law that is to be found in this Bill. I may be wrong, but I shall be corrected if I am. I think I am not wrong. All that means is that when a man has committed an offence which under the denomination of the ancient law falls within the category of felony and another of misdemeanour, or when it may be doubtful which is which, the two may be tried together. But provision is expressly contained in the Bill that nobody shall be permitted to suffer injustice or inconvenience, because power is given to the Judge, if he thinks fit, to postpone the trial and direct that these two charges shall be otherwise tried. I feel more regret than I can express in differing from the noble and learned Earl, whose authority I thoroughly respect and to whose judgment I very seldom find myself in opposition. But in this case there is no change in the law; there is no alteration in the punishment; there is nothing except enabling a man to understand in a short compass what it is he is charged with so that he may be able to confess, or to deny, or to disprove his guilt.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I say a word upon this Bill from the point of view of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. I also regret to differ from the noble and learned Earl in the view he has taken of

491
this Bill, and I desire to repeat what my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn said with regard to the reverence which all lawyers have for the opinion of the noble and learned Earl on Criminal Law. But I think he has hardly noticed two matters which in my opinion are of great importance in this Bill. First of all, the rules are now made part of the Bill itself. Originally it was merely a skeleton Bill; and I think it is quite right—the Lord Chancellor referred to the objection which I took on this point on the Second Reading—that the rules should be enacted by Parliament as part of the legislation itself. Secondly, there is the power by the Rule Committee to alter the rules. At the same time a provision has been inserted in the Bill that any rule so altered shall be laid before the two Houses of Parliament for a certain number of days in order that the change may be criticised if any one cares to criticise it before the rule becomes law. That is an ample safeguard. You cannot deal with the Criminal Law in a better way than by allowing rules to be made by an expert Committee subject to the control of Parliament, and if they are made in any sense adversely to the general principles of our Criminal Law, they can be criticised in either House of Parliament.
The other matter to which the noble and learned Earl referred was this. He seemed to think that the prisoner would not know what he was charged with. If that were likely to be true, it would be the greatest possible criticism upon a Bill of this kind. I support this Bill exactly from the opposite point of view. I have very often seen the demeanour of a prisoner in the box when the present form of indictment is read and he is asked whether or not he is guilty. I consider that the main object of the Bill is that the prisoner shall know in the simplest possible language what the charge made against him is before the trial takes place. Personally I should oppose any rule in our Criminal Law which did not in the fullest sense protect the prisoner charged, in the same way as he is protected at the present time. I agree with what the noble and learned Earl said as to our system having been evolved from the extreme harshness of our Criminal Law a century ago; but I think the effect has been that we have evolved a system of procedure which is not only extremely fair in itself and likely to lead to the best results, but, what perhaps is still more important,
492
which has the confidence of the people of the country generally. That is to say, there is a general feeling at the present time that under our system of Criminal Law it is highly improbable that an innocent man will be convicted. I think it is extremely important that that sense of justice should be maintained and increased if possible. I say again that I regret differing from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, on a point of this kind, but I cannot help feeling that his fears may be exaggerated and that the safeguards in the Bill are ample.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, leave out clause 1 and insert the following new clauses:
Rules as to indictments.
1. The rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act with respect to indictments shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but those rules may be added to, varied, or annulled by further rules made by the rule committee under this Act.
Powers of rule committee.
2.—(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Act a rule committee consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of England a judge of the High Court, a chairman of quarter sessions, a clerk of assize, a clerk of the peace, and another person having experience in criminal procedure, appointed in each case by the Lord Chief Justice.
(2) The rule committee shall have power from time to time subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to make rules varying or annulling the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act and to make further rules with respect to the matters dealt with in those rules, and those rules shall have effect subject to any modifications or additions so made.
(3) Any rules made by the rule committee shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament and if within forty days on which either House has sat since the rules were so laid before the House a petition is presented to His Majesty praying that the rules or any part of them may be annulled His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the same shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.
(4) The term of office of any person who is a member of the committee by virtue of appointment shall be such as may be specified in the appointment.
Clause 3, page 2, line 1, after ("for") insert ("both").
Clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out ("they") and insert ("the Court")
Clause 4, page 3, Line 8, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 9 and insert ("trial had not commenced, and")
Clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out ("alteration or extension") and insert ("enlargement").
Clause 5, page 3, line 19, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may")
Clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out ("any") and insert ("such")
Clause 5, page 3, line 23, after ("defective") insert ("as the Court thinks fit").
Clause 7, page 3, line 34, leave out ("made")
Clause 7, page 3, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("or relating to costs")
Clause 7, page 3, line 40, after ("charged") insert ("or otherwise affect the laws of evidence in criminal cases").
After Clause 8, page 4, insert the following new schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  RULES.
  Material, &c., for indictments.
  1.—(1) An indictment may be on parchment or durable paper, and may be either written or printed, or partly written and partly printed.
  (2) Each sheet on which an indictment is set out shall be not more than 12 and not less than 6 inches in length, and not more than 14 and not less than 12 inches in width, and if more than one sheet is required, the sheets shall be fastened together in book form.
  (3) A proper margin not less than 3 inches in width shall be kept on the left-hand side of each sheet.
  (4) Figures and abbreviations may be used in an indictment for expressing anything which is commonly expressed thereby.
  (5) There shall be endorsed on the back of an indictment the name of every witness examined or intended to be examined upon oath by the grand jury.
  Commencement of the indictment.
  2. The commencement of the indictment shall be in the following form:—
  The King v. A. B.
  COURT OF TRIAL [e.g., Central Criminal Court, [or] In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, [or] Durham County Assizes held at Durham, [or] Hants Quarter Sessions held at Winchester].

  PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY.
  A.B. is charged with the following offence [offences]:—
  Joining of charges in one indictment.
  3. Charges for any offences, whether felonies or misdemeanours, may be joined in the same indictment if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character.
  Mode in which offences are to be charged.
  4.—(1) A description of the offence charged in an indictment, or where more than one offence
  494
  is charged in an indictment, of each offence so charged, shall be set out in the indictment in a separate paragraph called a count.
  (2) A count of an indictment shall commence with a statement of the offence charged, called the statement of offence.
  (3) The statement of offence shall describe the offence shortly in ordinary language avoiding as far as possible the use of technical terms, and without necessarily stating all the essential elements of the offence, and if the offence charged is one created by statute, shall contain a reference to the section of the statute creating the offence.
  (4) After the statement of the offence, particulars of such offence shall be set out in ordinary language, in which the use of technical terms shall not be necessary.
  Provided that where any rule of law or any statute limits the particulars of an, offence which are required to be given in an indictment, nothing in this Rule shall require any more particulars to be given than those so required.
  (5) The forms set out in the appendix to these Rules or forms conforming thereto as nearly as may be shall be used in eases to which they are applicable, and in other cases forms to the like effect or conforming thereto as nearly as may be shall he used, the statement of offence and the particulars of offence being varied according to the circumstances in each ease.
  (6) Where an indictment contains more than one count, the counts shall be numbered consecutively in figures.
  Provisions as to Statutory offences.
  5.—(1) Where an enactment constituting an offence states the offence to be the doing or the omission to do any one of any different acts in the alternative, or the doing or the omission to do any act in any one of any different capacities, or with any one of any different intentions, or states any part of the offence in the alternative, the acts, omissions, capacities, or intentions, or other matters stated in the alternative in the enactment, may be stated in the alternative in the count charging the offence.
  (2) It shall not be necessary, in any count charging a statutory offence, to negative any exception or exemption from or qualification to the operation of the statute creating the offence
  Description of property.
  6.—(1) The description of property in a count in an indictment shall be in ordinary language and such as to indicate with reasonable clearness the property referred to, and if the property is so described it shall not be necessary (except when required for the purpose of describing an offence depending on any special ownership of property or special value of property) to name the person to whom the property belongs or the value of the property.
  (2) Where property is vested in more than one person, and the owners of the property are referred to in an indictment it shall be sufficient to describe the property as owned by one of those persons by name with others, and if the persons owning the property are a body of persons with a collective name, such as "Inhabitants," "Trustees," "Commissioners," or "Club," or other such name, it shall be sufficient to use the collective name without naming any individual
  Description of persons.
  7. The description or designation in an indictment of the accused person, or of any other person to whom reference is made therein, shall be such as is reasonably sufficient to identify burn, without necessarily stating his correct name, or his abode, style, degree, or occupation; and if, owing to the name of the person not being known, or for any other reason, it is impracticable to give such a description or designation, such description or designation shall be given as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances, or such person may be described as "a person unknown."
  Description of document.
  8. Where it is necessary to refer to any document or instrument in an indictment, it shall be sufficient to describe it by any name or designation by which it is usually known, or by the purport thereof, without setting out any copy thereof.
  General rule as to description.
  9. Subject to any other provisions of these Rules, it shall be sufficient to describe any place, time, thing, matter, act, or omission whatsoever to which it is necessary to refer in any indictment, in ordinary language in such a manner as to indicate with reasonable clearness the place, time, thing, matter, act or omission referred to.
  Statement of intent.
  10. It shall not be necessary in stating any intent to defraud deceive or injure to state an intent to defraud deceive or injure any particular person where the statute creating the offence does not make an intent to defraud deceive or injure a particular person an essential ingredient of the offence.
  Charge of previous convictions, &c.
  11. Any charge of a previous conviction of an offence or of being a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard shall be charged at the end of the indictment by means of a statement—in the case of a previous conviction that the person accused has been previously convicted of that offence at a certain time and place without stating the particulars of the offence, and in the case of a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard, that the offender is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard.
  Duty to furnish copy of indictment.
  12.—(1) It shall be the duty of the clerk of assize, after a true bill has been found on any indictment, to supply to the accused person, on request, a copy of the indictment free of charge.
  (2) The cost of any copy supplied to the accused person whether under this Rule or otherwise shall be treated as part of the costs of the prosecution for the purpose of section one of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908.
  (3) In the application of this Rule to quarter sessions, the clerk of the peace shall be substituted for the clerk of assize.
  Interpretation.
  13. The Interpretation Act, 1889, applies for the interpretation of these Rules as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
  Short title.
  14. These Rules may be cited as the Indictment Rules, 1915.

APPENDIX TO RULES.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, murdered J.S.
2.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Accessory after the fact to murder.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., well knowing that one, H.C., did on the day of in the county of murder C.C., did on the day of in the county of and on other days thereafter receive, comfort, harbour, assist and maintain the said H.C.
3.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, killed J.S.
4.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, had carnal knowledge of E.F. without her consent.
5.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Wounding with intent, contrary to section IS of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, wounded C.D., with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, or to maim, disfigure, or disable him, or to resist the lawful apprehension of him the said A.B.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Wounding, contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, maliciously wounded C.D.
6.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Cruelty to a child contrary to section 12 of the Children Act, 1908.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, being a person over the age of sixteen years having the custody, charge, or care of C.D., a child ill-treated or neglected the said child, or caused or procured the said child to be ill-treated or neglected in a manner likely to cause the said child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health.
7.

STATEMENT OE OFFENCE.
Larceny contrary to section 67 of the Larceny Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, being clerk or servant to M.N., stole from the said M.N., ten yards of cloth.
8.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Robbery with violence contrary to section 42 of the Larceny Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, robbed C.D. of a watch, and at the time of or immediately before or immediately after such a robbery did use personal violence to the said C.D.
9.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Larceny after a previous conviction.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, stole a bag, the property of C.D.
A.B. has been previously convicted of burglary on the day of, at the assizes held at Reading.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Receiving stolen goods contrary to section 91 of the Larceny Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, did receive a bag, the property of C.D., knowing the same to have been stolen.
10.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Burglary and larceny contrary to section 60 of the Larceny Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., in the night of the day of, in the county of, did break and enter the dwelling-house of C.D. with intent to steal therein, and did steal therein one watch, the property of S.T., the said watch being of the value of ten pounds.
11.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Sending threatening letter contrary to section 46 of the Larceny Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of sent, delivered or uttered to or caused to be received by C.D., a letter accusing or threatening to accuse the said C.D of an infamous crime with intent to extort money from the said C.D.
12.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Obtaining goods by false pretences contrary to section 88 of the Larceny Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, with intent to defraud, obtained from S.P. five yards of cloth by falsely pretending that he, the said A.B., was a servant to J.S., and that he, the said A.B., had then been sent by the said J.S., to S.P. for the said cloth, and that he, the said A.B., was then authorised by the said J.S. to receive the said cloth on behalf of the said J.S.
13.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Conspiracy to defraud.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B. and C.D. on the day of and on divers days between that day and the day of, in the county of, conspired together with intent to defraud by means of an advertisement inserted by them, the said A.B. and C.D., in the H.S. newspaper, falsely representing that A.B. and C.D. were then carrying on a genuine business as jewelers in the county of and that they were then able to supply certain articles of jewellery to whomsoever would remit to them the sum of two pounds.
14.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Arson contrary to section 2 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, maliciously set fire to a dwelling-house, one F.G. being therein.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Arson contrary to section 3 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, maliciously set fire to a house with intent to injure or defraud.
15.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCES.
A.B., arson contrary to section 3 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861;
C.D., accessory before the fact to same offence.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, set fire to a house with intent to injure or defraud.
C.D., on the same day, in the county of did counsel, procure, and command the said A.B. to commit the said offence.
16.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Offence under section 35 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, displaced a sleeper belonging to the Great Western Railway with intent to obstruct, upset, overthrow, injure, or destroy any engine, tender, carriage or truck using the said railway.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Obstructing railway contrary to section 36 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, by unlawfully displacing a sleeper belonging to the Great Western Railway did obstruct or cause to be obstructed an engine or carriage using the said railway.
17.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Damaging trees contrary to section 22 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, maliciously damaged an oak tree there growing.
A.B. has been twice previously convicted of an offence under section 22 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, namely, at, on the day of, and at, on the day of
18.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Forgery contrary to section 2 (1) (a) of the Forgery Act, 1913.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, with intent to defraud, forged a certain will purporting to be the will of C.D.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Uttering forged document contrary to section 6 (1) (2) of the Forgery Act, 1913.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, uttered a certain forged will purporting to be the will of C.D., knowing the same to be forged and with intent to defraud.
19.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Uttering counterfeit coin contrary to section 9 of the Coinage Offences Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, at the public-house called "The Red Lion," in the county of, uttered a counterfeit half-crown, knowing the same to be counterfeit.
20.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Uttering counterfeit coin contrary to section 12 of the Coinage Offences Act, 1861.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, at a public-house called "The Red Lion," in the county of, uttered a counterfeit sovereign, knowing the same to be counterfeit.
A.B. has been previously convicted of a misdemeanour under section 9 of the Coinage Offences Act, 1861, on the day of at
21.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Perjury contrary to section (1) (i) of the Perjury Act, 1911.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, being a witness upon the trial of an action in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England, in which one,, was plaintiff, and one,, was defendant, knowingly falsely swore that he saw one, M.N., in the street called the Strand, London, on the day of
22.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, published a defamatory libel concerning E.F., in the form of a letter [book, pamphlet, picture, or as the case may be].
[Innuendo should be stated where necessary.]
23.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
First Count.
Publishing obscene libel.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
E.M., on the day of, in the county of, sold, uttered, and published and caused and procured to be sold, uttered, and published an obscene libel the particulars of which are deposited with this indictment.
(Particulars to specify pages and lines Complained of where necessary as in a book.)

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Procuring obscene libel (or thing) with intent to sell or publish.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
E.M., on the day of, in the county of, procured an obscene libel (or thing), the particulars of which are deposited with this indictment, with intent to sell, utter or publish such obscene libel (or thing).
24.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
A.B., undischarged bankrupt obtaining credit contrary to section 5 (1) (a) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1913.
C.D., being accessory to same offence.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, being an undischarged bankrupt obtained credit to the extent of twelve pounds from H.S. without informing the said H.S. that he then was an undischarged bankrupt.
C.D. at the same time and place did aid, abet, counsel, and procure A.B. to commit the said offence.
25.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
First Count.
Falsification of accounts contrary to section 1 of Falsification of Accounts Act, 1875.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, being clerk or servant to C.D., with intent to defraud, made or con-
502
curred in making a false entry in a cash book belonging to the said C.D., his employer, purporting to show that on the said day 100 l. had been paid to L.M.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Same as first count.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, being clerk or servant to C.D., with intent to defraud, omitted or concurred in omitting from or in a cash book belonging to the said C.D., his employer, a material particular, that is to say, the receipt on the said day of 50 l. from H.S.
26.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
First Count.
Fraudulent conversion of property contrary to section 1 (1) (a) of Larceny Act, 1901.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, fraudulently converted to his own use and benefit certain property, that is to say, 100 l. entrusted to him by H.S., in order that he, the said A.B., might retain the same in safe custody.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Second Count.
Fraudulent conversion of property contrary to section 1 (1) (b) of Larceny Act, 1901.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B., on the day of, in the county of, fraudulently converted to his own use and benefit certain property, that is to say, the sum of 200 l. received by him for and on account of L.M.

SCHEDULE.
Page 19, leave out lines 42 to 45.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the nature of the machinery proposed to be set up for the purpose of investigating the expenditure of certain branches of the spending Departments; are new positions to be created for this purpose or will the investigations be conducted by existing officials, and if so, of what Department. What instructions are to be given to the officials conducting the investigation and what is the nature of the scrutiny to be extended to new appointments and the creation of new offices; and further to call attention to the destruction of capital and credit all over Europe owing to the war, and the danger thereby caused to the financial stability of the entire Continent.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will shorten what I have to say as much as I can in order to leave room and opportunity for speakers of more ability and influence. I know quite well that a great many people think that owing to the various vicissitudes which His Majesty's Government have to encounter just now no speeches at all ought to be made. A noble relative of mine, Lord Glenconner, wrote to that effect the other day to The Times, and Sir John Simon, I think, in a week-end speech a few days ago, said that anybody who was at all inclined to find himself in disagreement with anything that was going on and ventured to say so was "distilling poisonous gases and propagating hysterical fears." Then the other night when my noble friend Lord Weardale said that there was such a thing as Ministerial responsibility and that there was a Prime Minister, Lord Crewe seemed quite annoyed and read Lord Weardale a lecture to the effect that that was an attack upon the personal character of Mr. Asquith. I do not take that view. I think there is such a thing as Ministerial responsibility. If not, who is responsible? Certainly not the innocent Back Bench Peers who sit about in the House, nor the newspapers. One inevitable result that comes from a Coalition Government is that you have a coalition attitude of vigilance and criticism. I am for that. In my view, just as our Armies have to face our enemies, and just as our taxpayers have to face the cost of the war, so our Ministers have to face criticism of their conduct and their expenditure.
My Question on the Paper divides itself into two parts. The first part emerges from Lord Midleton's speech the other night—a speech which put the points simply and clearly, and to which I think all noble Lords listened with pleasure and appreciation. It was said of Professor de Morgan that he could make mathematics romantic and disquieting in their sequence and their consequences, and of Lord Midleton's figures the other night it can be said that in his dexterous hands their leaps and bounds were as graceful as those of antelopes. A good deal of my Question seems to have been answered by the recent announcement of the appointment of a Government Committee. I venture to hope that it is not merely going to be a "candle-ends and cheese-paring affair," and that the Committee is going to look into the very much larger questions which were adverted to by Lord Midleton. I saw the other day that Lord St. Aldwyn somewhere or other said he rather wished that it was going to be a Cabinet Committee and to be presided over by the Prime Minister. Well, I do not know. I bow to Lord St. Aldwyn. He is not a member of the Cabinet, but personally I should like to see him on the Committee. I only hope that this Committee is not going to have too official a character. The official mantle clings closely and tightly. I would not at all even say that some of the "leaven" to which Lord Curzon alluded the other evening, if they sat on that Committee, would not find themselves curiously cramped by that same mantle. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will tell us how far this is to be a purely official Committee, or how far the people of this country are going to hear from outside or capable sources how their money has been spent and is going to be spent. In the debate on July 6 the noble Marquess, in speaking of the careful scrutiny which they were prepared to institute, added that this scrutiny would be particularly exercised "when we come to deal with the question of new appointments and the creation of new offices." Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us how that will work out. I am reminded that Mr. Gladstone when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1863 I think, heard that a senior clerk in the Public Debt Office was at death's door. He at once wrote to Lord Palmerston bidding him on no account to fill up the office, as it was quite unnecessary. However, no doubt

505
the noble Marquess will explain to us how the scrutiny to which he referred will work out. I think the appointment of this Committee is a salutary if a rather tardy move.
I see that Ministers are constantly paving visits to the Front. I dare say that is a pleasing amusement, but Ministers cannot win battles; they certainly cannot kill Germans; and I cannot help thinking that they may be better able to bring about both those results by looking after our business at home. Anyhow, public economy and private thrift are the order of the day, and I do not know that it has come a moment too soon. I will read one quotation from Mr. Gladstone, because it hangs on to something I want to say later. This is what Mr. Gladstone said a good many years ago, and to some extent it represents the kind of way we have been going on for some years past—
"All excess in the public expenditure beyond the legitimate wants of the country is not only a pecuniary waste but a great political and a great moral evil. It is characteristic of the mischiefs that arise from financial prodigality that they crap onward with a noiseless and a stealthy step."
That was said a good many years ago, but you had a warning of very much the same kind not very long ago from the noble Earl who sits on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer. I find that on the Second Reading of the Old-Age Pensions Bill in July, 1908, the noble Earl spoke of reckless finance, and he added—
"The main duty of the Government is to make prevision betimes for the European conflict which will be forced on us before many years have clapsed."
Any one who wants to see how near the mark Lord Cromer was should look at that speech, for the noble Earl expressed himself with an accuracy, a foresight, and a moderation which we seldom find in people who play the rôle of prophets.
The other night, after Lord Midleton and Lord St. Aldwyn had spoken, we heard a remarkable speech from Lord Haldane, who said that there had been a good deal of muddle, and I think waste, at the Treasury, but that could not be helped and we must get used to it. Then he went on to lay votive offerings on the altar of social reform and of education, and as far as I recollect said that so far from relaxing our efforts in that direction we should spend a great deal more on those experiments. Well, I rather approve of the spending of a great
506
deal of the money that has been devoted generally to improving the conditions of our poorer neighbours, and I approve of doing all we can to bring about a higher standard of citizenship, higher notions of what the citizen can do for his country; but I am hound to say that we leave had very poor value for our money. For what is the net result? In a commercial country involved in a great war labour is a most essential part of the body politic and of your national salvation, but conditions of labour have been created which are always unreliable and often refractory. Lord Haldane, on July 5 in his speech at the National Liberal Club, told us that although large orders for munitions had been placed they lead not been completed. He said—
"The industrial conditions in face of such a demand wore such that the manufacturers could not complete and were confounded."
I do not think that is in some ways very surprising And here again I will quote from the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, for I find that, on July 20, 1911, on the occasion of the discussion of the Parliament Act, he told us in this House—
"Concession after concession has been made, each popular, each costly, and each based on the temporary Party and electoral necessities of the moment rather than the permanent interests of the country."
Well, it is very difficult to say what we can do. We have just had the Munitions Bill passed. Its powers are defined, but I should think it is a very nice point whether they can be enforced. However, I am glad to see that the Coalition Government—whether the old Government would have done the same I know not—are at all events waking up to the general position, financial and other, in which we are.
"Crisis," "Grave peril," have become the shibboleths of every Ministerial utterance, I am sorry to say in very sad contrast to the braveries and optimisms of some three or four months ago. But, as I say, it was high time you did something. I go further, and say I believe that you must take some risks. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when speaking on the Registration Bill the other evening, indicated that circumstances aught possibly arise where sonic form of national service would have to be instituted. It looks very much as if some form of national labour will also have to be instituted. I am prepared to speak civilly of trade unions. I quite understand that the great body of

507
workers are loth to part with the fabric of trade unionism which they have built up. But it really seems to me that something will have to be done by which labour will be placed at the disposal of the public, and not of the individual trade interest.
I now come to the second part of what I have to say. A good many years ago Mr. Gladstone used to advise me to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded in the House of Lords by our plan of putting Questions. Mr. Gladstone used to say that in the House of Commons Questions were put down to elicit information, and that in the House of Lords they were put down to convey an argument. Well, I make no pretence of conveying an argument as to the second part of my notice on the Paper. There are one or two noble Lords here to-night who will do that very much better than I can. I merely invite the attention of the House to two or three broad considerations on the world aspects of credit and of finance as they are affected by this war. Since I put my Question down I see that Mr. Harold Cox delivered a lecture in the City, at which Lord St. Aldwyn also spoke; and the Press is full of literature on the whole question of what the war is costing the world, and of letters on the subject of the cost of the war all round, to belligerents and to neutrals alike. I do not want to go further into that. I will merely remind you of some figures which are probably in all your minds. According to the figures of June, the world had 12,477,000 men under arms. They were costing £10,000,000 a day. The figures which I saw assumed a fourteen months' war, of course a hypothetical figure. Very simple arithmetic will explain what that force of men, involving that amount of money a day, with all the cleaning-up bills, will cost the civilised world engaged in these operations. And I see that for us what we shall have to pay, when the war is brought to a conclusion, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, will add something like £130,000,000 to our national expenditure.
It was Lord Bacon, I think, who said that "extraordinary expenses must be limited by the worth of the occasion." That is a thesis upon which most people could write an essay, and how you wrote your essay would depend a great deal upon your own interpretation of the word "worth" or the word "occasion." I certainly shall not inflict on the House any observations of my own on that. But
508
probably in the mellow seclusion of your own sitting rooms you sometimes look at Horace (that is supposed to be a pursuit of the members of the House of Lords, or was), and I dare say you remember the obstinate and upright man and the lines—
Si fractus illabatur orbis,
Impavidum ferient ruinœ.
That is all very well, but looking round on the state of affairs, looking round on what this must mean, not to this country but to Europe and the civilised world, I am bound to say that I do not feel impavidus. I should very much like to see us—if we could do so on any basis of dignity and of reason—get out of this age of conflict which seems to have beset the world and go back into an age of commerce. That would be very welcome to me, although I quite recognise that of course we are at war, that this country must go on with the war, and that we have a staying power which will enable us, I believe, to go on with the war. But do not let us blind ourselves to the possibility of some new shift in the circumstances providing some basis of that kind; and let us not shut our eyes to the consequences of this great war to civilisation, to commerce, to wealth, to hundreds of other things which will be in the minds of all your Lordships, if an occasion arises in which we can consider putting an end to it or getting an end brought to it, as I say, on a basis of reason and dignity. Mr. Pitt, on the exceptional occasion of his deathbed, is supposed to have said—though I believe it is contested—"Roll up the map of Europe." To my mind, were an inhabitant of Mars or Saturn to visit Europe now he would say, viewing the waste of treasure and life, "Take Europe to see a mad doctor." I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it fell to me the other evening to deal with this subject in reply to my noble friend opposite (Lord Midleton), and I may be perhaps allowed this evening to say a few words in reply to the Questions addressed to the House by my noble friend who has just sat down. He reminded us that his Questions on the Paper fall into two sections. He began with a series of questions addressed to His Majesty's Government, questions which he had a perfect right to put and of which we certainly do not complain; and having

509
addressed those questions to us he passed on to a review, or perhaps I ought rather to say an anticipation, of the financial situation which is likely to arise as the result of the great war now in progress. He indulged in this anticipation no doubt because he thought that it was germane to the questions he had addressed to us, and indeed he used the formula which he himself borrowed from Mr. Gladstone. His series of questions was used "to convey an argument," the argument which he laid before the House.
When my noble friend draws our attention to what he calls the destruction of capital and credit which may follow upon this war, he is making a suggestion the reasonableness of which I suppose no member of this House could be found to dispute. We all realise how grave the financial situation which will arise at the end of this war must be; and when my noble friend presses that point upon our consideration he is really, if I may say so, forcing an open door. My noble friend gave us some figures bearing upon this part of the case. All such figures must obviously be more or less conjectural. But whether the figures are a little larger or a little smaller, the broad facts remain; and these are surely that although some nations may possibly emerge from this struggle with an increase of territory, or perhaps an increase of reputation, no nation is likely to emerge from it with unimpaired resources. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that the youngest member of your Lordships' House cannot expect to live long enough to see the complete obliteration of the terrible traces which this war is going to leave behind it. It will leave those traces not only in the form of an arrestation of progress and prosperity, but in a great burden of financial embarrassment, I might almost say financial disaster, which it will take all the resources of the civilised world to bear. We, at any rate, shall none of us make light of my noble friend's anticipations, or contradict him when he bases upon them a plea for frugal and careful administration.
My noble friend reminded me of the pledge which I gave the other evening. My pledge was a two-fold pledge. I undertook, in the first place, in general terms that the Government collectively and every member of the Government would make it
510
their business to introduce a careful scrutiny of the action of all the Departments concerned in our public expenditure. That was a general pledge against financial prodigality, to use my noble friend's words, and I gladly repeat it to-night. But I added to that a more specific pledge. I gave an undertaking that we would in certain cases set up machinery for the purpose of investigating the expenditure of those branches of the spending departments in which the absence of sufficient control had made itself felt; and my noble friend asked me, very properly, to tell him what is the special machinery which we have in view.
Let me, in the first place, say to the House a few words in regard to the Departments in connection with which we propose that this special machinery will be set up. Our proposal is that it shall deal not with the whole of the public expenditure but with the civil expenditure of the Government. I may say as to that that I noticed that my noble friend Lord Midleton, in the course of the very able speech which he addressed to the House the other evening, was careful to confine himself to the question of civil expenditure. Indeed, he will remember that the Motion which he carried without any discordant note was a Motion that effectual steps should be taken to reduce the civil expenditure of the country; and my noble friend focussed his attention upon questions arising out of the civil expenditure and the civil expenditure alone. I am quite sure that when my noble friend adopted that course he did so because, with his long administrative experience, he realised that in the midst of the strain and stress of a great war it is really impossible to impose a public inquiry upon the War Office and the Admiralty. In our belief, to do this would be to run the risk of something very nearly approaching the paralysis of the activities of those Departments. Those of us who have had experience of inquiries conducted into one branch or another of the public administration know that one of the consequences of setting up such an inquiry is that the whole of the officials concerned at once begin to turn their attention to the manner in which they are likely to come out of that inquiry, and away from all other business which lies ready to their hands. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the dread which many people have of the

511
kind of cross-examination which witnesses have to undergo before Committees or Commissions of this kind. I have myself known cases of soldiers whose intrepidity was beyond all question, but who, nevertheless, made a very poor show indeed when they had to submit to cross-examination before a body perhaps consisting of a certain number of gentlemen brought up to the legal profession and of others who, though not lawyers themselves, seemed bent upon showing that in the art of cross-examination they had nothing to learn from lawyers. The view which I have ventured to express, that an inquiry of this kind ought not to be conducted at the present time either into the affairs of the War Office or into the affairs of the Admiralty, is very strongly held by my colleagues; and we therefore propose that the special machinery which I shall describe in a moment is to be directed to the civil Departments and to civil Departments only.
Now as to the form which this inquiry is to take. I told my noble friend the other evening that we did not propose to appoint a Royal Commission, and I remain of the opinion that a Royal Commission would not be appropriate for the purposes which we have in view. Nor, again, do we desire to set up anything like a tribunal entirely external to the Government. We believe that this inquiry will be quite as much in the interests of the Government as it will be in the interests of the public, and that the Government should therefore take a part, and a conspicuous part, in it. For this reason we propose that the Committee should be presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that it will greatly strengthen his hands in discharging the duty which particularly belongs to him—that is, the duty of controlling the expenditure of the different Departments of the Government. And we propose to associate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Montagu, the Financial Secretary. But, my Lords—and at this point I can reassure my noble friend—nothing is further from our intention than to make this an official or a Departmental Committee. On the contrary, we propose to go outside the ranks of the Government and to invoke assistance from a number of gentlemen of experience in these matters and of an entirely independent position in public life. I will first give to the House the names of those members of the Com-
512
mittee who will be taken from the two Houses of Parliament; and here I must premise that I am going to give the names of those who have been asked to serve upon the Committee, but I am not yet able to say whether the whole of them have accepted the invitation that has been sent to them. In the first place we propose to include my noble friend Lord Midleton. He will have to pay the penalty of the ability with which he dealt with this question the other evening, and I am sure he will not be reluctant, no matter how laborious the task may be, to give us his invaluable assistance. We propose to add the following members of the House of Commons: Mr. J. M. Mason, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Sir L. Chiozza Money, Mr. H. T. Baker, and Mr. J. H. Thomas, a Labour Member; and we propose to include from outside the Houses of Parliament the following three gentlemen: Sir Gilbert Claughton, Bart., Chairman of the London and North Western Railway Company; Mr. Gaspard Farrer, a partner in the house of Baring Brothers; and Mr. Harold Cox, to whose speech my noble friend referred, a gentleman whose public utterances are always listened to with attention, and who has made this particular subject his special study. So much as to the composition of the Committee. And then my noble friend would like to know what the reference to the Committee is to be. The terms of reference will be as follows—
"To inquire and to report what savings in public expenditure can, in view of the necessities created by the war, be effected in the Civil Departments without detriment to the interests of the State."
I think my noble friend will agree that that is an ample reference which will give the Committee all the scope that it can possibly desire.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Might I ask my noble friend whether it is clear that the Civil Departments include the Revenue Department and the Post Office?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is certainly intended. If the terms of reference require reconsideration I will see that they are amended. My noble friend has the Post Office in view; I know that that is intended to be covered. Before I sit down perhaps I may be allowed to say this with regard to the Departments which do not come within the scope of the reference—I mean the Admiralty and the War

513
Office. I am anxious that it should not be supposed that either of these Departments is indifferent to the cause of public economy, or that they do not intend to avail themselves of every opportunity to keep within the strictest bounds the immense expenditure which is at this moment passing through their hands. I am able to say particularly that the War Office is most anxious to put a stop to any unnecessary expenditure or waste, and is ready to consult with the Treasury and to devise any means of which they or the Treasury may be capable to curtail unnecessary expenditure. I am able to add that Lord Kitchener is going into this matter himself with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he has appointed a Departmental Committee in the War Office to deal with the whole subject. This Committee is working in consultation with the Treasury, and every effort will be made to avoid any possible waste. I think I have told your Lordships all that I can tell you with regard to the Committee. It certainly will not be, as my noble friend put it, too official in character. In appointing it my noble friend will not, I think, consider that we are merely paying lip service to the cause of economy. I think the composition of the Committee and the terms of reference should be sufficient to show that this inquiry means business, and we are confident that its results will be to the public advantage.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I do not suppose that any of us feel much disposed to indulge in useless recriminations as regards the past. At the same time the history of the recent past is so fraught with lessons which can be of use to us in the present and in the future that it is impossible not to make some allusion to it. We all know that when a gambler is ruined it is not entirely due to the fact that he loses large sums of money at the gaming table, but also to the further fact that he becomes hopelessly demoralised by the gambling table and loses all sense of the true value of money. That is what I think has happened to the public in this country with regard to public expenditure. I have a very clear opinion myself as to what is the main cause of this demoralisation, but I am not going into it fully, and for two reasons. In the first place, to do so would rake up old controversies which may very profitably be allowed to sleep; the other reason is that the eminent statesman who I cannot but think is himself
514
largely responsible for the present state of things has very amply condoned any mistakes he has made in the past by the fearless energy and ability with which he has thrown himself into the national cause since the war began. But still there are one or two points in the past to which I think allusion should be made.
My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale did me the honour to quote from one or two speeches which I made a few years ago. It is a fact that I rather posed then as a political and financial Cassandra, and my warnings received about as much attention as those which were given to that ill-treated prophetess in the days of Agamemnon and Priam. But I did not stand alone in that matter. There were a great many members of this House and of the other House who were alarmed at the growth of expenditure and who frequently asked the question, Quo vadis? without getting any very satisfactory reply. Then there is another point to which I think some attention should be drawn, all the more so because some hard things are occasionally said about the House of Lords. I think it is just as well to remind, if not the general public, at all events the thinking public of this fact. It does sometimes happen that the views expressed by Peers and by this House collectively deserve more attention than our critics would have the public believe. Your Lordships will remember that when the Old-Age Pensions Bill was under consideration here an Amendment was carried by a very large majority limiting the operations of the Bill to a period, if I recollect rightly, of seven years. The idea was not in any way to wreck the Old-Age Pensions Bill, because every one recognised that some such measure was necessary. I think the view that was prevalent in this House was rather that we were taking a leap in the dark, that the question had been insufficiently and inadequately examined in the House of Commons, that we were incurring liabilities to an absolutely unknown amount, and that we were embarking on a hazardous experiment of which no one could foresee the result. It was therefore thought, very wisely, that the Parliament of the nation would act wisely if they had an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question in a few years by the light of such experience as had been gained. You are aware that that Amendment was rejected, even scornfully rejected, by the House of

515
Commons. Is there any impartial man, not carried away by Party spirit, who will now have the hardihood to deny that it would have been a very good thing for this country if that Amendment had been carried? I venture to say, as a matter of fact, that if it had been carried we should eventually have had an Old-Age Pensions Act very much better and more economical than that which now exists. However, it is no use crying over spilt milk, so I will say no more about the past.
The noble Marquess who leads the House, in his sympathetic reply to Lord Midleton, said he hoped and believed a great change was coming over public opinion, and that in the future more attention would be paid to public expenditure than in the past. I devoutly hope that the noble Marquess is right, but I confess I am not very sanguine. Thrift is by no means a British national characteristic, and probably no class of the community in this country from the Peer to the peasant is as thrifty as the corresponding class in Continental countries. However, we must hope for the best. At this hour I feel perfectly well assured that if anything is to be done in the way of effecting economy the example must be set by Parliament itself, and notably by the House of Commons. Of all the strange delusions that ever possessed the public mind, perhaps the greatest is that what is called a popular Assembly is an efficient guardian of the public purse. There are a great many arguments in favour of giving the control of the public purse to a popular Assembly. I do not think that any man would impugn such an argument; but it is a political argument. It certainly cannot be contended that a popular Assembly exercises its influence in the direction of economy. All history is there to prove exactly to the contrary. I am perfectly well aware that in past days there were individual members of the House of Commons—I remember one of them whom I used to hear a great deal of in my boyhood, Mr. Joseph Hume—who kept a vigilant eye on the Estimates and did a great deal in the cause of economy. But we look in vain for men of his type to-day. The House of Commons has never been economical except when swayed by the mind of one predominant Minister, such as Mr. Gladstone, who was himself a rigid economist. Latterly there has been no such
516
economy. On the contrary, the country has had revealed to it the amazing sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ought to be a sort of Cerberus sitting at the gate of the Treasury and warning off intruders, coming down to the House of Commons to initiate great and costly schemes of reform. I am not going into the question whether those reforms are good or bad, but I do say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not the proper person to initiate them. What has been the result? The result has been that the Treasury has been turned into a spending Department. I hope that whatever else is done the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he has a little time to spare, will effect a reform which has been pressed upon him by very high financial authorities in this country, and that is to let the Treasury cease from being a spending Department and bring it back to its sole and proper function—the control of expenditure in other Departments. I think this is the first and preliminary measure necessary if we are really to enter into the paths of economy.
I quite agree that there are some satisfactory symptoms that we are really beginning to turn over a new leaf. In the first place the very lucid and straight-forward speech made by my noble friend Lord Hylton the other day, in answer to a Question by Lord Oranmore, showed clearly that the Local Government Board have seen the original error of their ways, and so far front pressing local authorities to spend money they are new doing everything they can to check extravagance. I shall have something to say in a few moments about military and naval expenditure, but these are all steps in the right direction. So far as my own personal experience in these matters is concerned—and I have had a great deal of experience—I have always thought that the greatest guarantee for economy in public expenditure was the presence of a strong man at the head of the Treasury who would have the courage to incur the unpopularity which is always incurred by saving "No" to all sorts of different demands. I do not say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer does not possess that admirable quality, but he has yet to show his metal. I see opposite my noble friend Lord D'Abernon, who was instrumental in rescuing a country in which I was greatly interested at one time from bank-

517
ruptcy. The noble Lord was then Sir Edgar Vincent, and he had a very simple system. He did not juggle with figures; he did not introduce remarkable changes in the fiscal or financial system of the country; his success, which was very remarkable, was entirely due to one cause—that was, he had the most phenomenal power of any one I ever met of giving a decided "No" to any one who wanted to get a £5 note out of the Egyptian Treasury. I do not think any one except myself agreed with what he did at the time, but he has had his reward, and his reward is that when he left the country he was able to point to the fact that the Egyptian finances were in an exceedingly sound state.
The difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in ensuring economy is enormous. There can be no doubt about that. Of course, every one agrees in principle with economy. I do not see my noble friend Lord Sanderson on the Cross Benches just now, but I am certain that if he were there he would concur in the statement that in a diplomatic conversation there is nothing more discouraging than to find a foreign diplomatist agreeing with you in principle. That has been my experience. I always shuddered when a foreign colleague told me he agreed with me in principle, because I knew what was coming afterwards. It is exactly the same in finance. If I may say so, we had a singular exemplification of this in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, the other day. As I understood him, he entirely agreed with economy in the abstract, but with a proviso. He said, "You must not touch education." That is the Ark of the Covenant, on which the hand of no profane financier may be put for one moment. We all know the valuable services that the noble and learned Viscount has rendered to education. But the question is, Can we afford all this? The noble and learned Viscount carried me fully with him when he deprecated any diminution of expenditure on technical and scientific education. That is where the Germans have shown a certain amount of superiority over us, and I should regret to see any diminution in our grant under that head. But when he went on to express his dissent from what my noble friend behind me (Lord Midleton) said about spending so much money on educating children of three
518
and five years of age, I rather hesitated to follow him. I do not challenge the validity of the noble and learned Viscount's arguments considered on their own merits. I have no doubt it would be desirable to bring children of three and five years of age within the influence of the Education Department. But can we afford it? My contention is that after this war, and for a good many years after, the whole efforts of Parliament and the nation will have to be devoted to one object, and that is to the maintenance of the financial equilibrium, and to making an endeavour to pay off some of the enormous debt which is accumulating. In order to effect that object everything will have to be sacrificed, and a great number of national luxuries will have to be abandoned or postponed. I cannot help thinking, however praiseworthy may be the plain submission of the noble and learned Viscount, it is in the nature of a national luxury which will have to go for the time being, much to my regret. There is another national luxury, and that is the £1,500,000 spent by the Road Improvement Fund, and which I believe was mainly expended upon improving the high roads of the country so as to adapt them to high-speed motor traffic. I was informed just before this debate started that the expenditure in that direction had been cut down, and that is an example of what will have to happen in many other directions.
I should like to say a word about the naval and military expenditure, to which the noble Marquess alluded. I quite understand that it is out of the question to have now a public inquiry into naval and military expenditure. I do not suppose any one would propose that, and I think what the Government have done—the appointment of a Departmental Committee, with the help of Lord Kitchener—is the best thing that could be done; but I hope the matter will be taken seriously in hand. There appears to be a sort of idea, not so much amongst the public but amongst the official classes I have come across, that when war once begins it is practically impossible to exercise control over naval and military expenditure. I entirely dissent from that view. I believe it to be as wrong as anything can possibly be, and I am perfectly certain it is not the principle on which our foes, the Germans, are acting. Many years ago

519
when I was a young man employed at the War Office, it became part of my duty to look very carefully into the whole of the German military expenditure, and what struck me more than anything else, besides the amazing efficiency of the whole machine, was the most rigid economy that was exercised over every detail in the way of curbing expenditure. Why cannot we do the same? There cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose that extravagance is the handmaid of efficiency; it is the very reverse. My impression is that economy and efficiency go hand in hand together. If you have economy, it shows that the organisation is working smoothly; if you have extravagance, it shows exactly the opposite. I do not for one moment mean to say that any economy should be effected which would in any way impair the capacity of this country to carry on the war vigorously. Indeed, I may go further and say that to my mind the only real chance of a rehabilitation of the finances of this country and indeed of the whole world lies in continuing the war to the bitter end, with the result of crushing what I call "Kaiserism," a word I prefer to that misunderstood word "militarism." Unless that is done, and unless a real constitutional Government is substituted in Germany for the sham Constitution which now exists, we shall have fought in vain, and, apart from all other considerations, we shall be on the high road to financial ruin. For in that case the German Army will continue to be a constant menace to the world; any reduction of armaments will be impossible; the National Debt will not be paid off; social reforms will have to be abandoned; and no hope will be able to be held out that there will be any relief in taxation. But that is no reason why waste should not be put an end to, and certainly if one-half of the stories we hear current are true the waste in the Admiralty and the War Office has been perfectly appalling. I hope this will be taken in hand. I quite understand that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who now presides with such ability over the War Office finds it difficult, amongst his numerous labours, to look into this matter, but if he would put his hand to it personally I know of nobody who could do it better than himself in the way of enforcing economy. I have a very lively recollection of the way in which this noble and gallant Field-Marshal conducted the war in the Sudan. That, of course, was a very small
520
affair as compared with the gigantic war in which we are now engaged. But it was a very successful war, and it was a very cheap war. I do not think I was ever more gratified by a compliment than when the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, who speaks with unrivalled authority on these matters, complimented all in Egypt by saying that the Sudan War was the cheapest war we had waged. Therefore I hope all these matters of dealing with naval and military expenditure will be taken in hand.
I think this debate may be considered as a continuation of the very interesting discussion raised by my noble friend Lord Midleton the other day. If, therefore, I do not weary your Lordships I would ask the same indulgence to be extended to me as was extended to him, and to be allowed to make one remark on the subject of revenue. I am an old Free Trader, and I have frequently advocated the cause of Free Trade in this House. Neither have I seen anything in recent events which at all checks my adherence and loyalty to Free Trade principles. At the same time I quite agree that with altered circumstances there must be an alteration in the application of those principles. It is because I am a Free Trader that I want to express my entire concurrence in the observations which fell from the noble Earl (Lord St. Aldwyn) the other day on the subject of indirect taxation. The attitude of Free Traders on the question of indirect taxation is often rather misunderstood. Some people imagine that they object to indirect taxes being imposed under any circumstances and for any purpose. I dare say some of them do, but I am not one of those, and I do not think the noble Earl, who is quite as staunch a Free Trader as myself, is one either. So-called reasonable Free Traders have always held that indirect taxation may be imposed for revenue purposes; and it is perfectly well known that in the past Governments, whose loyalty to Free Trade principles was absolutely unimpeachable, have imposed such taxes. I am strongly of opinion that the time has come when those taxes ought to be imposed, and I think it is a matter for great regret that they were not imposed some time ago. How they are to be imposed is a matter of great difficulty, and I will not go into it now. But my personal opinion has been that the least objectionable form of indirect taxation would be to impose a low duty on all imports coming into the country, whether

521
manufactured, unmanufactured, raw material, or food; and I believe it would yield a large revenue. There were other remarks about direct taxation which I should have liked to make, but that would carry me far away, and I will not weary the House with them. I thank your Lordships for the way in which you have listened to my remarks, and I would only in conclusion say that I believe the people of this country are fully determined to carry this light on to a finish and will not object to any burden that may be put upon them to accomplish that object, and at the same time may I agree with the remark that was made by the noble Earl who said that some assurance was wanted that the money would not be wasted. I therefore hope that the Government will take this matter up seriously, and not only make every endeavour to ensure economy but before very long lay before Parliament evidence that their efforts have been successful and that I very substantial economies have been secured.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in general agreement with the remarks of the noble Earl who has just sat down. The noble Earl called attention to the fact that when economy was advocated in this House the other day in that interesting debate started by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton) the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, said that whatever we did we must not have economy in education, because that would cripple us after the war. But any amount of things may cripple us after the war. The whole of this expenditure is going to cripple us after the war; the loss of young life is going to cripple us after the war; but, after all, what we have to do is to win the war, and we cannot do that unless we are economical everywhere. For my part I am not worrying so much about money spent on education. I want to see this country so carry on the war that when it is over you will not have compulsory German taught in your schools; and the people who do not realise that that is what we are fighting for do not yet understand how this war should be waged.
The noble Marquess who spoke for the Government this evening told us that the Committee which they are setting up is to apply to civil expenditure only. As it is a Committee of inquiry I suppose that is
522
inevitable. But although the Committee may, and I have no doubt will, do most useful work which will lead to considerable economies and probably result in the case of the Post Office in an augmentation of revenue, I beg to point out, as I did a few days ago, that economy in civil matters deals with £200,000,000 only, whereas economy in war matters would be dealing with £900,000,000; and if you are to win this war it is economy in connection with the £900,00,000 that you must look to, or you cannot carry it through. The noble Marquess said that you could not have an inquiry into Admiralty and War Office expenditure because an inquiry of that nature denoted an element of hostility, and that you would have officials setting themselves against it. I, for one, do not want inquiry. What I want is to see that the War Office and the Admiralty get extra help. I do not believe there are ten men living who can spend £900,000,000 per annum without waste—terrible, extravagant waste, ruinous to the country. However able may be the man you have at the head of the War Office, and however able may be the man you have at the head of the Admiralty, those men ought to be reinforced, or this waste we most of us know about will continue. It has to be stopped.
I made a humble suggestion to the Government the other day. I put it to them that it would be well that a Committee should be set up merely for the purpose of receiving public suggestions of economy and forwarding them to the Departments concerned. The Government promised that they would think over that matter, and I must say I would like to know what their view is. I see that in the meantime a kind of Suggestions Committee has been set up by a newspaper. It has produced a large result in correspondence, and I venture to say that a great many of the suggestions made are valuable and ought to be considered. I wish the Government would again think over the suggestion I made to them the other day and consider whether something of the kind ought not to be done. The noble Marquess who spoke for the Government to-day said that he was sure the War Office was not indifferent to economy. I feel convinced that the noble and gallant Earl at the head of the War Office is most anxious to economise in every possible detail, but we can see for ourselves the

523
difficulty which the War Departments of this country are in. There is one thing in which they cannot economise. They cannot economise in the supply of material; that is obvious. The quantity is a thing in which you cannot economise. You can economise in the purchase of it, of course, and you might economise to a considerable extent in salaries. But I think if a Committee inside the War Office were set up they would find, if they inquired, that there are a very large number of soldiers in this country doing civilian work at this moment, work which might quite well be done by civilians and at a lower salary, and very often for nothing at all by voluntary help. Voluntary help ought to be much more used throughout this war than it is being used to-day. Take an illustration. There is a most expensive staff conducting the Censor's Office. If you had half-a-dozen soldiers at that Office to lay down the policy, can any one tell me that a great deal of the work of that Department now being done by soldiers could not be done by civilians?
I should like to call the attention of the Government to this question of voluntary work, and to give them an illustration in fact, which is worth a great deal of theory. They have in these new offices set up through the war many volunteers who have come forward—rich men, or men of independent means—and who are serving for nothing. I will tell you what is happening to-day. One of those men, a man of independent means, was asked in the office, where he had been working purely out of patriotism, whether he had come there permanently or temporarily. He said he had only come temporarily, and then they said, Your salary is so much. He remonstrated, but he received his salary nevertheless. He received a cheque, and he told me the other day that he had returned it because he did not want it. It is a pity that such a case, which I am sure is one of hundreds, should exist in these times. We must be economical. We ought to do all we can by voluntary service. I am sure there is a great well of patriotism in this country which the Government have not exploited, and I ask them to use it. This is not the time when economy is merely advisable; you have got to economise. We know that the war is going to be a long war. The resources of this country are enormous, but those resources can only carry us through to a
524
successful conclusion of this war if economy is drastic, if economy is everywhere. I do not feel convinced vet that the Government have mastered the seriousness of the situation. I want to see them do a great deal more to be economical and to convince the public of their desire for economy than they have yet done. I desire not to hamper the War Office, far from it; I desire not to hamper any of the Departments of State. But I do say that economy is vital, and every man who speaks in public ought to do his best to enforce it.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that in order to meet the naval and military requirements of the country the utmost economy should be practised by individuals, the Government by advice and suggestion will indicate and define in what directions these economies can best be carried out, having regard to the necessity of securing the financial position of the country, avoiding unemployment, and maintaining our export trade.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have a Question on the Paper dealing with another aspect of this subject, the individual aspect as against collective responsibility for expenditure. But I should like to make one or two observations on the existing discussion, because it embraces largely the subject with which I was going to deal. We have heard as to the composition of this new Committee and that it does not deal with War Office expenditure. I think it is common knowledge that a great many of the statements made by the noble Lord who has just spoken about voluntary aid are perfectly correct, and I know myself of many cases where those who have received considerable salaries would have been perfectly willing to do the work for nothing. I do not say that people ought to be employed for nothing, and I quite understand the desire of Departments and officials that men should receive salaries in order that they may have a hold over them. But I am certain that a great deal of money could be saved by giving somewhat less than is sometimes forced into their unwilling hands.
I do not pretend to have that knowledge of the administration of the Admiralty

525
and the War Office which some of the noble Lords who have spoken possess, but it is common knowledge that, you have at the War Office now an expenditure certainly two or three times as great as the whole of the expenditure to which we were accustomed in the last few years. That, perhaps, is inevitable. But my point is this, that you have a Treasury adapted and designed to criticising expenditure on a certain scale. Now is the Treasury as at present constituted able to exercise that most necessary criticism over this gigantic naval and military expenditure? I am not saying that any one is wasting money or anything of the sort, but it is quite obvious that there must be some difficulty in a Treasury constituted to criticise a small expenditure exercising the same duties over a very much larger expenditure. Therefore I should like to urge that the Treasury should be strengthened by bringing in people from outside, and experienced officials, in order to cheek and criticise this vast expenditure by the War Office.
I cordially agree with all that the noble Earl has just said about the impossibility of relying on the House of Commons to bring about economy, and I think it is rather hard to ask them to do it, because it requires almost a hero in a constituency to advocate that certain classes of his constituents should get less payment than in recent years. It is almost incredible that a man should be so foolish as to make such a suggestion having regard to his political prospects. And as regards these bodies of officials and servants, they are very well organised avid know how to use their powers. We shall have to look to other quarters for effective action in the matter of reducing expenditure. I listened with interest to the noble Marquess's statement as to the area over which this Committee is going to operate, and I do not want to go back into the vast figures which are familiar to all of us and which tell their own tale as to the effect they will and must have on our expenditure in the future, because I am of opinion that something far more is necessary than these reductions which are suggested in the expenditure of public Offices.
First of all, this war has disturbed every old formula applied to previous wars, and one of these formulæ is that countries
526
recover rapidly from war. That theory will be entirely destroyed by the results of this war, and we have to look forward in this country, and in Europe to a state of things which will make it impossible to regard this war as an interlude and to go back to anything like the scale of expenditure we were dealing with before the war took place. I think that is patent and obvious to all. That being so and the addition to our expenditure being gigantic, I will not say we shall be a poor country, as was said just now, but certainly an impoverished, country, somewhat in the position of a man who may still be rich but whose property is heavily mortgaged. There must be something far more than a reduction of expenditure. There must be a general reconsideration of the whole scale of payment of our Civil Service employees, and so on, throughout the country. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask for. Possibly it cannot be done at once. What I am certain of is that it will have to be done when the war ends. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the administration of the country to know whether it is possible to do that, but one would like it to be done if it could be done. And as we shall have to meet these tremendous payments at the end of the war one would rather have it clone with a certain seemliness now than during the crash and rush as soon as we find ourselves in a worse financial position.
The trouble is that we were rather bewitched by our wealth before the war. We had the statisticians going about saying our income was £2,400,000,000 a year and multiplying that by twenty-five, which made people think our wealth was limitless. Meantime our expenditure was increasing rapidly, so that we have not only to arrest that rapid upward rush, but to push it down to something like it was ten or fifteen years ago. I am very much afraid, however deliberately and vigorously the noble Viscount below me (Lord Midleton) addresses himself to this Committee, that by mere reduction he will find it extremely difficult to arrive at that necessary amount of saving of expenditure which I consider to be absolutely essential. One is very glad to hear that the Local Government Board has checked local expenditure, largely in the way of loans; but much more is necessary to be done in that way. We have to alter the whole scale of our ordinary local government expenditure,

527
a far more difficult thing, as your Lordships know, and one which will meet with very great resistance. I should like, if it were possible, for this Committee to give some instructions to the public Offices under which they should apply something of that urgency of suggestion towards reduction of expenditure which in the last ten or twelve years they have urged for increase of expenditure. Then something valuable might be done, I think.
Nothing has impressed one all through these strikes and difficulties more than the fact—and this bears closely on the point of my Question on the Paper—that many people think they are going to get a great deal out of the war and ought not to suffer by the war. In connection with the London tramway strike the demand was not that the men should not suffer through the war but that they should be put in a better position, thereby showing the necessity of giving them some education in the art of the reduction of expenditure. The difficulty I see is that an example ought to be set in high places. I think it would be a good thing if the scale of Ministerial salaries was revised. These salaries cost us about £190,000 a year. I am not saying whether that is too much or too little, but I think there should be some reduction—I would not like to suggest the percentage—but some reduction in that amount. That would have an enormous effect upon those who are looking for a lead to the Government in the reduction of expenditure. No one minds Members of Parliament having £400 a year in ordinary times, but in these times one is glad to see that there is a strong movement in the other House towards the reduction of those, salaries—a reduction which will enable hon. Members to speak with great force when they are engaged on this campaign of economy which is going to start all over the country. Lord Cromer referred to the fact that we are not a very saving or sparing people. That is true. That has been unfortunately enhanced during the war, because although many have suffered through the war very large classes have had their incomes increased and do not feel the pressure and necessity for economy which otherwise they might. Take the small shopkeepers in the towns where masses of men have been billeted. I know cases where shopkeepers who were taking about £4 or £5 a week have recently been taking from £50 to £60 a week. We have heard of the lady
528
who described her position in receiving £1 a week without her husband as "Heaven." That has gone on in various parts of the country owing to our peculiar method of recruiting. I do not want to refer to this except to mark this point, that owing to that peculiar method of recruiting we have to pay a far larger amount in the way of separation allowances than would otherwise be the case. The other day I read in The Times that orders were sent to recruiting officers in Birmingham that persons with slight physical defects should be I received into the Army. The result of that is that men are enlisted who are bound to suffer under the stress and strain of a campaign, and in that way these very large allowances are increased.
There are two other directions to which I should like to refer where our civil administration might be criticised. First of all there is the land valuation, which I think might be swept away altogether. It is surely ridiculous that you should have I men going about valuing the land from 1909 knowing what the shifting of values is owing to the war, and that instead of there being any increment there will probably be a large decrement in the elaborate calculations they have made. Then I think this Committee might look into the overlapping of the administration of some of the new Acts which have come into force in the last few years—the Insurance Act and others, where there is room for reduction. I should have thought also that in the Insurance Office, where they had to deal with many difficult problems at first but where the machinery is running much more smoothly now, it would be possible to have a considerable reduction. These are some of the difficulties which you have to meet when you are trying to appeal for individual economy on the part of people of this country. They have not seen in their rulers, and they have not seen in the Administration, any very steady movement in that direction. But, even so, they have been warned by the Prime Minister that they must reduce their expenditure. But the difficulty is this, that these general warnings addressed to the people have much the same effect upon them as general sermons. You invite people to be good, but unless you direct them to the specific method in which to be good they are apt to take the invitation as more applicable to other people than to themselves.
Take a point of this kind. We are told that we must reduce the purchase of things we import because our exporting power has fallen off, partly owing to the war and partly to the fact of so many men having been taken for soldiers, and for making munitions, and so on. The difficulty is that many people do not know what are imports and what are not. I have been much struck in the last few months in talking to householders to find that they were surprised at the enormous number of things they could not purchase because they came from Germany, showing that knowledge of the exact source of the articles they purchased was very difficult for them to ascertain. This relation, therefore, of exports to imports, the necessity of paying for imports with exports, and the fact that shipping is diminished—all these are matters which want explaining to the ordinary man and not leaving to his intelligence. One has to remember that he has to make an entire revolution in the whole of his ordinary expenses; that he is having an economy pressed upon him at variance with his ordinary open-handed generous nature. That even if he knows what, are imported articles, he is again very much puzzled. I will take one or two examples; they are homely matters, but they are useful with regard to the individual. Take people who buy wine. By buying wine they may be buying imports, but if they do not buy it their action may affect some of our Colonies and some of our Allies. Take the question of tobacco. Should they cease smoking? I believe that some of my friends have dropped smoking cigars because they are imported. On the other hand, the tax upon tobacco is about eight times the value of the article, and in that case the State may suffer.
Even where people are quite aware of the necessity for checking expenditure, such as in the case of petrol or in the case of coal, I think they might be warned rather more fully than they are whether they should practise total abstinence or moderation. Or take the question that comes more before housewives, the question of the purchase of meat. We are told that the price of beef is going up, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, brought in a Bill the other day to check the killing of calves. Possibly these considerations do not weigh so much with regard to mutton as to beef, and the housewife
530
has to consider whether she should buy mutton or beef. Then there are certain industries which have to be kept up for our export trade. Those are the ones that ought to be stimulated; those are the industries the products of which the people ought to buy; yet they have to be told what those special articles are. There are many details of this kind with which I do not think the public or the individual is sufficiently supplied with knowledge, but that knowledge might be supplied by the Government; whether I by leaflet, notice, or speech, is a matter for the Government themselves. But so important and so necessary is it, both for the reason of the export and the import trade and the necessity for saving all the money we can for the next Loan, that one would like the Government to I take it up with far more energy than they have displayed in the past. The public are accustomed to the energy, the force, and almost the ferocity with which different causes are advocated. One would like to see this advocacy of individual economy followed with the same energy and force with which a great political campaign is launched and thrust through the country, because we want economy to be practiced while there is yet time. One is afraid that if we wait much longer economy will be forced upon us in a far more onerous and exacting way than if we practised it when there was some opportunity of doing so without loss. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I should not have dared to enter into this debate if it had confined itself to the Questions asked by Lord Ribblesdale, but the noble Viscount who has spoken has touched upon what I consider to be just as important a subject as the previous one. Lord Peel urged that the utmost economy should be practised by individuals, and that the Government by advice and suggestion should indicate and define in what directions these economies can best be carried out. We are not a thrifty nation, and the practice of thrift does not come naturally to the English or the Irish, though perhaps it may to the Scotch, and if victory is to crown our arms it is in my opinion imperative that as a people we should go to school in this matter and learn as quickly as we can to avoid waste. This question of personal thrift seems to me to be one of first-class importance.

531
Let us remember that widely-extended personal economy is really national economy, and unless you can get the people of this country in large numbers to realise that the safety of the Realm depends upon their individual economies it will he> very difficult indeed for the Government to do anything in that matter. This question of personal economy seems to me nearly as important as the speedy and continuous supply of men, munitions, and money, and not a moment should be lost by the Government in taking every step to make waste difficult and the practice of thrift easy, whether by imposing extra taxation on the articles in which economy should be exercised or by other means. National waste, then, must be stopped and stopped quickly, or irreparable mischief may be done.
As national habits are very difficult to alter quickly, it may be found necessary to hasten reform by means which will compel even the most thriftless to save. I rejoice to learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is contemplating the taxation of war profits, but it is not only the employer who is in some cases profiting by the war. Wherever a man's or woman's income is larger than last year's in consequence of the war, he or she should in my opinion be asked to contribute some portion of the increase to the State for combatant purposes, but in addition to this I think it would be a wise precaution in view of the inexpressible seriousness of the war, to require that every man or woman who receives over a certain minimum salary or wage shall be compelled by law to accept a portion of it in War Loan vouchers, which shall not be transferable during the continuance of the conflict, and employers should be held responsible that payment be thus made. There should be no grievance in such legislation if care be taken to fix the limit of exemption from such compulsory thrift sufficiently high to ensure that no one shall be compelled to save until his or her income is above the amount which may be considered by the Government to be a fair living wage considering the person's circumstances and mode of life in previous years.
The Prime Minister lately mentioned certain imported articles such as tea, tobacco, wine, sugar, and petrol, in which economies should be exercised by the public. The list was, of course, not in-
532
tended to be exhaustive, and could easily be added to. Indeed, Mr. Asquith went beyond importations, and suggested that I economies might be made in such articles as are not necessary to life, such as beer, and perhaps lie might have added spirits. The object of my remarks to-day is to press upon His Majesty's Government the urgent necessity of not leaving the public without assistance in making up their minds to effect economies, but to show them by example, by organising a thrift campaign throughout the country and by the application of wise pressure, either through extra taxation or otherwise, how these economies can be effected with the least amount of inconvenience. At present a good deal of ignorance exists in regard to what is wise and what is unwise economy.
Some patriotic individuals, in their zeal to assist the State, are putting themselves to unnecessary inconvenience and even suffering through their ignorance of the requirements of the State, whilst others are taking no thought for the future, and some, owing to the unaccustomed expansion of their incomes and to lack of thought or of patriotic feeling, are indulging in luxuries and extravagances to which previous to the war they were entire strangers. As regards the waste of petrol mentioned by the Prime Minister, there appears to me to be a very strong case for some action on the part of His Majesty's Government. It is impossible to close our eyes to the fact that immense quantities of petrol are being consumed unnecessarily by the public. The success or failure of the war might quite conceivably result from the abundance or lack of this article, which is nearly as necessary to the Army and Navy as is coal. Prompt action should, therefore, in my humble opinion, be taken to prevent all unnecessary waste of petrol.
The people need guidance, encouragement, assistance, or restraint; and considering the importance of the subject and the awful results which failure to bring the war to a successful end would entail on the people of these islands, on the Empire, and on the entire world, I do not hesitate to urge His Majesty's Government to take the matter of universal personal economy throughout the United Kingdom into their most serious consideration, and to take such steps as may seem to them most advisable and most likely to lead to the general adoption by the people of a wise and patriotic national economy.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not rise to enter into the general field of this debate. I am conscious of the very generous hearing given me a few days ago. But there are two points which I should like to make before the noble Marquess the Leader of the House rises to reply. The first is this. Several speakers to-night, including the noble Viscount behind me (Lord Peel) who spoke so forcibly, have rather despaired of much being done owing to the restricted nature of the Committee that has been appointed, and about which the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne) spoke with his customary caution. I would refer to this one fact, that it is but a fortnight since this House voted the Resolution. That Resolution has already brought great fruit. It has brought this Committee, which has at its head the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has also produced the amount of feeling which was shown by a great meeting of bankers in the City, 300 in number, who appointed a deputation to the Prime Minister, and which was shown in the House of Commons on Thursday night last, when what I think is unprecedented in living memory took place—namely, the withdrawal of two Votes brought forward by the Government, one of them amounting to £250,000 for unemployment, which was criticised in your Lordships' House a short time ago.
The other point is with regard to the limitation of the Resolution, as the noble Marquess said. He stated that I had carefully restricted the discussion to civil expenditure. But I think he was the first to recognise that I did so for obvious reasons, of which he and I have had only too much experience in the past. In conducting a war it is desirable that as far as possible anything like an inquiry of this kind should not be made applicable to the military or naval Departments. At the same time I did go out of my way to express the hope that something definite would be done, and would be done by the Government themselves. It would not be acting frankly by your Lordships if I did not say that since then I have received from every part of the country the strongest possible protests and statements as to unnecessary expenditure in connection with the military forces. I only mention that because I am sure that the Government feel that if their action were, to stop at the appointment of this Civil Committee, it
534
would greatly disappoint and fall far short of the expectation of the country.
I am emboldened to point out that so great is the naval and military expenditure that whereas a fortnight ago we were discussing £3,000,000 a day, we ought now to be discussing something nearer £4,000,000 a day. If that be so, it only needs a glance at the clock to see that since we began this discussion this afternoon, an expenditure of £500,000 has taken place on the military and naval forces. We are expending at the rate of £500,000 every three hours, and therefore the necessity for economy is very great. I am not going into what branches of economy are possible. I am making no attack upon the War Office; I believe they have done really extraordinary work. But I say that some reinforcement of financial control is not merely essential in the interests of the country, but that if it is not applied now by the Government themselves most I assuredly public opinion will force it upon them before long. That is one point. The other point which I think calls for their special attention is that so long as there is the impression in every locality where troops are that avoidable expense is going on, so long will the appeals for individual economy fall on deaf ears. Therefore while I fully appreciate the reasons why the Government have, set up this Committee, I hope we may hear from the noble Marquess some vigorous expression of their determination themselves to deal with whatever economy can be brought about in the naval and military Departments.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as was almost unavoidable these two Questions have formed the subject of a single debate, and before saying a word about the Question of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Peel), to which my reply ought strictly to be limited since my noble friend behind me (Lord Lansdowne) dealt with the other side of the question, there are one or two points referring to Lord Ribblesdale's Question on which I ought to say a word. First, there is the point which was mentioned by my noble friend opposite and also by my noble friend here—that is, the control over naval and military expenditure during the progress of the war. It appears to be generally recognised by noble Lords opposite that anything in the nature of a formal inquiry into the expenditure of those Departments

535
so long as the war continues is not desirable or practicable. But both the noble Viscounts inquired whether some stricter form of Treasury supervision over the expenditure of the War Office—I think that was the only Department they mentioned—might not be instituted. In reply to the Question of Lord Peel, I understand that the personnel of the Treasury has been strengthened since the beginning of the war by the admission to the Department and the securing of the co-operation of some very competent gentlemen, and I have every reason to suppose that the supervision exercised over the War Office, which, as Lord Peel observed, becomes of course infinitely more difficult now owing to the gigantic increase of scale on which all the operations both here and abroad are being conducted, is carried out, so far as supervision takes place, as in ordinary times. But I will see that the, views of the two noble Lords are brought to the particular notice of my colleagues at the Treasury, who I need not say have this matter of the supervision of expenditure most deeply at heart, and I am certain, if they think that some further help is needed to secure the object we all have in view, that so far as is possible in the circumstances they will desire to secure it.
It is quite true, as Lord Peel and a great many other speakers have said, that in this country economy has never been popular, either in or out of Parliament, and, as I think Lord Cromer observed, it has only been under the influence of special individuals of strong character and great reputation that the practice of economy has been forced upon the country. Mr. Gladstone is, of course, a great instance. It is impossible to forget also the instance of Lord Randolph Churchill, who was a most genuine economist, and he did not succeed in the particular enterprise for saving in which, as we know, his political career became compromised. Lord Peel also stated, with great force and, as I believe, with absolute truth, that at the close of this war it is quite evident that the scale of expenditure, both public and private, all over Europe is bound to be thoroughly revised. All the beliefs that we have almost instinctively held as to the possibilities of expenditure in this country will have to be most thoroughly gone into and revised. It is, of course, impossible to foretell the future, but I entirely disagree with any belief that there is likely
536
to be a great rebound after this war; a reassumption of great prosperity anywhere is altogether, in my belief, unfounded.
I have no desire to enter into a general discussion of another point which was raised by the noble Viscount—namely, the possibility of large reductions in the Civil Service after the war. To traverse that ground at all thoroughly would obviously take us into contentious matter because the existence of Civil Servants for certain objects can scarcely be dissociated from a predilection for, or a dislike to, the particular objects which the particular Civil Servants are designed to effect. I will merely say this, that although some such reductions may be possible and may be found to be absolutely necessary, we have to bear in mind that the scale of payment of individual Civil Servants has always in this country been low in proportion to the scale of remuneration obtainable by other means. So long as the great landed fortunes and the great mercantile fortunes exist it will not, I think, be easy to persuade the public that the salaries of individual Civil Servants ought to he subject to any considerable reduction, although their spending power may, of course, be reduced by the share they may have to pay of taxation; and it will not be until after the rich man's Income Tax and Super-Tax has exceeded 5s. in the £1, in my view, that great attention is likely to be paid to a demand to decrease the salaries paid to individual Civil Servants.
Then the noble Viscount spoke forcibly of the possibilities of a general reduction in national expenditure which would be forced upon us. To one possibility of reduction he made no allusion, but I think we must all agree that if after this war is over, and, as we hope, victoriously ended by us, we are to look forward to a perpetual expenditure of £80,000,000 a year on the defence of the country a great many people will feel that the war has been fought in vain. To suppose that there should be any sudden or dramatic reduction of either naval or military expenditure immediately after the war would no doubt be infinitely too sanguine, but a great many people will be found to hope that a new spirit in Europe will lead to a gradual, and, as I should hope, a progressive, reduction in the forces that the Great Powers find it necessary to maintain for the purposes of defence.

537
Next I come to the subject-matter of Lord Peel's Question, that of personal economy, and as ho himself, I think, indicated, the subject is one on which it is not easy for the Government to give precise advice. Such advice is, as I think he said, more often associated with the pulpit, or sometimes with the domestic circle, in which fathers and sons, and husbands and wives, in different cases, take the attitude of the prosecutor or of the defendant; and when the noble Viscount asks us to take some action as a Government towards the inculcation of habits of personal economy, I cannot help thinking that this is precisely one of the matters in which that voluntary aid for the use of which tire noble Viscount pleaded can do more than can be done by any Government Department or by the Government as a whole. The practice of economy is infinitely more likely to be inculcated by example than by any amount of precept, and not only in the case of those who are members of this House but of all members of the wealthier classes, and by graduation down through the ranks of the merely well-to-do to the scale of those who are just able to live in comfort, more, as I believe, can be done by setting an example than any of us can do, or than the Government can do, by setting out any number of fads and figures in Parliamentary Papers or in leaflets. If it should be found that the distribution of any simple form of information might prove of benefit to those homely people of whom the noble Viscount spoke— and certainly no apology was necessary from him for speaking of them—I have no doubt the Department would consider whether any such steps could be taken.
We all know that there are two reasons why personal economy is advised by the Government. In the first place, all the public according to their respective means are incited to save so that they may have money either to invest in Government securities as they are issued or wherewith to pay the taxes on the higher scale which is now in force and which, if the war is continued, is, as we know, liable to be increased in the future. That is one, and a very obvious reason. The other reason—mentioned by my noble friend opposite, but of course infinitely less clear and obvious to the ordinary citizen—is the effect of economy on foreign exchanges and the balance of trade. It is too much
538
to hope, I am afraid, that people in the country generally can be brought to any genuine knowledge of those questions, which in their entirety are familiar to very few and in their general outline are only understood by a quite limited number of His Majesty's subjects. We all know that in this country there is in ordinary times what is called, in the familiar jargon of Exchange language, a balance against this country—that is to say, a large balance of imports over exports. We also, as the noble Viscount indicated, know that that difference is in ordinary times met in several different ways, partly by the earnings of the mercantile marine, partly by interest on the vast investments we have abroad in foreign countries all over the world, and partly by other services rendered to foreign countries, such as, for instance, the not inconsiderable sums spent by tourists in travel. And, of course, it is obvious that in these times the adverse balance is bound to be enormously augmented.
In the matter of freights, it is very difficult to say what the precise position is. Of course, the quantity of ships available for our mercantile marine is vastly reduced; on the other hand, the scale of freights is greatly enhanced. But it is quite safe to say this, that even if the actual loss in that respect has not been large, there certainly cannot have been any gain. On the other hand, when you come to the figures of interest on foreign investments and the other services there is a general reduction. A great number of credits have been called in from foreign countries, and in addition to that a large amount of the actual securities in foreign countries held here have been sold. Therefore our ordinary machinery for this purpose has got out of gear.
It was said by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, and said with great truth, that we have not been in the past at all an economical people. It is no doubt true that the scale of living and the employment of various services has been higher in this country among the well-to-do than, as far as I know, in any other country in the world. When you come to very rich people I dare say there is not very much difference. The millionaire class over the world is not a very large one, and in different countries it probably lives on much the same scale. But I think there can be no question that in this country

539
those who may fairly be called wealthy expend on their daily living, on their amusements, and in the purchase of articles of luxury, more in proportion than do the people of similar means in other countries. I think it would be difficult to dispute that proposition.
The question then arises, as my noble friend very reasonably pointed out, if personal economies are to be made, more especially in the purchase of imported goods, in what direction are they to be effected and with what hope of achieving a good result? If we look at our own main subjects of import, in an ordinary year we import about £48,000,000 worth of wheat and flour and it is not to be supposed that any considerable reduction is likely to be made in that amount. As we know, the price of both has risen considerably, and although some economies may be found possible in the use of wheat and flour, I do not know that very much can be hoped for in that direction. Our average imports of meat, including bacon, in the course of the year have been about £45,000,000 worth. There, again, there has been a rise in price; and of course a very large proportion of the imported meat now goes to the use of the Armies in the field, probably a far larger consumption per head of meat than those particular individuals serving in our Forces were able to obtain in civil life. But certainly nobody would be found to grudge them that extra quantity, or to say it is not put to the best possible use. The amount that it is possible to save in this country by the reduction of meat consumption by private individuals, although I have no doubt that from the general point of view some such reduction is desirable, cannot, I feel, be held to be likely to have anything like a serious effect upon the amount of imports to this country.
Then we come to other articles of consumption—£24,000,000 worth of butter, and from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 worth of cheese. It is not unlikely I should think, certainly in the case of butter, that there will be attempts to economise in their use. Then we come to the various dutiable articles—fruits (not, of course, all dutiable, because that includes both fresh and preserved fruit), altogether they amount to £25,000,000 roughly; tea, £13,000,000; wine, £4,000,000; and tobacco, £7,000,000. It is quite evident, and my noble friend opposite quoted what the Prime Minister said on that subject,
540
that upon those there is real room for economy. I think it is reasonable to say that neither of the two considerations which may be advanced against economy in these directions—one was mentioned by my noble friend opposite, namely, the possible effect in refusing an article of import which either our Colonies or self-governing Dominions or our Allies export; and the other, which might also be employed as an argument in the contrary direction, namely, that by diminishing the consumption pro tanto you diminish the tax which forms part of the revenue of the country on which you rely—that neither of those considerations can be taken as supplying an argument against general economy in the consumption so far as possible of all these articles, some no doubt more than others. You cannot put sugar or even tea on quite the same level as either wine or spirits or tobacco. But, speaking generally—speaking from the pulpit—I think that the advice would be to exercise economy in all these dutiable articles.
Next I come to a list of articles not subject to duty, but in the main articles of luxury. First, £16,000,000 worth of silk; that is not, of course, all used for what would be called luxurious purposes but no doubt a considerable part of it is. One would like to think that there the balance of trade might receive a substantial reduction. Next, £6,000,000 worth of wearing apparel, whatever that may cover. There, again, one would hope that a reduction might be made. Motor-cars and parts of motor-cars, £6,500,000. There, again, I have no doubt we should all say that the lower the degree to which the purchase of motor-cars, for anything but in the first place Government service and afterwards the carrying on of certain kinds of business, could be reduced the better. Then there are imported into this country some £20,000,000 worth of rubber and £10,000,000 worth of petroleum in ordinary years. My noble friend opposite mentioned one form of oil product—namely, the petrol spirit which is used for motor-cars; and what I have said about motor-cars applies also to the employment of petrol for other than public purposes or for certain purposes of business.
I notice that my noble friend, Lord Peel, in the course of his Question, refers to the maintenance of our export trade. It is, of course, highly desirable so far as possible to keep our exports going, and

541
that, as is no doubt quite familiar to him has supplied one of the most difficult considerations in the question of the regulation and organisation of labour. Our ordinary export of coal is some £45,000,000 worth a year; and we should all, I think, realise the extreme importance, in view of maintaining a considerable proportion of these very heavy exports, of continuing to export coal in such quantities as may be compatible with the maintenance of a reasonable price in this country. Those two considerations ought not, as I should hope, to be found incompatible, but they are liable to become so, and there has been some misunderstanding in the public mind or the subject. I only mention this by way of caution in order to show that the simple remedy, as it appears to some, of keeping the price of coal down at home by exporting little or none is not a remedy which it is possible, or if it were possible, which it would be wise to take.
Then you come to our greatest export—£100,000,000 worth of cotton manufactures; and we should all agree, subject to the paramount consideration which we were discussing the other day of keeping raw cotton and cotton waste out of Germany, and subject, of course, to not employing to a greater extent than can be helped in the cotton trade labour which can be directly employed either in the Army or in the manufacture of war munitions, that the greater extent to which we can keep the Lancashire industry going the better, not merely for those engaged in it, but for the country at large. I will not spend any time on wool or various other commodities on which I might say a word, but I think it ought to be evident from the facts and figures with which I have troubled the House that the economy of individuals can have a direct bearing upon this matter of decreasing the adverse balance between imports and exports. That is a fact which I quite agree with the noble Viscount ought to be brought home to every householder in the Kingdom—that apart from the advantage there may be of saving for the purpose of investing, saving in ail these imported commodities, which cover, of course, the greater part of the expenditure of all households both large and small, is of direct benefit also to the country at large.
542
We may go on to point out in the matter of services, that all services which are directed to the personal use and comfort of individuals and which might be employed on Government work or in assisting to produce the necessaries of life are subject to similar considerations. Of course, it need hardly be said that that argument might be ridden to death, and the qualifications with which it is accompanied have to be carefully noted in dealing and considering individual cases. But the public must also realise that most holidays and most amusements are in themselves for the present purposes of the war uneconomic. The going of a journey by train, the travelling in a motor-car, whether it be private property or a taxicab or a motor omnibus, even a journey on a tramway unless any of them are undertaken for a specific purpose connected with the war, have the same prejudicial effect on the finance of the country that the use of luxuries has in the manner in which I have endeavoured to describe. So with the use of electric light or of gas beyond what is actually needed for the purposes of illumination. Those are produced in the first instance by coal—the power is in most cases produced by coal—and it is obvious, according to the strict rules which I have mentioned, that their consumption ought to be cut down to a low figure. The general effect, therefore, of what I have been saying is that it is hardly possible to prescribe any sort of limit or to suggest any very special direction for personal economy.
At the same time it is clear that it would be useless even if it were sensible, which it is not, to attempt to lay down a kind of Trappist rule of self-denial from every kind of enjoyment or diversion which may not be economic in the sense that it may cost money and does not assist towards the prosecution of the war. In the first place, the minds of people demand and deserve some diversion. It is impossible to suppose that the spirit of the country could be properly sustained without some forms of relaxation and even of amusement. According to the absolutely rigid rule to which I have alluded and which might be laid down, every theatre and every cinematograph house would have to be entirely closed. He would be both a rash and a foolish man, in my opinion, who were to advocate any such action. As to the amusements

543
of the wealthier classes. I believe and fervently hope that there is little, if any, artificial rearing of game carried on in this country now; but it would be equally foolish, in my judgment, to grudge a man a day's partridge shooting or rabbit shooting if he is in a position to take advantage of it.
On one point I am entirely in accord with my noble friend on the Cross Benches, and this I believe is a text on which a valuable sermon could be preached to every class—the need for scrupulous avoidance of waste of all kinds in our households and elsewhere. In the past a certain dignity has sometimes been held to attach to a certain degree of waste. The old English traditions in many cases were held to forbid a too close scrutiny of personal and domestic expenditure; but, as I firmly believe, it will be astonishing to find how much money can be saved all over the country, in large and in small households and in the ordinary concerns of life, if waste is regarded as something which is not merely foolish but positively wrong under existing circumstances.
The only other matter to which my noble friend (Lord Peel) alluded was that the country, as he thought, needed some guidance as to the direction in which economies can be effected without causing distress through loss of employment. That is, of course, a very important consideration, and it applies to a great deal of expenditure which at such a time as this would be called luxurious and unnecessary. The most important consideration appears to be that it is useless to attempt to proceed by sudden strides and by theatrical action in these matters by the
544
sudden dismissal of large numbers of persons or by the sudden closing of any enterprise. What is required, and what I hope is being attained to some extent, is a system of general organisation whereby people can be transferred from a useless employment to a useful one, and by that means I should hope the ultimate object may be to a large extent attained with a minimum of hardship to individuals.
I am afraid I have not been able to give my noble friend opposite anything in the nature of very authoritative guidance on the matter on which he has inquired in the public interest. This path of personal economy is open in varying degrees to all, to a much larger extent to some than to others; and it is also I think clear, as I said at the beginning, that those who are in a position to set examples in this respect have a great opportunity and may be able to do much of great benefit to the country. Those who steadily bear in mind that the one criterion is the effect in assisting or in retarding the prosecution of the war of anything that they do and of any expenditure of money which they may incur are, as I hope, not likely to go far wrong, and as the months proceed I believe that we shall see throughout the country at large a general and an increasing sense of the need and of the wisdom of personal economy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being suspended until the adjournment for the Recess.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.