Sitting of 21 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extension, etc.) Bill,
Weardale and Consett Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 20th July, and agreed to.
Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.
Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

TRADE REPORTS.
Copy presented of Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives Abroad on Trade and Subjects of General Interest (with Appendix), 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales. Part III. Registration Summary Tables (1901–10) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Copy presented of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1915–16 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Finance (No. 2) Bill,
Notification of Births (Extension) Bill,
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, without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, with an Amendment.
Dewsbury Corporation Bill,
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
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) Provisonal Order Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill [Lords],
Ashington Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords],
Wolverhampton Corporation Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to extend the powers of the Scottish Universities to make ordinances for purposes connected with the present war." [Scottish Universities (Emergency Powers) Bill [Lords.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Lords Amendment to be considered 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.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Scottish Universities (Emergency Powers) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    COTTON (BLOCKADE OF GERMANY).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the particulars of the arrangements in regard to cotton under the established blockade of Germany, which were referred to in paragraph 5 of his dispatch, No. 13, of 15th March, 1915, as having been communicated to the American Government, are those which have already been made public; and, if not, whether he can circulate them with the Votes, if not detrimental to the public interest?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; the terms of the arrangement were embodied in a Note presented to the United States Ambassador, on 17th June, and subsequently made public.

    CHINA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the Yangtse to British trade, he can say if he has any official information to the effect that the China Merchants' Steamship Company will shortly pass under foreign control, direct or indirect?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCH: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has not the information, or that he has the full information?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am afraid I cannot go further than to say that it means exactly what it says; it is a negative to the question put by the hon. Gentleman.

    GERMAN SUBMARINE ATTACKS ON BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the repeated attacks without warning by German submarines on our merchant ships trading to American ports; and, in view of the unexampled nature of these attacks, whether he can state if the United States was one of the neutral countries which has been approached with a request to allow their ports to be used by merchant ships carrying a gun in the stern; and, if so, whether the permission was granted?
    Could the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, say when the document issued on 20th September by the State Department in reference to this matter could be made public?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am afraid I could not without notice. As to the question on the Paper, the answer to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, the United States Government have issued certain rules which permit of defensively armed merchant ships trading to United States ports. The rules require an independent official investigation in each case and indicate the nature of the evidence which must be produced in order to establish the fact that the armament is solely for defence and will not be used offensively.

    EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT (ENGLISH OFFICIALS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what is the position of English officials in the Egyptian Government who have joined the Army in regard to pay and pension; and how does such position compare with similar officials in the Indian Government?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have no information on the subject, but will inquire.

    BRITISH SUBMARINE OPERATIONS IN BALTIC.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the name of the commanding officer of the British submarine which successfully torpedoed the German battleship "Pommern" in the Baltic on 2nd July?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No official report has been transmitted to the Admiralty, but from a semi-official communication received from the Russian Government it appears that the name of the officer referred to is Commander Max K. Horton, D.S.O., Royal Navy.

    H.M.S. "BULWARK" (OFFICERS' DEPENDANTS).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that charitable societies are being asked to assist the families of some of those officers who lost their lives when His Majesty's ship "Bulwark" was destroyed, on the ground that the Admiralty is paying peace pensions to the dependants of such officers and war pensions to the dependants of the lower deck; and if he will remedy this treatment as regards the officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the first part of the question. As the hon. Member is probably aware, the scale of pensions being paid to widows of officers who lost their lives in His Majesty's ship "Bulwark" is not the ordinary scale, but the intermediate scale, i.e., the scale awarded in the case of officers killed on duty, but not in action, under which, for example, the widow of a lieutenant would receive a pension of £65 and his children an allowance of £10 to
    1470
    £14 each. The question of awarding pension in such cases on the highest scale, namely, that for officers killed in action, is at present before the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants). I hope that a very early-decision may be arrived at.

    BULL POINT ARSENAL.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty it the men employed in the laboratory at Bull Point Arsenal, Devonport, are working only the ordinary hours; if so, is this due to the unwillingness of the men to work overtime or to the fact that there is no demand for their services beyond the requirements of peace times; and will he take steps to utilise the services of these men in a larger measure than is done at present?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The majority of the men at Bull Point have been working overtime since the beginning of the War, but there has been a certain degree of fluctuation in the amount of work in the laboratory, though of course eve-y man has done a full week's work. There has been no unwillingness on the part of the men and their services are fully appreciated.

    NEUTRAL SHIPS DESTROYED BY ENEMY.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many neutral ships have been destroyed by German warships and German mines up to the nearest date for which the information is available; and whether he has similar information in regard to Austria and Turkish action under its present German directions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of neutral ships reported to have been destroyed by German warships and German mines up to 20th July, 1915, is ninety-five. I have no information in regard to the second part of the question.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman also give the number of neutrals who have lost their lives in that connection?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like notice of that.
    Mr. KING: Is the German Government giving compensation in all these cases?

    ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, HASLAR.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for "War if he is aware that when fruit and delicacies are sent addressed to the wounded men at the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, Gosport, the parcels are, in many cases, intercepted and kept by the staff through whose hands the parcels pass; and if he will have these practices stopped?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All parcels for patients are sorted at the main gate of the hospital and handed to the nursing sisters in charge of the wards for distribution to the owners as advisable. It is often the case that the contents of parcels are quite unsuited for the patients to whom they are sent. In many cases they would probably cause a fatal result. Such contents are very properly intercepted. Otherwise no interference takes place, and in any case the contents are not kept by the staff. They are given to any other patient to whom the owner may like to offer them.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Would my right hon. Friend consider that a gift of a bunch of grapes to a convalescent would be dangerous to his life, or even injurious to his health?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not say that, but I do say that a cold plum pudding would not be suitable for a typhoid patient.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men who are brought home wounded to the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, Gosport, are forced by the attendants to rise about 6 a.m., make their own beds, prepare breakfast, fetch food from the kitchen, wash up all utensils after meals, clean and wash out lavatories and other rooms, and that men with fractured arms, internal injuries, etc., are compelled to sweep and polish floors, using for the purpose implements weighing over 14 pounds each; and if he will have inquiries made and this state of things remedied?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Patients get up in accordance with their fitness. Some remain in bed all day, some for part of the day, while the convalescents get up at 6 a.m. All convalescents are, if fit, expected to perform a certain amount of light work, and from a medical point of view it is important they should do this, but they are not forced to make their own beds, wash up after meals, or clean and wash lavatories, that particular work being done voluntarily. All meals are prepared in the
    1472
    main kitchen, except such work as cutting bread, etc., which is carried out by convalescents in the ward kitchens. No man is detached for any work unless he is physically fit for it. It is not a fact that men with fractured arms, internal injuries or similar cases are compelled to sweep and polish floors. I can assure my hon. Friend that the treatment of the sick and wounded at Haslar is quite different from that which would be imagined by anyone reading the series of inquiries he has put to me.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether a man with a bullet in his spine ought to do this work? I have a case within my own knowledge.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I went into this matter, so far as I could, with the medical director-general, and I can assure my hon. Friend there is no ground for the suggestion. I should be glad to consider any further facts my hon. Friend has.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter I have sent in with the name of the officer who was asked to do the work, and the injuries inflicted upon him?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I saw the letter, and took every point of detail in it. I had a close inquiry made, and also had a long personal interview with the medical director-general. I am convinced there is considerable misapprehension as to the case.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Did my right hon. Friend raise the question whether this officer, with a bullet in his spine, which they could not extract, was expected to go from Southport to Gosport to get his discharge?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Would my hon. Friend care to see the medical director-general? I would be very glad if he would.

    SCHOOLS FOR USE OF TROOPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secreretary of State for War whether reports have been furnished upon the sanitation, ventilation, and general condition of those schools which have been placed at the service of the War Office for hospitals, housing of troops, and other purposes; and whether local authorities will have the opportunity of benefiting by such reports and the experiences of the military officials?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No general reports have been received on these matters, though the suitability of the buildings in question, from the points of view mentioned, for hospitals and other Army purposes was, of course, considered before they were taken over. The sanitary and other requirements in the case of a building in continuous occupation are not the same as in the case of one only occupied for a few hours daily.

    ARMY CHAPLAINS (PROMOTION AND PAY).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether there have been any promotions to the ranks of the Regular Army chaplains during the War; and, if not, when a "Gazette" may be expected?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; four Regular Army chaplains have been specially promoted as a reward for their services during the present War. Particulars will be found in the "London Gazette" of the 23rd June, 1915.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the last increase in the pay of the Regular Army chaplains took place; and whether he will take steps to secure that the chaplains shall share in the rates of increase which have in recent years been granted to other portions of the Service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The present rates of pay are of old standing; without research I am unable to say how old. I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking that they shall be increased at the present time.

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN FRANCE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the number of new troops ready and anxious to go to the front, he will consider the advantage to the Army of sending back the remainder of the original Expeditionary Force for a compulsory rest of, say, two or three months?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Secretary of State for War will consider this proposal.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (EXPULSIONS, IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for War why the Defence of the Realm Act is being used by the civil authorities for the punishment of political opinions, unobjectionable in 1914, by banishing from Ireland on political grounds Irish Volunteers not accused of any illegality; whether the military authorities have no knowledge of these cases until the prepared forms for banishment are submitted by the civil authorities for the formality of signature; whether he will state the number and names of the persons so banished already and of those under notice of banishment, specifying, in any case in which it is alleged, any illegality and the reason why the person has not been tried for it; whether he will specify the part of the Act relied upon to justify this punishment of political opinion without accusation or trial; whether he can specify any other object of this provocative policy than to create a pretext for executing the pogrom planned in 1914; whether the sole purpose of the Irish Volunteers is to defend the rights and liberties of all the Irish people without distinction; whether he will explain this treatment of men not accused of violating or of being pledged to violate any law or of having any illegal purpose, in view of the privileges of organising, drilling, and obtaining arms and ammunition accorded by him to the Ulster Volunteers, organised and pledged expressly to resist by force the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, and declared by the Lord Chancellor of England to be distinctly illegal; (2) whether Mr. Herbert Pim has been, under the Defence of the Realm Act, banished from Ireland and ordered not to return; if so, will he say for what illegality; why the military authorities, the competent authorities under the Act, knew nothing of the order until it was brought to them for signature; why the order, which expressly allowed him seven days to make his arrangements, was withheld until four of those days had elapsed, leaving him only three; whether the police closely watching Mr. Pim during the last six months have detected anything in his conduct for which to cite him before any Court; whether he can state any ground for the banishment of Mr. Pim, other than his political opinions, or any purpose other than to create a pretext for executing the pogrom

    1475
    planned in 1914; under what law he justifies this punishment for political opinions without accusation or trial while according the privileges of organising, drilling, and obtaining arms and ammunition to the Ulster Volunteers, organised and pledged expressly to resist by force the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, and declared by the Lord Chancellor of England to be distinctly illegal; and (3), the Chief Secretary, whether William Mellows, 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: The orders which have been served on certain persons in Ireland prohibiting them from residing in or entering the country have been issued by and on the initiative of the competent military authority, under the powers vested in him by Article 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, on the ground that the persons named therein are suspected of acting or of having acted or of being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the Defence of the Realm. As the hon. Member has already been informed, it is considered undesirable in the public interest to give details of the evidence, or of the charges in respect of which action has been taken. The powers vested in the competent authority do not require or provide for the trial of the persons as a preliminary to the exercise of those powers. The orders, which were served on the persons named in them at the earliest opportunity after signature, did not indicate in any way that a period of seven days from the date of service was allowed in which the terms of the orders might be obeyed, but in one case a conditional extension of the time limit was granted on the application of the person affected. With regard to the last part of the questions, I am in full accord with the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the 12th May last, in which the general considerations determining the treatment of the active members of the various bodies of volunteers in Ireland are set out.
    Mr. GINNELL: I desire to ask a very simple question, requiring a "Yes" or "No" answer, with reference to parts of the question not answered, and not covered by the objection, namely: Whether the police, on whose information
    1476
    the military authorities are acting, and who have watched these men during the last six months, have reported anything objectionable, except their political opinions?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reports which reached the competent military authority might be derived from the police, or might be derived from other sources. In the case of the question, there was ground to fear that these persons were about to act in a manner which I read to the House, contrary to the safety of the Kingdom, and, therefore, action was taken on that ground, and not at all in connection with political opinion.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Irish Volunteers have been proclaimed an illegal organisation?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the persons ordered out of Ireland have obeyed the order?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should require notice of that question; if not, I imagine action would have been taken.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is subjecting the Minister to a catechism, of which he should give notice.
    Mr. GINNELL: Allow me to give notice that I will ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House after questions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the total amount expended to date for sustentation and other expenses of enemy aliens deprived of their livelihood by deportation and of Irish Volunteers banished from Ireland, respectively, under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of any expenditure of the nature indicated in the question having been incurred.

    MILITARY EXPENDITURE (WASTAGE).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to avoiding waste at the various

    1477
    camps, he will cause to be issued a circular letter to the commanding officers instructing them to appoint an officer whose duty it shall be to see that rations are issued only for those men actually in camp and not for those absent on leave, and otherwise to see observed the strictest economy?
    Mr. TENNANT: Circular letters of instructions have already been sent out to General Officers Commanding in regard to the prevention of waste of supplies. Instructions have also been issued to ensure that rations are issued only for men actually in camp and not for those absent on leave. Officers commanding units are themselves responsible for all matters affecting regimental economy.
    Mr HIGHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that firms contracting with the War Office find it impossible to get any empties returned; that munition cases are broken up and burned though valuable; and that jam makers are in difficulties for packing because no jars or empty cases are returned, though thousands of pounds' worth are lying in waste-heaps at encampments; and if he is aware that the conduct of the War Office forms a contrast with private traders, who are as careful in returning empties and getting credit for them as they are in making the best use of the contents?
    Mr. FORSTER: The practice of the Department is to return the cases which contained equipment or munitions to the contractors if required Supplies for the Army are usually obtained in non-returnable cases, but in the exceptions the empties are returned. Jam is not now obtained in jars. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any specific case where waste of the character referred to is occurring I shall be glad to have inquiries made.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now inform the House what steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, by the War Office and the Treasury to reduce the avoidable waste in military expenditure?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches made by the Prime Minister in the Debate on the Vote of Credit yesterday.

    ARMED SENTRIES (SHOOTING OF CIVILIANS).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the coroner's jury in a case in which a man approaching the Conduit Street bridge, Nottingham, was shot by a sentry on guard, owing to his mistaking the umbrella carried by the man for a rifle, and to the fact that the jury expressed the hope that the authorities would tell sentries not to fire haphazard and at random; whether he can state how many cases of civilians being shot by sentries have occurred since the beginning of the year in the United Kingdom; how many have had fatal results; and whether effect can be given to the expression of opinion by the jury?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to this case, and I have caused information to be collected as to the number of civilians who have been shot by sentries since the beginning of the year. There have been only two fatal cases, and eight others where the wound was not fatal. In all these cases the sentry was guarding a railway or other vulnerable point. Although we must naturally regret that any innocent person should have been shot, I think the House will agree that, in view of the large number of the armed sentries employed throughout the country, the number of casualties is very small indeed and reflects favourably on the discipline and judgment of all ranks. It also shows that there has been careful observance of the instructions to avoid haphazard firing, which were issued as long ago as last September.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in such a case as that mentioned in the question there is any need to supply the sentry with ball cartridge?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh yes, Sir, there is the greatest need.

    AIDES-DE-CAMP (TERRITORIAL AND YEOMANRY OFFICERS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Territorial officers and Yeomanry officers are practically barred by the War Office from

    1479
    accepting the position of aide-de-camp for active service at the front; if any such officers have been asked for and refused by the War Office for active service abroad; and, if so, if he will remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. TENNANT: Territorial Force officers have been allowed to go as aides-de-camp to Regular organisations, and no objection is ever raised to suitable Territorial Force officers going as aides-decamp to Territorial organisations. Recently some applications for Territorial Force officers to go as aides-de-camp to general officers commanding Regular formations have been refused in view of the heavy demands on the regiments in question for reinforcements. Officers of some seniority have been asked for, but it is not in the public interest that officers of considerable training should be employed as aides-de-camp.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE (MR. W. V. HARRELL).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether Mr. W. V. Harrell, dismissed from the Dublin police force for having initiated the illegal proceedings which resulted in the slaying of innocent civilians by British soldiers in the streets of Dublin last July, is now employed by the War Office in connection with the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland; and, if so, who certifies his fitness for that position and his appointment as prudent?
    Mr. TENNANT: Mr. Harrell is not employed either in Ireland or elsewhere under the War Office.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say where, in what position, for what duties, and at what remuneration, Mr. W. V. Harrell, who was found guilty of the illegal proceedings that led to the slaying of several innocent civilians by British soldiers in the streets of Dublin in July, 1914, and was for that offence dismissed from the public service, is now again employed by the Irish Government; and what precautions have been taken for the protection of the public against him?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The gentleman referred to in this question is not in the employment of the Irish Government.

    BRECKNOCKSHIRE TERRITORIAL FORCE (DEATHS AT ADEN).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any information explaining the cause of the death of thirteen members of the Brecknockshire Territorial Force at Aden, reported on 4th July; and whether there is any special reason, apart from the heat, to account for this loss of life?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; the deaths were due to heat apoplexy and no other cause.
    Mr. ROBINSON: May I ask whether they were undertaking active service at the time?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    TRANSFER OF WOUNDED.
    Colonel YATEasked whether arrangements can be made for wounded soldiers who desire it being transferred to hospitals or convalescent hospitals as near as possible to their homes as soon as they are fit to travel, if they cannot be sent there direct on arrival?
    Mr. TENNANT: As far as is possible every endeavour has been made to send, to hospitals in the neighbourhood of their homes, all sick and wounded on arrival in this country. It is, of course, easy to appreciate that in many cases this is quite impossible, and often for the sake of the patients themselves, who may be so severely wounded as to necessitate their admission to the nearest hospital in which accommodation is available. In the case of those men sent to hospitals remote from their homes, we endeavour to arrange for the transfer, to hospitals in the neighbourhood of their homes, of all cases which are likely to be unfit for duty for any period over six weeks, and which are therefore unlikely to be able to proceed to their homes on furlough within that period. Cases that are referred to the War Office are dealt with strictly on these lines. Suitable cases which are likely to be fit for duty within six weeks are treated in convalescent hospitals, so far as accommodation in them is available. At present all these hospitals are in the South of England, but as others are opened in other parts of the United Kingdom it Will be arranged, as far as is possible, to send cases to convalescent hospitals in that part of the country in which their homes are situated.
    Colonel YATE: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his kind answer, may I ask if he will issue orders to medical officers in charge of hospitals that they can give transfers to hospitals or convalescent hospitals as near as possible to their own homes without reference to the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes, I think that is done already.

    RECRUITING (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
    Sir EDWARD COATESasked whether, having regard to the difficulty now experienced by Territorial Force Associations in obtaining recruits in certain areas owing to the competition for recruits, he will arrange that each county association may be allowed to have a representative at each Regular recruiting agency in their county and that every such Regular recruiting agency may be instructed that an adequate proportion of recruits be sent to the Territorial Force in that county?
    Mr. TENNANT: Every endeavour is being made to encourage co-operation and mutual assistance between Regular and Territorial Force recruiting agencies in each recruiting area and county. If difficulty is now experienced in any areas by Territorial Force Associations in obtaining recruits, it is felt equally by the Regular recruiting agencies in the same areas.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: May I ask whether the instructions sent to Regular recruiting agencies for recruiting Territorials will also be sent to the county associations in order to prevent overlapping or friction?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I think that would be a very good plan, if it is not already done.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked whether it has yet been arranged that some officer should act as the authorised representative of the War Office to deal with the organisation for service of the Volunteer Training Corps throughout the country?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer is in the negative.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Did the right hon. Gentleman not tell me previously that the matter was being considered?
    Mr. TENNANT: All these matters are under consideration, and I cannot give any dates.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman, "all these matters," include the brassard?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that matter may be considered closed.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now prepared to consider the employment, under military law, of Volunteer Training Corps, the members of which are over military age, for certain purposes of Home defence, so as to set free the Territorial and other available forces for service overseas in which they are anxious to be employed?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question is still under consideration.
    Colonel ALAN SYKES: Would the right hon. Gentleman press this matter on somewhat, because it has been under consideration for a long time and it is very much talked about in the country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I recognise, of course, that it is desirable that a decision should be arrived at, and I will endeavour to see that one is come to.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not perceive that a decision is desirable, not only from the point of view of these volunteers but also from the point of view of the Territorial Forces who are being kept from overseas service?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the hon. Gentleman is not wholly accurate in that statement, inasmuch as many vulnerable points are being guarded, not by Territorial Force regiments, but by National Reservists.

    OBSOLETE STORES (SALE).
    Mr JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any person qualified to judge had examined the whole of the stores offered for sale by auction in 336 lots at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, on 20th May last, with the object of determining if the articles

    1483
    and materials described in the sale catalogue as unserviceable and obsolete were in fact unserviceable; and whether the sale referred to is the third or fourth sale of the same kind ordered by the Secretary of State since the present War commenced?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; the whole of the stores in question had been subjected to expert consideration with regard to their condition and further utility in the Service. The sale was the third that has taken place since the commencement of the War. It should be borne in mind that an obsolete article is not necessarily unserviceable in the sense of being useless for any purpose, but is merely of no further use in the Service?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I ask whether it is the fact that in practice these sales are only attended by a small number of persons, who by means of a ring are able to get the stores at ridiculously low prices?
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will publish in the "Board of Trade Journal" a list of all the lots of so-called unserviceable and obsolete stores sold by auction by order of the Secretary of State for War since the commencement of the present War, along with the catalogued description of each lot and the price obtained for each lot?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot publish such a return as my hon. Friend desires, as its compilation would impose a great deal of extra work on the staffs of the War Office and the commands which in the present pressure they could hardly undertake.
    Mr. JOWETT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the point advanced by my hon. Friend, because the suggestion contained in the question would help to widen the area of interest and would practically break down the ring?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, I shall be glad to take any steps to secure the fullest prices we are able to get.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the "Engineer" of Saturday last there appears an advertisement offering to sell copper?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    INDIAN FORCES.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of signalising the bravery and loyalty of the Indian forces of the Crown by raising a regiment of Indian Guards as the possible nucleus of a brigade of Indian Guards of the King-Emperor?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The subject is one of great importance, but I cannot undertake to do more at present that give it careful attention.

    EXCHANGE (AMERICA AND ENGLAND).
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to take any measures with the object of ensuring a greater degree of stability in the exchange between America and this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I need hardly assure my hon. Friend that the exchange between New York and London is being carefully w7atched, but I am not able to make any statement as to action in this connection.

    MORTGAGE INTEREST.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decision of the principal Glasgow law agents to raise the rate of mortgage interest from 4 per cent, to 4½ per cent.; and whether, seeing that this action will raise rents and limit housing accommodation, the Government propose to take action in the matter?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in consequence of the high rate of interest on the new War Loan the mortgagees on all property are sending in notices calling in the mortgages with the alternative of an increase in the rate of interest; that this increase in mortgage interest and the increase in the Income Tax on property, together with the increase in local rates due to the higher rate of interest now being charged on municipal loans, are being made the reason for an increase of rent, amounting generally to about 12½ per cent.; that this means that the burden

    1485
    of the War Loan is being put upon the tenants of property, and that the further effect is that the building of workmen's cottages will cease until rents have risen by the sum stated; and, in view of these facts, will he take steps to fix a limit of 4½ per cent, on mortgages during the War, or make it illegal to call in mortgages during the War, or in some other way do something to protect the tenants and owners of property from having imposed upon them an unfair burden of the cost of the War while others escape their fair share?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to the fact that mortgagees in some cases have recently given notice to raise the rate of interest. Under the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act mortgagees cannot call in mortgages without the leave of the Court, which has discretion to postpone the date of payment if the mortgagor is unable to pay the mortgage debt immediately, and such inability is due to circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the War. I doubt whether it would be equitable for Parliament to interfere further as between mortgagor and mortgagee to prevent the raising of the rate of interest on mortgages proportionately to the general increase in money rates, but mortgagees should remember that it is essential in the national interest that existing contracts of this character should be disturbed as little as possible. The whole position will continue to be carefully watched by the Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of the Scottish mortgages it is not necessary to call up the mortgage in order to raise the rate of interest?
    Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of that fact.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have yet considered the question of establishing Fair Rent Courts, particularly in Scotland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. HOGGE: The question deals with house rents.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but it is not usual to ask the Minister on the spur of the moment whether the Government have
    1486
    decided to set up Fair Rent Courts. That is a matter which requires consideration.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that a similar practice is operating in this country with regard to the raising of the rate of mortgage interest?
    Mr. McKENNA: There are cases of the kind, but I have given all the facts in the answer.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a decision to the contrary effect is given in his answer?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, lam not aware of any.

    CATTLE IN UNITED KINGDOM.
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the number of cattle under one year in the United Kingdom at a date in 1915 and a corresponding date in 1914, and the number of cattle under two years at the same dates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The number of cattle as returned in June, 1914, was as follows: Under one year, 2,662,189; one year and under two years, 2,596,988. The corresponding figures for 1915 are not yet available, but I shall be happy to supply them to the hon. Member in the course of a week or two.
    Mr. PETO: Could the hon. Gentleman give the figures of a somewhat earlier month in the year? My question asks for the figures at any date in 1915, with the figures for the corresponding date in 1914.
    Mr. ACLAND: We have not yet been able to collect and tabulate the figures.

    WESTMINSTER HALL (RESTORATION OF ROOF).
    Sir C. HENRYasked the First Commissioner of Works the number of men at present employed on the roof of Westminster Hall; and if he will consider the practicability of discontinuing this work during the War?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): At present twenty-five men are employed in the Hall, in addition to a varying number at the

    1487
    contractor's yard. Discontinuance of the work has been considered, but I am advised that any postponement involves serious risk of the roof falling.
    Sir C. HENRY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any additional cost owing to the War, or whether the work is being carried out at the same rate as prior to the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot say exactly what was the cost in August of last year, but I am quite sure that no avoidable additional expense is being entailed now by what is being done and is necessary for the safety of the roof.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is the work being carried out at a contract price arranged previously to the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I should like notice of that question.

    AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL WORK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has estimated the loss of local authorities and the saving to the Board of Education resulting from the premature removal of children from school for agricultural and industrial work; and whether he will give an assurance that no alteration in the Code will be made which will allow local authorities to gain more money in respect of less education being given?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board will refuse to accede to any requests to pay grants in respect of children who are normally liable to attend school, but are absent for employment in agricultural or industrial work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The estimate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset refers, has not been made, and would be difficult to make. The Board have no power under the Code to pay grants in respect of attendances which are not made, and, as at present advised, I see no reason to alter the Code in this respect.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the economy that might be
    1488
    effected by ceasing to pay the additional grant for partial exemption scholars, seeing that this grant now acts as an inducement to local authorities in releasing children for half-time school attendance?
    Mr. LEWIS: The question of half-time employment is, as my hon. Friend is well aware, highly controversial, and I do not think I could possibly deal with it in the manner suggested. I doubt if the grant operates in the way my hon. Friend thinks.

    MUNITIONS.

      HIGH EXPLOSIVES (BROXZE IN FUSES).
      Mr. HIGHAMasked the Minister of Munitions who is responsible for the fact that the British fuse No. 100, Mark I, used for the 18-pounder high explosive, contains over thirty-two ounces of bronze against four and a quarter ounces in the French fuse used for the soixante-quinze; and if he is aware that the British is so solid as to enable the enemy to pick up two pounds of bronze from every shell fired by British troops, or enough to make eight of his own fuses?
      Mr. TENNANT: I hope my hon. Friend will not put this question; it is not considered in the public interest that an answer should be given.
      Mr. HIGHAM: Does my right hon. Friend say that he cannot answer the first part of the question or the second part of the question? If it is the first, which is as to the name, will he take into consultation the makers of munitions who are making this shell all over the country?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already heard that it is contrary to the public interest to give the information, and he should not press the question further.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Am I to understand that you rule that an hon. Member is not entitled to press for an answer to a question when a Member on the Treasury Bench says that it is not in the public interest to answer that question?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not, of course, for a moment dispute your ruling, but I want to be quite clear about the point; it is so important. If, in the opinion and judgment of a Member, a question on the

      1489
      Paper is in no way likely to give information to the enemy, not the slightest, as in this case, do you rule that he cannot ask that question if the Minister refuses to answer?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now putting quite a different question. The question which he originally put to me was this: If a Member of the Government says in his place that to answer a particular question would be against the interests of the country, I certainly then hold that it is improper to ask the question again, and the Minister should not be pressed. A Minister is entitled to make that answer; he makes it on his own responsibility, and that responsibility the House and myself accept.
      Mr. TENNANT: May I be allowed to say one word on this question? I would ask the House to read the last three lines of the question and then to judge whether it is or is not in the interests of the public that an answer should be given.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter in each case for the Minister himself to decide, and if the Minister says that it is not in the interests of the country to reply to a particular question I will not support any hon. Member who presses it further.
      Sir A MARKHAM: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division (Mr. Higham) on the Motion for the Adjournment.

      GAUGES.
      Mr. HIGHAMasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that every firm who begins to make munitions and has to make any gauges for the same has to keep sending men on special journeys to Woolwich to get the gauges examined and passed; and if he will arrange for examiners to be stationed at Manchester and at one or two other centres to do this work and so save waste of money and time and valuable labour?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): Hitherto one set of check gauges has been sufficient, but the recent spreading of orders over the country makes it necessary for checking to be done at other centres than Woolwich. Steps have already been taken to provide additional sets of check gauges and every endeavour is being made to hasten their supply, in obtaining which valuable assistance is
      1490
      being given by the National Physical Laboratory. In any case, it is not necessary for gauges to be sent to Woolwich by hand.

      SKILLED WORKERS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in calling back from the Colours competent artisans who are needed in the munition works, he will consider favourably the case of skilled men who have borne long and continuous duty in the trenches, often suffering in health and nerve thereby, and not confine his selection of such workers to men who have recently joined the Army?
      Dr. ADDISON: Under the arrangement made with the War Office the Ministry of Munitions is, in the first place, arranging for the recall from the Colours of artisans serving in units which have had the shortest military training. This arrangement excludes men serving at the front.
      Sir W. BYLES: Would it be possible to confer with the War Office, with a view to releasing some of these men who have gone out?
      Dr. ADDISON: The arrangement is the result of many conferences with the War Office.

    DISABLED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that insurance companies refuse to insure workmen in regard to compensation under the provisions of the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Acts in the case of those who are disabled by loss of limb; whether such disability is preventing our disabled soldiers from getting work; and, if so, whether the Government will be prepared to consider a proposal for exempting those men from the provisions of the Acts, or, in the alternative, of paying the extra premium that might be involved in getting them insured?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon: The matter to which it relates has been made the subject of special inquiry by the Disabled Sailors and Soldiers Committee, and the hon. Member will see in paragraphs 28 and 29 of their Report which was recently presented to Parliament that they found no reason to apprehend that

    1491
    employers may be forced to refuse employment to partially disabled men owing to difficulty in insuring against the liability imposed by the Workmen's Compensation Act. There seems to be no need, therefore, for His Majesty's Government to take any special steps in this matter.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of any report of any Committee, difficulties are being raised at the present time?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the terms of the Committee's report. I find they say that as far as the insurance companies included in the Accident Offices Association are concerned the uniform premium ordinarily charged by the companies included all classes of employés, whether able-bodied or partly disabled.

    CASUALTIES (PERCENTAGE OF RETURNS TO DUTY).
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the percentage of wounded that return to duty; and is the figure of 60 per cent, still maintained?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The percentage of the sick and wounded who return to duty remains approximately at the figure stated.

    SIR JOHN FRENCH'S REPORTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can say why the biweekly messages from Sir John French have not appeared regularly as promised; and whether, in view of the fact that the public are anxious to hear from the front, he will try and arrange for their regular appearance?
    Mr. TENNANT: In accordance with the arrangements made. Sir J. French sends reports of any salient events in regard to which information can be made public.
    Mr. HOGGE: Did not the Prime Minister promise the House of Commons, owing to the criticism which was raised, that Sir John French would send bi-weekly reports, and why is it not being done?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Is that question put to me?
    Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain; it was put to the hon. Gentleman whom he deputed to answer me.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir John French sends a report whenever he considers it desirable. If he does not send bi-weekly reports, it is because he thinks that no incident has taken place which requires it.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the recent change of Government and to the near completion of an entire twelvemonth of warfare, he will take an opportunity before the House separates to restate with more definiteness the essential objects for which the nation is pouring out its blood and treasure, in the hope that some intervention of peaceful influences may lead to the attainment of these objects by other means than the continuance of warfare?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I stated these objects with such definiteness as I am capable of in my speeches at the beginning of the War, and in particular in my speech at the Guildhall on 9th November.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that there is in Germany already a large and growing peace movement among the Social Democrats, and will he keep his eye upon, encourage, and take advantage of any movement for bringing this War to an early and satisfactory conclusion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add with regard to our objects to the statements which I have already made.

    HOLY PLACES OF ISLAM.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the pledge of His Majesty's Government to respect the holy places of Islam has been translated into Arabic, Persian, Hindustani, and other languages concerned, with suitable emphasis and elaboration, such as is a usual attribute in Oriental literature and journalism, of pledges and proclamations of such high importance and sacred significance; and whether steps have been taken to ensure wide publicity to such translations of the aforesaid pledge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The pledge of His Majesty's Government and the Allied Governments, that so long as pilgrims were not seriously interfered with no hostile action would be taken against the port of Jeddah or the holy places in Arabia or Mesopotamia, has been made widely known in Africa, Arabia, Persia, and India. The pledge has been welcomed throughout India as evidence of the solicitude of the Government for the welfare of the Moslem subjects of His Majesty.

    SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many local authorities and railway companies have obtained Acts of Parliament at a very heavy cost to carry out new works and improvements; that these Acts provide that the works or improvements must be carried out within a specified time, failing which the powers under the Act would lapse; and whether he will, before the Session is closed, introduce legislation relieving local authorities and railway companies of this time limit and extending the period granted by these Acts to a period covering the War and twelve months afterwards?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My hon. Friend's suggestion has been anticipated by the introduction on Monday last of the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Bill, which was read a second time yesterday and will, I hope, become law before Parliament rises.

    MEMBERS' SALARIES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of national economy, he will say whether he will propose to the House that the payment of salaries to Members who pay Super-tax should be discontinued; and whether he is aware that out of the 670 Members less than 150 are at present regularly attending to their duties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In regard to the first part of the question, I must refer my hon. Friend to my previous answers en this subject. In regard to the second part, I have no knowledge as to the exact
    1494
    figures, but I believe there are few Members of the House who are not engaged in the voluntary discharge of important duties to the State.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then are we to understand that the only example, the Prime Minister sets to the country is to tell working people to eat less meat, and to give £8,000 a year more in pensions to members of his own Cabinet?

    RAILWAY GOODS TRAFFIC (COST AND DELAYS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions whether ho intends to take any steps to reduce the cost and delays in handling goods traffic on the railways of Great Britain; and whether he is aware that the cost per ton mile in this country of conveying goods and minerals was in 1913 about three times the cost in Germany?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Some delays are unavoidable owing to the abnormal quantity of goods at present passing by rail, but the general control of traffic by the Railway Executive Committee has, I think, been very successful. I am not aware what authority the hon. Member has for his statement with regard to the comparative cost of railway carriage in this country and in Germany.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Returns which are published annually in future give the definite cost per ton mile, which is the only figure by which a proper estimate can be made?
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade when any Returns of railway traffic and costs will be issued which can be compared with Returns for the year 1912 and before; and when the Returns for 1914 will be issued?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Railway Returns for 1913, which will be laid before Parliament shortly, have been framed in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, and will not be strictly comparable in all respects with those for previous years. In view of the special arrangements under which the railways are now being operated it is not intended to publish any further detailed Returns until conditions I have again become normal.

    PARCELS FOR MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
    Colonel WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether parcels addressed to troops serving in the Dardanelles are charged for at the rate of 1s. 4d. for 7 lbs. and Is. 7d. for 11 lbs., whereas parcels for the Fleet serving in the Mediterranean are charged 1s. 9d. and 2s. 6d. respectively; and, if so, whether he will arrange that parcels for the men of the Fleet should be placed on the same basis as those for men of the Expeditionary Force there?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The postage rates on parcels for the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force are the same as on parcels for His Majesty's ships in foreign waters (including those in the Mediterranean), namely, 1s., 1s. 9d., and 2s. 6d. for parcels not exceeding 3, 7, and 11 lbs. respectively.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to do anything to reduce the price of small parcels? Can he arrange to send a 1-lb. parcel for 4d.?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I am afraid that is impossible, in view of the fact that we have to make payments to other countries for costs involved in transmission.
    Colonel WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that parcels to the Mediterranean Fleet shall be placed on the same basis as those for the Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is already done. I stated in my answer that the arrangements are the same for the men serving with the Fleet and the men with the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force.
    Colonel WHITE: But are the rates for the Fleet the same as those for the Expeditionary Force in France—I understand they are higher?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That was not the question. The question was whether the parcels for the Expeditionary Force in the Dardanelles and the Mediterranean Fleet were on the same basis?

    WAR LOAN (ISSUES TO MINORS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, although instructions have been issued that
    1496
    subscriptions to the new War Loan can be made through the Post Office on behalf of children under seven years of age, and that, where an account in the Savings Bank had been opened, notice of withdrawal can be signed by a parent or friend on behalf of the child, such notices when presented have been returned with an intimation that the money deposited on behalf of minors is not repayable until they have attained the age of seven years; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the notice issued by the Comptroller of the Savings Bank is brought to the attention of Post Office officials generally?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The officials at local post offices have been instructed that notices of withdrawal marked specially for the War Loan on behalf of minors under seven years of age are to be complied with. Where the withdrawal is not for that purpose the ordinary rule applies. In the cases to which the hon. Member refers the object of the withdrawal has probably not been stated, and in such instances the notices would be returned.

    LONDON TRAMWAY AND OMNIBUS SERVICE.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of inviting representatives of the Highways Committee of the London County Council and the directors of the London General Omnibus Company to confer, under the chairmanship of a representative of his Department, with a view to securing the temporary co-operation between the two services, thereby releasing men of military age and avoiding unnecessary expenditure?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): If I saw any indication that the bodies concerned were willing to enter into a conference, I should be prepared to give the hon. Member's suggestion my most careful consideration.

    NETHERLANDS OVERSEA TRUST.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade if British exporters who ship goods under permits from the War Trade Department to the Netherlands Oversea Trust have any control over such goods after they have been shipped or any

    1497
    responsibility if the persons to whom the trust deliver such goods break the guarantees under which the goods were shipped from this country and delivered by the trust; and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the control and of the responsibility of the British exporters?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: British exporters have no control or responsibility in regard to licensed goods which have been consigned and shipped to the Netherlands Oversea Trust. Licences are issued by the War Trade Department on production by the exporter of the written consent of the Netherlands Oversea Trust to accept consignment of the goods in question. The Netherlands Oversea Trust undertake the delivery of the goods to the Dutch importers, and guarantee that neither the goods themselves nor any articles manufactured from them will be exported to belligerent countries. Any responsibility as to the ultimate destination of the goods rests, therefore, with the Netherlands Oversea Trust and the importers. The "consents" of the Netherlands Oversea Trust are sent periodically to that body in order that they may be checked and duly controlled by comparison with their actual receipts.

    INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the case of a young man now interned as an alien enemy at Wakefield, who has lived in Germany only six months since he was a month old, who was brought up in America, France, and Belgium, who chose on becoming independent to live in England and to become a British subject, and who has expressed a desire to serve this country at the present time; and whether, in view of this young man being an experienced mechanical and electrical engineer, he possesses powers whereby the services of this man and others similarly circumstanced may be utilised to the national advantage, and thus the cost and burden of internment may be saved?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I understand that this question refers to a young man the reasons for whose internment were explained at some length in answer to questions by my hon. Friend last May. The administration of the camp at Handforth is in the hands of the War Office, who are, I believe, anxious to adopt any practicable
    1498
    scheme for utilising the services of the prisoners.
    Mr. KING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Germany and in Russia large numbers of alien prisoners are used for the economic advantages of those countries, and will something be done in the same direction in this country also, so that the British taxpayers will not have to bear the whole burden of the cost of their maintenance?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the second part of my answer dealt with that matter in the spirit of the hon. Member's further question.

    POLICE IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether he insists upon the local police authorities keeping up to the standard of one police constable per 1,000 population in rural districts, where practically no crime exists arid, where the people are all practically known to each other; if this be the same standard required in urban districts, where altogether different conditions prevail; and, in view of the present national situation, is he prepared to agree to the suggestion of the local authorities that a lower standard should be fixed for the rural districts?
    Sir J. SIMON: There is no fixed standard either in counties or in boroughs. The proportion of police to population varies widely according to the local conditions. In many rural districts it is much less than one per thousand; all that is required is that the force should be efficient in numbers and discipline.

    HORSE BREEDING (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state the number of mares brought back from the theatre of war and sold in Ireland for breeding purposes; and whether adequate precautions have been taken to prevent the introduction into Ireland of animals affected with hereditary or contagious diseases?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No mares have been imported into Ireland from the seat of war. Adequate precautions have been taken to prevent the introduction into this country of animals affected with hereditary or contagious diseases.

    IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say under what law the Irish Government directed Sergeant Hogan, Royal Irish Constabulary, Blarney, or any other person, to tell Messrs. Mahony of that place that no Army contract would be given to them unless they broke up the Irish Volunteers of that place by requiring their employés to withdraw from that organisation under pain of dismissal?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No instructions of the nature indicated in the question were issued by the Irish Government to any police officer or other person, and I am informed that neither the sergeant referred to, nor any other officer stationed at Blarney, made the statement attributed to them.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted Messrs. Mahony?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, we have sought information in every quarter.

  Members Postal Correspondence.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether the undertaking still holds good, and for all Members, that letters addressed to hon. Members at this House shall not be tampered with in the Post Office; if so, why such a letter, sealed and posted in Dublin on the 12th instant, was opened and noted, bearing Dublin postmarks of the 13th and 15th instant, and was not delivered until the 16th instant, though its business was urgent; whether it was found to contain any criminal matter; why it was opened; whether he accepts responsibility for property abstracted from letters so dealt with; whether the recent English letters threatening the life of the same Member were also opened and noted; if so, what steps were taken to bring the writers to justice; and whether, in future, he will have either all or none of the letters coming to this Member opened in the Post Office?
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of any letter such as that described by the hon. Member.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, if the hon. Member will be good enough to give me any information. If he has the cover of the letter, or any description of it, I should be glad if he will send it to me.
  Mr. GINNELL: I have the cover of the letter, and I am prepared to hand it to any Member of this House, but not to the Postmaster-General.

  SOUTH WALES COAL STRIKE.
  Mr. HODGE: Has the Prime Minister any information as to the present position in regard to the coal stoppage in South Wales?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have received a telegram sent at a quarter to two this afternoon from Cardiff, and signed by the Minister of Munitions and the President of the Board of Trade, in these terms:—
  "Miners' Conference have decided to recommend their men to return to work forthwith, and urge their men to make up for lost time. The solution of the deadlock was rendered possible on the lines of agreement rather than of coercion by the public spirited action of the coal owners, who placed themselves unreservedly in the Government's hands, for the purpose of securing a peaceful and reasonable settlement immediately."
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that over 50,000 South Wales miners have joined the Colours since the outbreak of war, he, as the head of the Government, will associate himself with the protest against the base and malicious insinuation which has been made that this strike was in any way instigated by German influence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I know, there is no foundation whatever for that.

  DISCUSSIONS IN SUPPLY.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Shall we have an opportunity to-day of discussing the Vote for Law Charges in Class III.?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. It depends on the use the House makes of its time.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I understand that the Votes have been so arranged that this particular Vote cannot be reached.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is quite likely.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (EXPULSIONS, IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELL: I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the banishment of persons from Ireland for their political opinions without accusation or trial.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that this is the last day of Supply, and that Standing Order 15, paragraph (9), applies to it. That paragraph says:—
  "On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of that business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment."
  Mr. GINNELL: Can I raise this question on the Adjournment of the House this evening?

  BILL PRESENTED.
    COTTON ASSOCIATIONS (EMERGENCY POWEES) BILL.
    "To confirm action taken by any Cotton Association for dealing with emergencies due to the present War." Presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Report of the Supplementary Vote of Credit and of New Services may be considered before Ten of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
  SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].—REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
    Resolution reported,

    Class III.
    16. "That a sum, not exceeding £44,754, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of
    1508
    the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury and King's Proctor, and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Vote be postponed."—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to ask a question on the postponement. On this Vote I gave notice yesterday that some Members of the House desired to raise a question, and I desire now to know whether the Government will so arrange the Votes to-day that there will be an opportunity, before the guillotine falls, of discussing this particular Vote? I do not wish to interfere with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): May I say on that, that the Prime Minister understood that it was the wish of the House that the Colonial Office Vote should be taken first. It is not my wish by any means, and I shall be quite ready, if the House prefers it, that this Vote shall be taken first.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has a statement to make on the Colonies, and we are all anxious to allow the right hon. Gentleman to make that statement. I only desire that the Vote should be taken in such order that it can be discussed today. I do not wish to interfere with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government give an undertaking that this Vote will be taken immediately after it, I will not object.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: On a point of Order, Sir. Have you not already stated that the Vote is postponed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, I have put the Question, "That the Vote be postponed," and it is for the House to decide whether it shall be postponed.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Sir, whether the postponement of this Vote at this stage does enable the Government to call it later? Is it not in order upon this Motion to ask the Government if they do intend to propose this Vote later, and at what particular point they will propose it, or, in other

    1509
    words, will they take it immediately after the Colonial Office Vote?
    Mr. SPEAKER: In the ordinary course, what would happen would be that all the Votes would be postponed until we reach the Colonial Office Vote. After the discussion upon that Vote, we should go on calling out the names of the Votes, which, in each case, would have to be postponed until we came round the second time, and on coming round the second time, when we get to Class III. again, there will be an opportunity for discussing this Vote. Whether it will be reached or not I cannot say.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can you take a Motion now to give the Colonial Office Vote precedence over this one in the list to-day?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, we must postpone the Votes until we reach the Colonial Office Vote. There is no other way of picking it out of this lot, except by going through them all as rapidly as may be until we reach the one the House is anxious to discuss.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Failing a satisfactory answer—[HON. MEMDEES: "Speak up!"]—I will endeavour to make myself heard—I desire to oppose the postponement of this Vote. In the circumstances, we are entitled to draw the attention of the House to the charges contained in this Vote. We have been told that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Vote on the Question that it be postponed. When the hon. Member has persuaded the House not to postpone the Vote, we shall arrive at a point at which he can discuss it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I intend to confine myself strictly to the question of postponement. I do not desire in any way to run counter to the general sense of the House on this question, but in these days it is especially difficult for the Government to ascertain what is the general sense of the House. The only method by which hon. Members have an opportunity of indicating to the Government what business is to be taken is by mentioning these matters to the Whips. As, however, apparently few Members have taken any action with reference to to-day's business to call attention to any particular business on this question that this particular Vote should be postponed, we should have an opportunity of testing the feeling of the House. I do not desire to enter
    1510
    into the merits of the particular question, but undoubtedly, when there is even a small number of Members who desire to call attention to expenditure under a particular head, with a view to the reduction of that expenditure—it is solely in the interests of the reduction of expenditure that this action is being taken—it is surely right that the House itself should indicate that an opportunity should be given to discuss whether the particular retrenchment is possible, and it is in order that the House may have an opportunity of making its voice heard on a particular question of economy, where economy is both desirable and possible, that I oppose the postponement of this Vote.
    Mr. HOGGE: I desire to oppose the postponement of the Vote for this reason. The Prime Minister asked the House, and the House agreed, to shorten Supply to seventeen days. In agreeing to that postponement speeches were made, and the Prime Minister concurred, that points should be selected which Members wished to discuss. As far as we have been informed by the ordinary channels of communication there are two points to-day on which notice has been given for discussion, namely, the Colonial Vote and this Vote dealing with Law Officers' charges. I suggest that when these are the only two points of discussion which have been raised, it is the duty of the Whips of the Coalition Government to provide an opportunity for discussion of both. Those of us who want to discuss this do not want to hinder at all the discussion on the Colonial Vote. We want an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Votes will be so disposed, after the Colonial Vote is taken, that this opportunity will be afforded to us, and I think it will be breaking the spirit in which the Prime Minister got from the House permission to shorten Supply to seventeen days if that opportunity is not given.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am very sorry that this question should have been raised, and raised in such a manner. It is a very delicate and difficult duty for the Government to arrange the order in which, on the final night of Supply, different Votes should be put down. We have no interest in the matter. The order in which the Votes are taken does not matter to us. It is my business, as Leader of the House, and the business of the Chief Whip, to try and gather what

    1511
    is the general opinion of the House of Commons, and we act upon that. The information which came to us pointed to the fact that it was the general desire that the Colonial Office Vote should be taken first. I cannot allow that general wish to be set aside because two or three hon. Members desire to discuss a Vote which, according to the Order on the Paper, technically comes first. It is apparently a small minority seeking to override the majority. I want to make it clear to the House that the Government has no interest in the matter whatever. You may take my salary; I shall be delighted to discuss it with hon. Members; or you may take the salary of any other Minister. It does not make the least difference to us. In this matter we are guided only by the general sense of the House, and it is for that reason that we are asking that these Votes should be postponed. When the Colonial Vote has been discussed, and the postponed Votes come round in their turn, as they will do, if time allows, I am sure the Government will be only too happy to give my hon. Friends the opportunity they desire to discuss this particular Vote. I really cannot, in the interests of the House itself, allow an arrangement of that kind to be set aside.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I rise to support most heartily what has fallen from the Prime Minister. I happen to be, I think, perhaps the oldest Member of the House. I have sat in it longer than anyone else, and I am bound to say I never recollect an occasion where more uncalled-for opposition has been raised to the proposal that is now before us. The right hon. Gentleman has explained with perfect truth what has happened. The general sense of the House has been collected in the ordinary way. Mr. Speaker has also explained the position, and it has rested with two or three hon. Members alone, who have occupied more of the time of the House lately than anyone else, to take a course which is absolutely unprecedented in my recollection and which is most highly to be reprobated.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I will appeal to my hon. Friend, whilst sympathising with him, and ask him to take the advice of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and trust the Government.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Prime Minister has entirely misconceived the request which has been made to him. My hon.
    1512
    Friend (Mr. Pringle) deliberately stated, in precise language, that he had no desire whatsoever that the Colonial Secretary should not make his statement first. What we want is an opportunity, when we have only seventeen days of Supply, of discussing the Law Charges, and we want particularly to discuss the payment of £21,000 to a Member of the Cabinet last year. If we do not get this opportunity now we shall not get it again during the whole of the financial year. For that reason we ask that these facilities should be given which otherwise we shall not get at all.
    Question, "That the Vote be postponed," put, and agreed to.
    Vote accordingly postponed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    Class II.
    51. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,710,386, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, including the Colonial Office, £37,410."
    [For details of Services included in total Charge, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1915, cols. 1131–1132.]
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid the little preliminary is rather trying, because one hon. Member has suggested that I have an important statement to make. I am afraid that he and any other hon. Members who have formed the same idea will be disappointed. Hon. Members will quite understand that at present in the Colonies, as at home, all development is stopped, and it would, therefore, be a very inappropriate time to attempt to give such a survey of the development of the Colonies as has been given on more than one occasion by my predecessor. I found, however, when I went to the Colonial Office that I had only the vaguest notion of what had been happening in our Colonies adjacent to the German colonies. It occurs to me, therefore, that perhaps some other hon. Members may be in the same position,

    1513
    and it would possibly be of interest to the House if I attempt to give a very brief statement, even though it must necessarily be a dull statement, I am afraid, of the military operations in connection with the German colonies, and of the position in which these colonies stand now, after nearly twelve months of war.
    At the outbreak of war the German colonial possessions consisted, in addition to Kiao Chao, which fell from them in November, a number of islands in the Pacific and a variety of very valuable possessions in Africa. When the War began our commerce was very much interfered with by German cruisers, and the depredations of these raiders were greatly assisted by the wireless stations, both in the Pacific and in Africa, which were in the possession of the Germans. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that, by some means or other, we should either obtain possession of these stations or destroy them. There were a number of them, all very powerful ones, in the German Pacific Islands, and the suggestion was made to the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of New Zealand that they should take possession of the islands containing these stations. Those Governments at once agreed to take that course. New Zealand undertook to take possession of Samoa, and within a week of the outbreak of War the New Zealand Expeditionary Force was ready. It sailed from Wellington and on the last day of August took possession of Apia, where the wireless station was situated, without any opposition, and since then the Samoan Islands have been in the occupation of the New Zealand Government. The Pacific Islands, with which the Commonwealth Government undertook to deal, were more important. They consisted of Kaiser Wilhelms Land, as it was called—a name given to the German part of New Guinea—the Bismarck Archipelago, and the German Solomon Islands. The Australian Expeditionary Force was large, and it was escorted by three Australian warships—the "Australia," the "Sydney," and the "Melbourne," one of which, as the House will remember, had the honour of being in at the death when the "Emden" was destroyed. The occupation of those islands did not take place without fighting. Some fighting took place before HerbertshÓhe, in Kaiser Wilhelms Land, was occupied. That was on the 11th September. On the following day, the Australian troops took possession of the place. At subsequent
    1514
    dates, all within a few months, at the outside, of the outbreak of War, all these islands were in our possession, and they have since remained outside the power of the German Government.
    The chief German possessions were in Africa, and very important colonies they were. In order to take them in some kind of order I shall begin on the West Coast. The German colony there, furthest North, was Togoland. In the early eighties, when practically the whole of Africa was being parcelled out among the different European Powers, there was a small strip of territory between the British territory of the Gold Coast and the French Colony of Dahomey, which had not been occupied. It consisted only of about 30 miles. It was the only bit of coast land from the Niger to the Gambia which had not been taken possession of. Some German traders had gone there, and in 1884 the German Government took possession. This is a comparatively small territory, only about the size of Ireland, but the land lent itself very readily to development, and the Germans set to work by building railways. It has the unique distinction of being, I think, the only German oversea possession that has paid its way, and has not had to be subsidised from the Home Government. In this country of Togoland the Germans had built an immense wireless station, about 2 miles long, which cost something like £250,000, and was in communication with Berlin direct. On the 5th August, almost at the same time that we were aware of it in this House, the Gold Coast Government was informed that war had been declared, and at once, with the approval of the Home Government, they set about invading Togoland, with the object of taking this wireless station. Their proceedings were not long delayed, for, on the 7th August, they took the capital of that country, but the rest of the procedure was not so easy. A considerable force under Colonel Bryant, who was assisted by French Tirailleurs from Dahomey, were engaged for something like twelve days in constant fighting. They had to drive sometimes superior forces from strong positions, but, fortunately, at the end of that time, they reached Kamina, where the wireless station was situated. The Germans had destroyed the station, but the acting Governor there surrendered the colony without any conditions, and from that day to this it has been in the occupation and administration of the Allies in Africa.

    1515
    Coming further down the coast the next German colony is the Cameroons. It is a very large territory, about a half larger than Germany, and its history is interesting. It affords a good instance of the scrambling among European Powers when they were all engaged in what, I think, Lord Rosebery described as "pegging out claims for posterity." At one time the biggest chief of the district had asked the British Government to annex the country. We declined. But, as sometimes happens, Governments change their mind, and in July, 1884, they sent a representative to annex it. They found that the Germans had been there a week before them and had made a treaty with one of the chiefs. We still had a chance of taking a share in the territory and our representative proceeded to make other treaties with other chiefs. The week after that a French gunboat arrived, also for the purpose of annexing the same territory. It was too late, but the British Government, on account of the treaties which it had made, had a technical right, at least, to claim some part of the territory. We did not, however, show any desire to shut Germany off from her place in the sun, and did not press our claim. It was in that way that Germany came into possession of the country.
    As the House probably remembers, as the result of the Agadir crisis, France ceded to Germany a portion of her territory, which constituted about onethird of the German Cameroons when the War broke out. This territory is bordered from the coast to the North by our strong Protectorate of Nigeria, and the rest of this territory is surrounded by French possessions. Immediately on the outbreak of war, His Majesty's Government made vigorous and elaborate preparations directed specially to seizing the port of Duala, where there was another powerful wireless station. They were assisted in this by large forces from the French dominions which were near. The expedition went by sea to Duala and bombarded it, and in September it was surrendered to our Army. That was in the South-West corner of the Cameroons. This force, which was a fairly large force, was under the direction of Major-General Dobell, Inspector-General of the West African Frontier Force, whose operations from the first have been successful, for he not only took Duala but he took in November the capital of the Cameroons, and by the end of the year we
    1516
    had possession of the whole of that part of the territory where the railways were running. He has continued his operations since then and has uniformly been successful.
    In addition to these operations in the South, Nigeria attempted to invade the German Colony from the North. In the early days of the War an attempt was made to capture Garua, one of the towns in that direction. It failed, and our troops, suffering severe losses, had to retire to the Nigerian border. Though the attempt failed then it was not abandoned, and with the assistance again of French forces their progress has been continually kept up, and the House wall probably remember that on the 11th of June this year we succeeded in capturing the town in question and with it a considerable number of prisoners, a great many guns, a large number of machine guns, and a very large amount of ammunition. We have not, of course, obtained possession, or anything like possession of this Colony, but in addition to the forces which I have mentioned French forces have been moving up from the East and from the South and the Cameroons coast has been bombarded, and I think that it is not too much to say that the hold of the Germans on that particular possession is a very precarious one which is not likely to last very long. The other German possession on the West Coast is German South-West Africa, of which we have all heard a great deal lately and in which we have all been interested. The House will remember that the Prime Minister gave an account of the military operations there the other day, and I am not going over the same ground again. The victory was won under very difficult conditions, especially difficult natural conditions, and was a very complete victory. I happen to have noticed, by extracts from German newspapers which have reached me, that Germans are much depressed at the loss of that Colony, but they have taken to themselves the satisfaction that this, which, as they say, is the only victory won by the English, has been won by the Dutch under a Dutch general.
    If that is any satisfaction to them, they are perfectly welcome to it. I think that I am speaking, not only for the House of Commons, but for every citizen of the British Empire, when I say that the satisfaction which we should have felt in any case at the capture of that Colony has been greatly increased by the fact that it was won by one of our self-governing

    1517
    Dominions, and that the General Commanding was the Prime Minister of that Dominion and was himself a distinguished general, and perhaps our satisfaction is further increased by the fact that not very long ago he was in arms against us, but that he has now thrown in his lot wholeheartedly with the British Empire. I do not know whether it will interest the House to give a short account of the way in which the Germans became possessed of this Colony. Here, also, as was the case in the Cameroons, it was British traders and settlers who alone had secured a footing in the Colony. We not only did not take possession, but even, when almost invited to do so by Prince Bismarck, declined to undertake the responsibility of the territory. It was, therefore, taken possession of, with our consent, in 1884 by the German Government, and a very troublesome time they had in connection with it In 1903, I think it was, a rebellion broke out and the House remembers what happened at that time. It was repressed with ruthless cruelty, but in spite of that it lasted for something like five years. It was only ended by something approaching the total extermination of a great number of the tribes in that country. That rebellion cost the German Government something like £25,000,000 sterling. From the point of view of finance the Colony has never been a profitable speculation to the German Government.
    I am glad to say that there is only one other German colony in regard to which I have anything to say—that is German East Africa. It is the largest of all the German colonies. It has a coast line of more than 400 miles, and an area about twice as great as the whole German Empire. Here I am sorry to say that I am not able to give an account of complete victory such as we had in Togoland or German South-West Africa, nor even of an advance which looks like an early victory, as in the case of the Cameroons. The position has been largely one of stalemate. This is not surprising. Our Colonies have never been prepared for aggression from the outside. The German colonies were under a different system, and from the first have had a military organisation. The border line between German East Africa and British Possessions includes Nyasaland, British East Africa and Uganda, and extends for a distance of no less than 700 miles. Raids have been taking place against that territory all this time over that extent. They have been directed chiefly to the destruc-
    1518
    tion of the Uganda Railway. In every case they have failed. The raiders have always been driven back, and the railway has not been destroyed, and I think the explanation of our having been able to do so well is due to this, that not only have our Colonists in these British Protectorates volunteered for service, but they happened to be a class whose services were specially valuable. Many of them were ex-officers in the British Army, and many more were from South Africa, both British and Dutch, and had experience of the fighting there. The result has been that we have more than held our own even in East Africa.
    The only other Colony of ours which was affected by being close to German possessions was the British Protectorate of Nyasaland. Of all our Possessions this was the most precarious. When War broke out the force available there was very small. It could not possibly be increased from outside, and the Colonial Office, as I knew at the time, was in very serious apprehension of something very bad happening there. That did not happen; but the extent of the danger may perhaps be gauged by a single incident. One post which was held by us with fifty men with only one officer was attacked by an enemy force of over 400. Our small body was able for nineteen days to hold its own until help came from other British settlers, and when it came the German forces were driven back with severe loss. I think that that was largely due to great enterprise and daring on Lake Nyasa. On the 14th of August a small British steamer surprised a German armed boat on Lake Nyasa, and took out its guns, and by that means gave to our forces command of Lake Nyasa, which they have held ever since, and which has tended very much to secure the safety of that Protectorate.
    I promised that my account would be a brief one, and that is all that I have to say about these Colonies. There are some general considerations in connection with these operations which seem to me important and which I would like to put before the House. The first and very obvious one is that in Africa, as in Europe, the Germans were much better prepared for war than we. They had superiority in artillery, and still more in machine guns and ammunition, and in the Cameroons they actually had two aeroplanes. Fortunately our people acted so quickly that they seized them and sent them on to South Africa, and I think it very probable

    1519
    that they were used by General Botha in the conquest of German South Africa. They had this superiority, but after all the fighting there is of a different character from what, unfortunately, it is now in the trench warfare in Europe. Character tells more, and so, though we had inferiority in preparations, we had superiority in men.
    The one feature which to me is most striking, though it is not surprising, is the way in which British Colonists and settlers everywhere have thrown themselves whole heartedly into joining the Government Forces in support of the operation against the enemy. That has been the case everywhere. For instance, in the case of the invasion of Togoland to which I have referred, of the total unofficial European population of the Gold Coast 95 per cent. actually took up arms on that occasion, and as to the official population, that is, those who were in the service of the Colonial Government, I have only to say that the difficulty was to prevent them joining in order to carry on the administration of the country. In this operation against Togoland I think that the first British casualty occurred. An official on the Gold Coast was wounded on the 15th August, but I am glad to say that he has now returned to his duties. What happened there happened in every other British Colony in Africa. In Nigeria, I am told that practically the whole white population volunteered to join and serve, and nearly the whole of them have joined. In one thing at least we take satisfaction, and that is that we are entitled to say that the same spirit which was shown by our forefathers overseas, the spirit for instance which took Clive from the desk, and made him conquer or retain the Indian Empire, was never stronger or more marked than it has been shown to be throughout the British Empire to-day.
    That is true not only of these Colonies where fighting has actually taken place, but there is not a single British Possession where, when the numbers are not large enough to enable them to create a unit of their own, large numbers have not come forward and joined the forces in our Dominions. I happened to be shown today a private letter from Ceylon, which is typical, I think, of every British Possession. The writer says that nearly all his friends who were young men had joined the forces, and that as to the rest their sons had all joined, and he added that the
    1520
    position in Ceylon was precisely the same as in London to-day. The bulk of the people are suffering from the loss of those who are dear to them. As a nation I think we can say that we are fond of peace. Our habits are peaceful, but we can also say that neither business nor luxury has sapped the courage of our race nor made them less able to fight than in the past when fighting became a necessity of the existence of the Empire.
    There is another consideration, and that is the way in which the natives have acted thoughout the War. With the single exception of East Africa to which some reinforcements have been sent, the whole of our fighting has been done by local forces. The bulk of it has been by native levies, the chief of which, and perhaps the only ones, are the West African Frontier Force and the King's African Rifles. They have been faced for the first time with modern weapons, directed by people who thoroughly understand how to use them. They have fought in the bush, in country where it was impossible to exercise complete control over them, yet nowhere have there been any excesses, nowhere has there been any want of discipline, and everywhere they have acted with great gallantry. As an example of that, perhaps it will interest the House if I give one incident of many which I have read. During one of these fights the tripod legs of the machine gun were blown away, and I remember reading with admiration a similar act of heroism in Flanders. Two privates of the West African Frontier Force at once stepped forward to allow themselves to be used as the legs of the machine gun, which was used effectively until the enemy were driven off. It is not only those natives actually fighting for us to whom we have reason, I might almost say, to be grateful. One sometimes hears in this House complaints of the way in which our representatives abroad deal with subject races. This country has shown, on the whole, that we have a good record in that respect, and it is a record which is appreciated by the natives themselves. Throughout they have been thoroughly loyal. They have assisted us in every possible way, and perhaps I may add that nothing has done more to make the African natives appreciate the value of British rule than the experience they have had of German rule in Africa. That experience has made our course easier, and has made it comparatively easy to administer those parts of

    1521
    the German possessions which have been taken over by us. I was reminded in this House the other day of a saying of Bismarck:—
    "Colonies are settled, not by fighting there but by fighting in the central theatre of war."
    It is quite true, but after all it must be a satisfaction to us to feel that out there, where they have to depend on themselves, our own people have more than held their own. I have made no reference to our Colonial fellow subjects who are fighting side by side with our own soldiers. I do not think it is necessary to do so. What the Canadians have done in France is as familiar, is as much a household word here in the United Kingdom, as it is in Canada. And anyone who has read, as we all have, the dispatch of Sir Ian Hamilton must feel that neither in this War nor in any war that I know of has there been any act of greater courage, or which showed better the qualities of the soldiers, than the landing of the Australians and New Zealanders in Gallipoli. Nothing, therefore, that I can say can possibly add to the estimate which has already been formed by the House of Commons, and by the country, of the qualities of those troops, and of the value of the services which they have rendered and are rendering to-day to the Empire.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I may say that we have all listened with great satisfaction to the lucid and inspiring narrative which the Colonial Secretary has just given to us, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to add that, at this particular moment, it is a fortunate coincidence that a native of one of our great Dominions is at the head of the Colonial Office. I have no desire to anticipate the decision of the Government with regard to the future of these Colonies which have been won from Germany, but I must express my own strong feeling that—not for the sake of further adding to our Empire, but for the sake of the people, and especially the natives themselves—these Colonies will not be asked to exchange the beneficent rule of this country for the rule of the Germans in any future time. As far as German rule in Africa is concerned, I think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in making allusion to their conduct in the Colonies. I think it would be a very poor return indeed for the valour of our soldiers, and for the natives and men of our own blood, to give these people back to the rule of which they have been able to get rid. I
    1522
    think we may say with some national pride that South Africa has done a splendid work; and self-sacrificing action in Sierra Leone and in other parts of Africa has saved millions of lives by the war on mosquitoes and on maladies belonging to that country.
    I have risen to say a few words on a subject on which the right hon. Gentleman was silent, and perhaps the reason for his silence was that he did not think it was a proper moment to raise the question. But I have been much struck in conversations I have had with dwellers in our Dominions, both in the past and quite recently, by their attitude towards the place they hold in the counsels and deliberations of our Empire. I know I am approaching rather a thorny subject, though my own opinion about it is clear, and has been clear and precise for many years. But we have this extraordinary juxtaposition of affairs, that while Canada and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa have all poured forth treasure and blood, and fought with the bravery to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded in the most critical moments of battles and operations—while we have all these things on one side, on the other we have a remoteness, almost amounting to exclusion, from any share in deciding the policy of the Empire for which they are so willing to fight. Of course, I acknowledge that something has been done to remove that reproach. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt), who occupied the position of Colonial Secretary for some years, took the first great step by publicly pledging the Government that consultation with the Colonies would take place when we come to consider the terms of peace. The presence recently at a Cabinet Council of Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister of Canada, is an epoch-making event in itself, and it is not merely an important event in itself, but is a promise and a beginning of better and closer relations between our Dominions and ourselves.
    On my visit to Canada I heard remarks which were new to me as an indication of feeling there towards the Mother Country and their relations with us. I take one subject, namely, our communications with our Dominions. I found in Canada, when I happened to be travelling through that country, that so far as anything like a day-to-day communication or enlightening information, with regard to the movements here at home were concerned, I might as well have been in a country

    1523
    utterly foreign to the British Crown. In fact, I found that the information on which our people, the men of our own blood, of our own race, of our own country, mainly relied in regard to the state of affairs, was nearly all supplied through American agencies—when I say American, I mean agencies in the United States. These agencies are very well organised, but after all they are American agencies, and the events which most appeal to them are events which are far more interesting to Americans than they are to the people of our own country. I felt myself, at a time so critical, certainly anxious to know what was going on in this country, and I felt that I was absolutely incapable of forming the least judgment of the progress of political events in England or Ireland. I found myself as remote as though I were travelling in Russia. I remember it being said to me in Vancouver, "How can you expect us to fight for you, to love you, to be loyal to you, when you never take the smallest interest or the smallest care to keep up anything like continuous communication between us and you?" And it was added, "Things cannot go on as they are."
    In addition to that, recently I had the pleasure of meeting some Colonial friends of mine in London. They first talked about what Canada had done and referred to the services which the Dominion had rendered to this country, and, when they had said that, one of the gentlemen wound up with the strange observation—and it came from one of the greatest men in Canada—"It is the last time Canada is going to do this." That observation not only surprised but alarmed me, and I asked him the reason why. The reason he gave was, that we could not count in the future on that splendid contribution of Canada to our armed Forces if we do not take Canada more into our councils and confidence. I put that feature of our treatment of Canada on one side. I take another instance. I remember about twenty-five years ago meeting a Scotsman who was living in Johannesburg. At that time there was an exciting incident in a small Irish town in which some heads were broken, and in regard to which there were some considerable differences of opinion as to the evidence given upon the matter. My friend from Johannesburg referred to this incident. The Parliamentary Session was just about to open, and this Scotch gentleman, a resident in South Africa, said to
    1524
    me: "For the next few weeks, if not months, you will be discussing this incident. I understand the nature of party passions waging in this country, and you will have innumerable speeches and scenes and all the rest of it; but during all these weeks, or months, or during the whole Session, you will never hear a word about South Africa which is one of the most important parts of the Empire, and where there are to-day some of the most dangerous problems the Empire has to face." I have since been reflecting that if we had in this Parliament devoted some of our attention to those problems of South Africa, we might have been able to avoid some of the many tragic events which followed our neglect. Let me give another instance. I remember, not a long time before the War, when the Foreign Office Vote was down for discussion, the Debate began at four o'clock in the afternoon and it ended at 8.15. Four hours and a quarter were given by this Parliament, nicknamed Imperial, to the discussion of the Foreign policy of this world wide Empire. That was absurd enough, but the absurdity was so pointed by what immediately followed that, much as it struck me, it had the much greater effect of striking your mind as well. Sir, because I remember you noted the fact in your evidence before the Procedure Committee. When at a quarter past eight we had disposed of the Foreign policy of this whole Empire we started discussing for an equal, or nearly an equal, length of time, or, indeed, for a longer time, because we renewed the discussion two or three nights afterwards, the affairs of a suburban water company and as to how many gallons of water should be taken out of a stream. Is not this juxtaposition the condemnation of our whole system of dealing with our foreign affairs and with those great Dominions to which we owe so much?
    I do not make any proposal. This is not the time to do so. The only purpose I seek to serve at the moment is to ask the leaders of the different parties in this House and the Members of the House generally to devote their minds to some consideration of this problem. There could be no more favourable moment for beginning the study of this problem. On the one hand, we have this truce of parties which enables us to see things without that refracted light of party politics, which, of course, obscures the issues, and which enables us to scrutinise matters in an entirely dispassionate spirit. In the next

    1525
    place, this is a time when the Empire is more united in spirit as well as in action than it ever has been in its existence. Those of us who are old enough remember how in 1870 the folly and arrogance of France united Germany and we see to-day how the folly and arrogance of Germany has had the reverse effect and how it has united this Empire and its Allies. I believe in adding to the strength of this Empire, because I interpret the support it has got from all parts of the world, and I attribute that, whatever be its faults and its crimes in the past, because every Empire has faults, to their sense that it stands to-day for freedom and for democracy, and those freedom loving peoples and those democracies of our Dominions would not have been on our side if they did not feel that we were fighting for freedom and democracy. I plead for the consideration of that closer and more intimate association of our Dominions in our councils and in our policy in the interests of the unification of the Empire.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I desire to say a very few words in support of the view which has been expressed so eloquently just now by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I know that at the present time when events of such dramatic significance call for all our practical efforts it is hardly convenient to devote attention to matters which will concern us when this War comes to an end, or is approaching its end. As to the precise terms of peace, and as to the precise methods of uniting our Empire—and I suppose we are all agreed that will be one of the great results of this War—I have nothing to say. But it does seem to me that at this time there is one subject which we cannot safely leave without continuous and careful thought, and that is not the settlement at the end of the War, whether within the Empire or outside, but the machinery by which we are going to bring in with us after the War the daughter States of this Empire, when it comes, as we all hope it will come, to the reaping of the harvest which is the result of the victory which they have won no less than we. The end of this War, whenever it comes, will produce in the life of the nations what is known commonly in the life of individuals as a psychological moment—that is to say, hearts will be stirred, as they are not commonly stirred, and they will be impressionable to a degree to which they are not com-
    1526
    monly impressionable, and it will be possible to achieve things in that moment, if you do not let the opportunity pass, which it may never be possible to achieve subsequently. If the House will allow me I should like to refer to an incident in the very early history of these Islands, which I think puts more shortly, and perhaps more sympathetically than I could in any other way, the essential idea that I want to express at the present moment. In the earliest of our historians—Bede—there is a little incident described of a very human and dramatic character and with enormous consequences. The missionary Augustine had landed in Kent and had succeeded there. He became ambitious of converting to Christianity the remainder of our barbarian ancestors, and he suggested to the King that he should invite into council the Celtic Churches, and notably the Welsh Church. The Welsh representatives arrived and Augustine, the proud representative of Rome, remained seated According to Bede they said to one another, "If he remain seated when we come to him as strangers, how will he treat us when we have made him our master?"
    I put that point because from that moment the first great opportunity of reconciling the Celt and the Teuton was lost in that little lack of tact. The object of that conference was to convert the Anglo-Saxons of these Islands. I am perfectly certain that the Minister for the Colonies would never have been guilty of that solecism. From that little want of tact emerged immense historical consequences. In our history we have often been tactless. It is essential at the end of this War that we should not be tactless, however right we may wish to be, in our dealings with the other portions of the Empire. To be in the best form you must have given thought before. I know that we have been told and assured—and no one for a moment doubts it—that the leading statesmen of the remaining portions of the Empire will be consulted and will be taken into counsel when the critical decision comes to be taken. But that is not enough and that is not sufficient to seize for the good of the future that impressionable moment that there will be when for six months, it may be, a great European Congress is sitting, and when, side by side with the reorganisation of Europe, you might achieve the reorganisation of the Empire, for which you would fight for generations afterwards. What we want is something more organic. I am not going to make any suggestion as

    1527
    to what the reorganisation should be. I follow the precedent set by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is for Executive Governments, with all the means at their command, to investigate practical measures. It is for us at such a moment as this merely to offer suggestions, merely to put forward the faith that is in us, merely to attempt to express the relative weight as we see it of the problems which are before us.
    5.0 P.M.
    I will just illustrate from two events in the recent history of this Empire how vital it is that we should be thinking beforehand in these matters. Many of us have on our bookshelves at the present time certain volumes, three I think they are, large volumes, which were the product of a certain group of men in South Africa, sitting apart and I believe secretly, who thought deeply and exhaustively, and inquired with determination and with minuteness into the problem of creating the Union of South Africa, that Government which has recently triumphantly proved its efficiency. That Union was the product of careful thought on the part of constitutional students for months beforehand, gathered together without any publicity of reporters. They produced a Report which, I venture to say, is one of the greatest constitutional authorities of the world. From that forethought there emerged the Government which has stood the test of the present difficulty. The other instance that I will cite is to remind Members of that dramatic moment in the history of this House when at the beginning of the War we were made aware that the War Book, as it in as called, has been opened, and that the plan for ensuring the shipping of the British Empire had been thought out before in all its details in such a manner that we had one of the most remarkably efficient pieces of organisation created at the opening of the War, a piece of organisation which, I venture to say, has perhaps more than any other single factor in this War gone to secure the wonderful position in which these Islands to-day stand in the presence of all Europe. My point is that we in this country are apt to leave too much for the spur of the moment and too much to our traditional methods of compromise by Parliamentary give-and-take, and that we are too little apt to thinking out carefully beforehand, however much you may have to modify and amend when you come to actual practice.
    1528
    What I venture to ask is that we shall, before all things, while this War is in process, somewhere or other, have a body in existence—called into existence, let us hope, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself—which, without any reporters present, may quietly consider all the pros and cons, and see whether it is not possible to do something, to think out something, which shall be ready when the happy time comes in order that we may seize those three or six months, whatever it may be, of armistice and conference and achieve all that is possible—I know the difficulties—in the way of the organic union of this Empire, for the immediate purpose of making peace and of enabling those who we trust will be co-victors with ourselves to take their share in the settlement of the world terms which will then be before us.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would it be in order on this Vote to refer to the affairs of Ceylon? Inasmuch as it does not appear in the Estimates, being a self-supporting Colony, apparently it would not. On the other hand, it would be a singular result if the affairs of the chief Crown Colony, in which during the year there have been serious riots, racial and religious, were excluded from consideration in this House
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be in order, because the salary of the Minister is born on the Vote, and as long as he has any authority over the affairs of Ceylon it is competent to discuss them.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the two extremely interesting speeches to which I have just listened. I am in whole-hearted sympathy with the views which have been expressed by the two hon. Members who have last spoken. I agree especially with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mackinder) that we in this country are apt to treat important things in far too happy-go-lucky a manner. The time has come when we are faced with very vast problems, and we cannot too soon set to work in the study of them and in preparation for the future. The particular problem which those two hon. Gentlemen have placed before the House is one that must have puzzled many students of constitutional history. The British Empire is different in formation from any Empire that has previously existed. We are confronted, as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division said, with this vast

    1529
    responsibility, and we see before our eyes to-day, on the one side, the splendid help that has been given to us by our Dominions, and, on the other side, our neglect to ask them to participate in our councils. Our first idea seems to be that some sort of central Council for the Empire should be set up. Like those who preceded me, I do not want for a moment to lay down any sort of suggestion; I want rather to sound a note of warning against any possibility of the over-centralisation of the vast Dominions of the British Crown; and for this reason: We here in the British Isles are closely involved in all the complications of European diplomacy. I think we ought to hesitate before we bind great, free Dominions, such as the Dominion of Canada, by any chains of an unbreakable nature to these particular difficulties in which, by our geographical position, we are naturally involved. To put it in another way, I do not want to feel that we are going to drag the Dominions at the other ends of the earth into these difficulties which surround Europe, and which have proved in the past and are proving now to be a source of great danger to the whole world.
    I am not sure that we shall be rendering our Dominions a great service if we bind them too closely to the centre. I look forward rather to a future for them where they will gradually find themselves in a position of sufficient responsibility and independence to keep the real links of affection and consanguinity with the Mother Country without any constitutional or artificial bonds which will bind them necessarily to the policy which the Mother Country has to adopt towards the countries of Europe. It seems to me that, in facing this problem, that point ought to be taken into account. But I think we may be grateful to the hon. Members who have preceded me for having brought this matter forward and urged that it is one of such importance that it ought to be faced and preparation made in regard to it immediately. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division gave as one of his illustrations the fact that the affairs of the Empire, so far as they concern foreign questions, were discussed only a few hours during the course of last year, just before the outbreak of the greatest catastrophe that Europe has ever seen. That, indeed, was a great scandal. In that respect not only have the Dominions and Colonies no say in the question, but our own people in this country are
    1530
    kept from having any sort of control. This and other questions must be faced; now is the time to make every preparation. Those who are not engaged immediately in the military operations and who can find the opportunity to understand and study the vast problems which must come up, and which will not be efficiently dealt with unless preparation is made, should spend their time in thinking over these problems and should not be blamed and abused for so doing. The speech of the Colonial Secretary, I think, moved the whole House. It is a very fine record as an illustration of what the British Empire means. Let us bear in mind that we do not want to consolidate the British Empire on too cut and dried, hard and fast lines. The links that bind us now are proving very strong indeed, but I agree that the Mother Country should show more consideration towards the Dominions than she has done hitherto.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I listened with the greatest pleasure to the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to the interesting details that he gave us as to the origin of the different German colonies. It must be a matter for satisfaction to the House to know that in the conflict which has taken place we have been on the whole successful, and that success has been most marked in South Africa, where but a few years ago we were ourselves waging war against those who to-day have proved themselves to be our strongest supporters in that country. I took the opportunity the other day of reminding the Colonial Secretary of the statement of Bismarck—to which he has himself referred, and the truth of which he has acknowledged—that the retention of colonies in the last resort depends on the result of action in the main centre. I did not call attention to that observation of the great German statesman with a view to throwing any doubt on the value of our conquest or on the valour of our soldiers. I did it in order to concentrate attention on the fact that there was always the contingency that if we did not succeed in the main centre of action we might have to restore those colonies, and also to call attention to what, if they were restored, would be the position of our own Colonies in the neighbourhood. I trust that the result in the main centre of action, through the sacrifices that we are making and are prepared to make in conjunction with our Allies, will be such as

    1531
    to enable us to retain, not only our own Colonies, but also very considerable accessions to them.
    The discussion to-day has developed on somewhat larger lines. I agree that the Colonial Secretary was perfectly justified in keeping within the natural ambit of such a discussion; but the Debate has become enlarged through the observations of the last three speakers. With regard to the remark of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that only a few hours last Session were spent in the discussion of foreign policy, it may be that there is substantial ground for a different opinion, because it may be possible that the shorter the discussion in this House in regard to strictly foreign policy the better for the country. That does not prove discussion among the representatives of the people and their leaders in this House to be without value. But we must remember that in the most powerful continental nations foreign policy is rarely discussed in their legislative bodies; it is usually determined by the Cabinets of the countries, and secrecy is of such importance that discussion would only damage the result the nations have in view. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division also stated that he has found in the countries he has recently visited a lamentable lack of information with regard to the affairs of this country, and he mentioned Canada. I was somewhat surprised at that, from two points of view, because, firstly, I thought the people of Canada had a fairly general idea of what was going on in this country; and, in the second place, it was not quite understandable to me how they could be in ignorance, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Liverpool Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is himself a prolific contributor to the Press of Canada. I myself have repeatedly read with much interest those long letters which he sends to the Press of that country. He has endeavoured, I must say, to contribute information in that process. I do not say that I have always agreed with his contributions. Sometimes I had reason to reject the conclusions at which he arrived. I trust that none of the misapprehension which may prevail in that country is in any way attributable to the contributions of the hon. Gentleman.
    Looking at it, however, from a larger point of view, we quite understand that responsibility may rest for lack of information—if such be the fact—in our Colonies.
    1532
    Take the recent changes made in the postal regulations in regard to Canada. I do not say where the responsibility is. It may be here, or it may be with the Government of Canada. But I think it is deplorable that for the small sum involved there should be a change in the newspaper and magazine postage. Anybody who knows Canada well knows that the main reading matter, outside the local Press, circulated in that country comes from the United States of America. Very often, if not of a hostile character—and I do not want to say that, although that might sometimes be said—it is not of a character calculated to propagate the unity of idea referred to to-day in this House. If the postage rates could be restored to what they were, it would contribute very much to the circulation of literature in that country which is very much required: possibly the same observation is true in regard to the circulation of literature in other of our Dominions.
    There is the matter of the telegraphs. If the ultimate project is the greater consolidation of the British Empire, certainly we must come more closely together through communications under the sea and above the sea. If private companies can conduct their telegraphic offices at a profit—as they do—why should the State hesitate directly to establish a line, perhaps not at this time of war, but at an early period later, which would do not only the business of the State, but would also do commercial business? I have no doubt that, given foresight on this head, you might provide a means by which a telegraph line could be perfectly independent and yet at the disposal of the State, as those wireless systems spoken of by the Colonial Secretary were at the disposal of the Germans at the commencement of the War. Arrangements might be made by which that land or lines should pass entirely through British territory. That is not the case to-day with regard to our telegraphic communications across the Atlantic. There is, again, the matter of cheap communication, of early news, of reliable news, as one of the most vital means of cementing the whole British Empire far more, and better, than a great many theories which are propounded with regard to consolidation. If one ventures to look at what is to be the outcome, in so far as its effect upon the Mother Country and its great Dependences and Colonies is concerned, I must say that I am some-

    1533
    what staggered at the suggestion that we should come to a conclusion on important matters within six months after the close of the War. This is not a new subject. It has been a subject for a century. Those who read Curran's speeches will see that he refers to projects of a like character connected with the new use of the words "British Empire." When we commence to discuss these subjects, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are the result of the evolution of time and circumstances. As William Watson, the poet, says:—
    "Time, and the ocean, and some fostering star.
    In high cabal—have made us what we are."
    And what we are is no slight thing! But when we come to think about betterment, we must analyse the situation. We must remember the position of each of our self-governing Dominions—South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, and the Commonwealth of Australia. They are running their own shows. They are paying their own way. They are imposing their own taxation. They are making laws that regulate life, liberty, and property perfectly independently, and they are combining for their own defence to the extent of their opportunities. The King reigns just as effectively, and to all intents and purposes, over the immediate concerns of the people at Melbourne, Ottawa, Cape Town, Pretoria, and in Wellington (New Zealand), as at Westminster. Consequently, what you have is this: Though these nations are young, they are practically nations in alliance with us to-day. They are proving that by the most practical and patriotic methods of what can occur between nations, whether in a struggle for existence or in a very struggle of arms, and nothing greater could contribute to the consolidation of our peoples in sentiment, and ultimately in prosperity, than the process we are going through to-day. Therefore we must not count too much on artificial means of developing this peculiar fabric known as the British Empire. Those perhaps who are wiser than we are, and more experienced, under new and more fitting conditions, may be able to shape a form of Government entirely suitable to an Empire which comprises one-fifth of the surface of the earth, and more than 500,000,000 of the population of the whole world. But to-day I must confess I was somewhat staggered when I was asked to ride very far afield from the safe frontiers in which we are now entrenched.
    1534
    There are other things binding us together. There is the sentiment of kinship, of blood, of ancestry—a strengthening of bonds that conies from strength in danger, and from the obligation of maintaining principles that must endure. So long as these forces are in existence I have no fear of the different parts of the Empire pulling against each other. But it is said, and perhaps with considerable wisdom: "Why should you not call us to your counsels?" I heard with some astonishment to-day the observation of the hon. Member for the Liverpool Division that a leading man in Canada said, in regard to coming to the aid of the Mother Country and joining the War: "This is the last time." I must confess that that is new to me. I know the country. I speak after long residence there, very close connection with it, and after having been a member of two of its Legislatures. I must say that I have never in my experience heard any Canadian, man or woman, express any other idea than what has been expressed by Sir Robert Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when the Mother Country is at war the Empire is at War, and that, consequently, Canada is at war. There is not the slightest hesitancy in any respect to-day as regards Canada contributing to the uttermost farthing and to the last man to fight the battles in which the country is now engaged. It has been said, "Call us to your counsels." Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that some years ago, and the present Prime Minister of Canada has said the same thing—except that the present Prime Minister has gone a little further, and suggested that the country should be consulted as to the terms of peace at the close of the War. We must all agree that the different self-governing Dominions and Dependencies should be consulted before the close of the War—because the close of the War might be too late for consultation. Consultation ought to come in good time. I see no difficulty whatever in consulting the Prime Ministers of the different Dominions to-day, and taking their advice or suggestions in regard to any matter of Imperial policy.
    The Mother Country is the centre of the Empire, of course, and the Mother Country is in the main responsible. It is natural that if the Mother Country leads the other parts will follow. Difficulties occur. Consequently, it is natural when they do occur that the Colonies should be

    1535
    consulted. I am quite sure from communications that we have had that in the future there will be no difficulty about the Colonies being consulted to any extent that they wish to be consulted. We all recognise that the Imperial Ministers here are primarily responsible to the United Kingdom, and that the Ministers of the self-governing Colonies are responsible to their Dominions. Perhaps it will be found to be very difficult to go much further beyond that, without consultation, if we desire to preserve the integrity of the Empire in anything like the strength that we have to-day. What seems to me most important in regard to the self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country is that they ought each to be able to see the others' point of view. In order to do that they must have information, and they must have the best information, and the best and most reasonable means of communicating that information. I have often found ignorance in my native country with regard to the Mother Country, and I will not say that I have not found nearly the same sort of thing in this country with regard to our Empire. On both sides there is fault and a very great deal to be corrected. I would offer one suggestion to the Colonial Secretary. I am sure he will take it in good part. It is that in this thing he should confer with the Minister for Education. From the point of view of education this country has a good deal to learn about the Colonies; and we cannot after all learn everything from the Colonial Secretary in a Debate even in the House of Commons. I believe that in our schools there are faults, both in the Colonies and in the Mother Country, and that there might be much more taught in the schools than is taught to-day in regard to British development. It is not very pleasant if you ask a young shorthand writer what is the capital of Canada to be told that it is the city of New York.
    I will give another instance of not seeing things from the point of view of each other. If you travel in India—and my hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees) knows the country very well—and wish to have your name put down for membership of a club where you will meet a number of people who may give you information, it is only a matter of the proposal being made and being very rapidly put through. In addition, of course, you may have to pay a very small fee. Nobody objects to that. You get
    1536
    rapidly in touch with the conditions of the country. The same applies to a golf club in India. Now let me tell this: On the 12th of this month I applied to a leading golf club in this country for the privileges of the club for my friend Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister of Canada. I tell this story by way of illustrating the phase of my subject I am dealing with. Three days afterwards I received a letter stating that my application had been received and that it would be placed before the committee of the club on the 28th of this month. If Sir Robert Borden is at a loss for a game of golf—at which he excels—he might remain in this country beating his heels around the Savoy or the Westminster Palace for a fortnight, and then he would know whether he could enjoy the privileges of the club. That certainly shows a lack of appreciation of the views of our own countrymen abroad. Of course, anybody going to Canada, particularly anybody of any consequence, wishing to have his name put down for a golf club, would simply have to ask any member of the club to place his application before the committee, and it would be granted as a matter of course, and he would immediately come into enjoyment of its privileges. That is the case with Canada and with all our great Dominions, as well as the United States. Yet, here is an illustration of waiting which might have been regarded as penalising the Prime Minister of Canada if it had not been for the fact that he had abundant opportunities of going elsewhere, because at the same time that I made that application I made one to another club, and it was granted immediately That club showed appreciation, and I am glad to say it was a club of which the Colonial Secretary is the President.
    There has been a great deal of complaint in Canada and, for all I know, there may have been complaints elsewhere in our Dominions, that the manufacturers of that country did not get a fair opportunity to contract for munitions of war required by this country, and I have seen it stated on high authority in Canada that this was a matter which rested entirely with the Mother Country. However that may be, of this I am certain, that throughout Canada there is very considerable dissatisfaction because more opportunity was not given, and at an early stage, to undertake some of those contracts that were so fundamentally essential to our success in the War. This is

    1537
    all I wish to say in conclusion: Whatever the result of the War may be, I believe that, whether it is successful or otherwise, and we all hope it will be successful, a means will be found of settling any of those domestic questions which distress us in the present or are before us in the future. I believe there is sufficient resource, imagination, and sound commonsense left in our race to devise means by which the integrity of our Empire may be preserved, and that the Mother Country acting in concert with our Great Dominions, whatever form of Government they may adopt, will continue the mainprop of freedom, the defender of the smaller nations, and the preserver of the public law of the world.
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I will not deal with the larger and more general topics touched upon by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and the last speaker. I listened with the greatest interest to the tour round Africa which the Colonial Secretary made, and, if he will allow me, I will ask him to extend his tour a little further East, because I wish to draw attention to certain events which have recently happened in the Colony of Singapore. I regret that I should criticise his new Department, and certainly should not do so unless I felt it was my duty to speak about this matter. The mutiny of Singapore took place on 15th February, there has been a Court of Inquiry into it, and the guilty men have been shot months ago; yet, at the end of July in this House when we ask for some information on the point, we are put off with the answer that the Report of that inquiry has not yet reached the War Office. Some of us, I am afraid, are suspicious that the Colonial Office is trying to make this a purely military matter, so that they may wash their hands of it and avoid all responsibility in regard to it. Now, if it were a mere regimental matter, and if the men had shot their own officers, and finished at that, it might be a case of military discipline alone; but it was not. If it had been a case of Asiatic troops slaughtering Europeans indiscriminately, it might have been put down to religious fanaticism; but it was not.
    There are certain points about this outbreak which, I think, give one reason to suspect that it was an act of war brought about largely by German intrigue and German money, and the point I wish to raise is whether our authorities in dealing with this question have shown that zeal
    1538
    and activity which the Crown Colonies claim from them. Now I think it may be definitely claimed that the Government of Singapore were fully forewarned upon this particular point, because recently an Indian merchant of considerable wealth, of the name of Mansoor, has been tried in a public, court, and has been shot as a traitor. This man's correspondence with his allies and friends in Rangoon was intercepted by the Censor in Rangoon, and I think I am right in saying that his machinations in regard to this particular regiment were known to the Government of Singapore before the mutiny took place. The Governor is a military officer, and yet, after being forewarned in that particular manner, these troops under suspicion were allowed to retain their rifles, and at half-past three on the afternoon of 15th February wagon loads of ammunition were dragged under their noses, from which they helped themselves as they wished, and proceeded to shoot down every Englishman they saw. My contention is that the fact that they were levelling their attacks specially against the English goes to show it was a German scheme. Five mutineers walking along a road said to a colonist, "Are you English?" and he said, "No, I am Irish." They said, "Oh!" and let him pass. The fact was these troops were not out to loot, because they left untenanted houses alone, and they shot Englishmen in houses where there were Dutchmen close by. Their attack, therefore, was certainly levelled against British power and British people.
    The Government of Singapore, having been forewarned on that point, what attitude, I ask, did they take in regard to the German prisoners in that Colony? We have asked questions in this House on more than one occasion, and we have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to any of them. The Colonial Office has adopted an attitude of ignorance. On the 21st April I asked a question as to whether German prisoners in Singapore had been permitted to draw money on their bank accounts. That is a very important point in view of the fact that many of them were wealthy men, and that if they had large sums of money at their disposal they were able to bribe. A definite answer to that question was possible in a few hours, a telegram costing a few shillings being all that was necessary. The answer received from the Colonial Office was that they did not know what amount those Germans were allowed to

    1539
    draw. I claim that is not fair, and it must give rise to the feeling in people's minds that either the Colonial Office knew that these men were allowed to draw too much and they were ashamed to name the amount in this House, or else they cared so little about it that they never bothered to send a small telegram. It is well to bear in mind that a German prisoner in this country is not allowed to draw more than £2 a week. It was evident that the Singapore authorities themselves knew there was something very far wrong because they appointed a Commission of Inquiry. On the 28th April I asked the Colonial Secretary a question with regard to the Commission, and he said it consisted of Sir Evelyn Ellis, Mr. Vick, and Captain Chancellor, Inspector-General of Police. We now know from the Press that that Committee, the names of which were given to us on the 28th April, did not exist at all. On the 17th March the Committee apparently was reconstituted, consisting of General Hoghton, Colonel Ferguson, and Captain Chancellor. For what reason were these civilian members turned off and the police officer retained? If anyone should have been turned off I think it should have been the police official, and then possibly, if it had been necessary, his own action might have been brought under review. In any case, I do not think it is quite dignified for the Colonial Office to be unaware on 28th April of a radical change in the Committee of that importance which was made on 17th March.
    When I asked the other day whether this inquiry had been completed, and whether the evidence would be laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper, the Under-Secretary for War replied that no report had yet been received by the War Office, and that, of course, until he saw it he could not make any statement regarding its publication. As the Governor is Commander-in-Chief in Singapore, did not the Committee report to him as soon as the inquiry was over, and surely the Report must be in the hands of the Colonial Office? Of course, if it is against public interest to publish it, that is another thing; but that the Colonial Office should be in a state of ignorance six or eight months after the event I cannot conceive. I think the way the German prisoners were treated in Singapore might be summed up in the words that they were treated "not wisely, but too well." One
    1540
    individual prisoner was especially noticeable. He was one of those who got away. It is worthy of notice, as emphasising the fact that this was an act of war engineered by Germans, that the mutineers went to the internment camp and, after shooting down the unsuspecting guard, they broke open the gates and flung in rifles to the Germans, calling out, "German! German! Islam! Islam! "One man, pointing to a picture of the Kaiser, said, "That man my king!" The principal German in that place was Diehn, a rich, able man, who adopted the German method of utilising the confidence of Englishmen to destroy them if possible. I am told that, having escaped by means of a motor car and steamboat, by the aid of money, he had the impudence to wire to the Governor, from the Dutch port he reached, "Arrived safely," and with him escaped the officers of the "Emden."
    I would like to protest against the secretive and evasive attitude taken up in regard to this inquiry. In replying to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine Division (Mr. Ronald McNeill) the other day, my right hon. Friend opposite said he could not say anything until the Report of this inquiry had been received and considered, but will he assure us that we are ever going to get a Report of that inquiry? It is not a good thing for the people in our Crown Colonies to feel that the Colonial Office is under the thumb of the India Office, or the War Office, or anyone else. They have always looked to the Colonial Office for protection, which I hope under my right hon. Friend's management will be continued with increased vigour. The only activity the Singapore Government has shown is in collecting funeral expenses from the relations of the men who have been killed. These men were shot down by the paid servants of the British Government, and they have been led to think that they might get some compensation. But, instead of that, the Colonial Government has taken a very thrifty attitude. Thrift is an excellent thing in its way, but you can have thrift misplaced, and this is one of the cases where it is out of place. I have cut this extract out of one of the Singapore papers:—
    "In the case of a young widow who was in a motor car when her husband, a friend, and a Malay chauffeur were shot to death by mutineers on the afternoon of 15th February … a bill has been presented, at the direction of the Government, to the father of the young widow for $125 for the funeral expenses of the murdered son-in-law. The policy of the Government in this is a ghoulish atrocity. We have not heard that any of the poor widows in Belgium, whose husbands were shot by troops who were the paid servants of the

    1541
    German Government, have been required to pay in addition for coffins for their murdered husbands. We have to leave Belgium for Singapore to discover that sort of refinement in the art of officially 'rubbing it in' to the bereaved."
    I hope that in this matter the Colonial Secretary will exercise his authority and see that the dead are left in peace and that the Singapore Government do not pursue their relatives in this undignified manner. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the courage which our people have shown in every quarter. In this matter may I point out that we received assistance from Russian, French, and Japanese ships, but in the main I think the position was saved by the British Colonists showing that they were good men in a tight place. It is also to be remarked, and I hope it will be fully acknowledged, that the other nationalities fell in and gave us most material assistance. The Japanese appeared in a body under their own Consul, and offered their services; and the French, Scandinavians, Italians, and Swiss also gave their assistance with great willingness, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that they receive our thanks. I might suggest that having now got rid of the Germans from our Colonies we should not be in too great a hurry to get them back again. They will always intrigue against us, and now that the cancer of their presence is cut out I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can to prevent its malignant tentacles from spreading anew in our Colonies. They have abused our national hospitality by their cold-blooded schemes of murder, and violated all feelings of fair play, and this deprives them of all consideration. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matters I have brought to his attention, and see that he is not side-tracked by endeavours to make this a military issue. I trust there will be nothing approaching a whitewashing inquiry. If he does this, I am certain that everybody in the Crown Colonies will take his word at its full value, and we shall never again have to repeat references to circumstances of this kind.
    Mr. LYNCH: In times of great national excitement, and especially in time of great mondial excitement, there are aspects that bring home to us the metaphors derived from great convulsions of Nature, and when we look closely at the phenomena, bending our gaze to its inmost causes, we seem as though
    "To watch the abysm birth of elements."
    1542
    That may seem a strange exordium with which to take part in a Debate on the question of the ministration of our Colonies. But before I sit down I hope to show what is the real pith of certain important questions which have been raised. I intend to speak with the utmost boldness, so that I may feel sure myself that I may cry,
    "Lo, I have touched it with a little rod."
    With regard to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), with all due respect to his opinions and his sincerity I wish to say at the outset that I entirely disagree with his arguments, and more especially with his conclusions. I disagree with them from every motive which animates my hopes for the future greatness of Australia, and also the Irish cause itself. The hon. Member has advocated a greater representation of the Dominions in the counsels of this country, and he has made his appeal ostensibly on behalf of the Dominions themselves. I do not think anything could be more fatal to their best interests than that there should be a realisation of such aspirations.
    It must be remembered that Ireland has never lacked representation in the counsels of this country. Judged by the standard of population, Ireland has been over represented, and the result has been that for a hundred years the great bulk of the Irish people have been struggling amid pain and misery, and through what their enemies called their "crimes," for a release from that system. Representation means something more than formal representation. The difficulty has been that in great crucial questions the interests of Ireland, or at any rate the sentiment of the overwhelming mass of the Irish people, has been sharply opposed to that of the people of this country. Consequently, although there has been adequate representation according to population, the mass of representation of this country has entirely submerged Irish opinion, so that the result is worse than if there had been no representation at all. If there had been no representation at all, the Irish people would have stood before the bar of the world upon the justice of their claim, unjustly denied; but they are now cut away from that, except in regard to the minds of those who examine into the intricacies of the whole question. So with the Dominions, they will see the folly of

    1543
    entering into a hard and fast formal system with this country which would embroil them in all the disputes of this country, so that they would have to shoulder the responsibility for every act of this Government, which, nevertheless, would deprive them of any real representation of their own situation as Dominions.
    But there is involved a greater question. What my hon. Friend advocated is really that British Imperialism, having first of all subdued, should take the place of, German Imperialism; and, having put forward this colossal output of energy in a war the like of which has never been known before, we should arrive at this lamentable conclusion: That we have struck hard at German Imperialism, appealing to every argument and every sentiment that finds an echo in the human soul, that we have struck down Kaiserism and German militarism, and have set up in its place British Imperialism and British militarism, and that we shall find our chief glory in the expansion of Empire and the dominations of other people.
    But there is something that in times of deep stress rises from the very depths and hearts of peoples and from the secrets of the system of things, and that comes to the surface. That was clearly shown at the time of the French Revolution. I say in regard to this present War, that if we seek the root causes we must go not merely to the French Revolution, but far back into history, into the very centre of the Middle Ages; and then we find that, after all, the very meaning of this War, as far as it has a spiritual meaning, is that it is a great battle between medievalism and those glorious principles of liberty which found their eclosion in the aspirations of France and the ideas of the Republic. This War is the last inspiring flicker of the dark ages of Europe.
    6.0 P.M.
    After agitating the whole civilised world and stirring it to its depths in such a way that problems that were thought to be merely theoretical, far fetched, and remote have suddenly come to be the very centre of our ideals; if, after having stirred up the sentiments of human beings affecting the most pregnant thoughts and deepest hopes, the most sacred of motives and ideals; if, in the solution of these questions, we are content to go back to a system which has descended from the Middle Ages, which is the hereditas dam nosa of
    1544
    the Middle Ages to us; then, I say, that future generations will condemn this War not only as having been murderous, but as having been futile.
    The Australian, and the Canadian, and the South African people will have to face these problems. Then, how are you going to bind people, for whom it cannot be claimed, as it has been claimed for Australians and Canadians, that they are people of the same race, born with the same aspirations and ideals, who have grown up with the same traditions, how are you going to bind them to the British Empire by appeals of this kind if, at the same time, you ask them to renounce something of that very liberty which they have acquired, renouncing this in order to bind themselves in the fetters of a hard and fast and formal system?
    I wish here to interpose a very brief personal reference, not that I desire to thrust myself into the picture at all, but simply to explain my attitude. I do not speak with any hostility whatever to the idea of a close union—the closest possible union if you will—between the Dominions and the Mother Country. At the beginning of this War—on the very day of the outbreak of this War, in fact—I had the desire not merely to advocate the cause of the Allies, but to go to the front and take my part in the fighting line, and I made a proposition to the War Office which, had it been accepted, would have led to my fighting at the front, where I might have been now. That proposition was not accepted. I am not criticising the War Office now: I merely introduce this to show that I do not speak with any hostility to the idea of the closest possible union between the Dominions and the Mother Country. But I say you shall not shackle the hands of the Dominions, and you shall not interpose any barrier between them and what they consider their forward march towards the most free and unfettered liberty.
    If having invited them to become a closer part of the governing system of this Empire, so that they should shoulder the responsibilities of every future war, some of which may be entirely unjustifiable as they have been in the past, you also deny them the right to question the origin, the character, and the efficiency of that system, do you think that they with their new ideas, their ideals, their aspirations, that they, bringing the light of reason upon the system of the British Constitution and judging it solely by the standards

    1545
    of liberty, democracy, and of efficiency, would find it acceptable—a system which has come, as I say, as a relic of the Middle Ages, and every part of which shows the opportunist patches of makeshift and of arrangement between conflicting interests; a system not in the least responding to the aspirations of the great free people of to-day? The British Constitution is not a democratic Constitution.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is it in order on the Colonial Office Vote to discuss the British Constitution, the Middle Ages, and the War?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Only so far as the Colonies and the Dominions are concerned.
    Mr. LYNCH: These questions have been already raised and have been debated in full. The scope of the question has been already enlarged so as to embrace these questions, and therefore I am perfectly in my right to show how far they Dear on the future of the great Dominions. There is in this House a great misunderstanding of the true sentiment of the Dominions, and I do not think that sentiment can be gleaned from conversations with stray visitors to Westminster. We have already had an illustration of that in this very House and in this very Debate. An hon. Member, born in Canada, and who made one of the most judicious and carefully reasoned speeches we have heard for a long time, came in direct conflict with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). My hon. Friend, having stated the effect of a certain conversation, found himself in total opposition to the opinion of the hon. Member below, derived not from mere conversation but from that peculiar point of view which is gained from having been born in that Dominion and grown up with its sentiment, and which nothing else can supply. One proof of how far the sentiment of the Dominions is opposed to this scheme of Imperialism may be found in the fact that whereas an Englishman who has distinguished himself in peace and war looks forward to be honoured, and it is a perfectly legitimate ambition from his point of view, there has been recently, and the tendency is growing more and more, such a sentiment in the Dominions that very few of the most highly distinguished men in the Dominions have accepted any title at all. These titles have become something quite different from honorific, if one may say so, because whereas great and representa-
    1546
    tive men refuse them, they arc often bestowed upon men whose reputations are merely local and whose great services have yet to be discovered.
    I would therefore say that you cannot ascertain the atmosphere which prevails in any of these Dominions simply from the point of view of Westminster. Any man who has travelled abroad, as for instance in America, in Australia, or in Canada, will know that his prepossessions in regard to the prevailing sentiment there are entirely upset, and he has his point of view entirely changed, and new and hitherto unknown ideas enter into his mind the moment he becomes familiar with the life of these countries. Many of those who are Imperialists, and especially high Tory Imperialists, a short time ago would not merely have dissented from the views I now express, but they would have given vocal demonstrations of that dissent; and, if I were an enemy of this general union, I should say that I could pursue no policy more effective or even more Machiavellian than to encourage that kind of sentiment, because I know, whereas South Africa has teen held up as an example to the whole world, that if South Africa had remained under the régime of Imperialism, the very men who have now fought against the Germans would have been those who would have used this occasion to throw off the binding ties altogether, in order to assert the complete independence of South Africa. I know that under the régime of Imperialism the men whom the Empire now delights to honour were the very men who were smarting and protesting against the galling chain, the continual interference by this country with affairs with which they felt themselves not merely competent but entitled to deal.
    Therefore I would utter this word of grave warning. If the Government desires to hold together all these great Con-dominions they will entirely renounce that scheme, however plausible it may seem, for binding the Mother Country and the Dominions in a closer formal union; and that at no stage of the development of those Dominions will they interpose any obstacle or check which emanates from that desire. I speak, myself, as a native of Australia, and moved by those sentiments which make the name of Australia thrill through my mind with a meaning which it can bear to no man not a native of Australia; I say I can interpret even the magnificent demonstration of

    1547
    Australia in this War. It was, no doubt, actuated by a desire to come to the help of England and the Allies fighting in a just cause, but it was also actuated by a desire to illustrate Australia, to magnify Australia, and to glorify the Australian sentiment before the world.
    If, by any movement of the Government in power, by the influencing of public men of the Dominions who come to this country and who are susceptible to influences that are unknown to the vast majority of Australians, it ever came to a definite issue, and Australia were at the cross roads and had to choose between two paths, one of formal Imperialism with all its concomitants of Imperialism and Kaiserdom, and the other the path of Republicanism, I would strike resolutely forward in the path of Republicanism, and I believe I would light a fire that no after generation of men would extinguish.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his very lucid and short statement, which I think was one of the first which has been given to the House of the part which the Colonies as a whole have taken in this War. His reference to the action in South Africa was one which everybody followed with very great interest. A great many people have referred to the question as to how we should dispose of the German colonies. It is a great deal too early to say how we should dispose of them; our business is to bend all our energies to bringing the War to a successful conclusion. That is more important than the question of the disposal of the German colonies. There is one thing which will stand out more clearly than anything else at the conclusion of this War. It will not be what the people of this country will say, but it will be what our Colonies themselves will say as to how these colonies should be disposed of. There was in Australia strong opposition to allowing Germany to come into Samoa. That was an act of Mr. Gladstone. I regretted it at the time, because I felt that it was injudicious to introduce another European race close to our own Australian Colony. It was strongly resented. I very much regret it took place, and I am quite satisfied whatever may be the views entertained in this country as to the disposal of New Guinea, the Australian Commonwealth itself will simply not tolerate again that Germany should occupy any part whatever of that Colony.
    1548
    I think also we should not forget at a time like this, when we owe so much to what has been done by our troops in South Africa, the meed of praise which is due to the man, who, of all others, was responsible for creating the goodwill of South Africa—the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. We have erected a monument to his memory in Westminster Abbey, but I venture to suggest that his greatest monument will be in what South Africa is to-day. I think we should bear that in mind. It is quite true that the granting of self-government to South Africa was a question on which very acute differences of opinion prevailed in this House and in the country, and those who know what took place, and who know more particularly as to the activity of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in securing the goodwill of South Africa and the part he took in that great controversy, will feel that South Africa will always stand as his greatest monument.
    My main object in rising was to say a word or two on the subject discussed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member referred to the fact that when he was in Canada he found that the people there were entirely, or at any rate, very largely, dependent on getting their information from the Press of New York. I do not want to say a single word suggesting that news gathered from the Press of New York is at all biassed, or that anything is done to cast any reflection on this country. I am not going to suggest that, but in a conversation I had with members of a firm, which is one of the largest proprietors of newspapers in Canada, I was told that it was deplorable that they could get so little direct information from this country for the Press, and that they were nearly wholly dependent on the information which came from American sources. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool spoke as a Press man, and possibly was biassed in favour of something being done; but, speaking from the commercial side, I am sure when the War is over, if not before, something should be done to bring Canada into more direct communication with this country from a telegraphic point of view, and if the Colonial Secretary at that time still occupies his high office, and will do something to help the Canadians to realise what they have been so long craving for, namely, more direct information, he will have made his occupancy of that office an event for which we shall be very grateful.

    1549
    Canada, of course, must bear her fair share of the cost. She is defended entirely by our own Fleet, but still I think in this particular the best service the right hon. Gentleman can render both to Canada and to this country would be to do something to establish much more direct communication than we have at the present time.
    Colonel YATE: I am proud indeed to have an opportunity to say a few words of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary on the splendid narrative he gave us of the military operations in the Pacific and throughout Africa—a narrative which held the House enthralled from start to finish. The whole House joined with him in his expression of pride at the manner in which all the Colonies throughout the Empire had come to the help of the Mother Country, and I think when we see we have a Maori contingent coming from New Zealand, a Jamaican contingent from the West Indies, and all the Colonies everywhere between joining hands, we can be proud we are co-sharers in such an Empire. I Lave no knowledge of the Pacific or of West Africa, but, as an Indian officer, I take considerable interest in East Africa, and I should like to seize this opportunity to say how sincerely I trust that the result of this War will be that German East Africa will become a British and not a German colony.
    We are, I am glad to say, realising at last that Egypt is a British Protectorate. Cairo is the apex of our Eastern Empire, and I honestly look forward to the time when we shall see, taking Cairo as a starting point, that we shall be able to have a clear run due south from Cairo to the Cape, and due east another clear run to Baghdad, Teheran, Kabul, and Lhassa. I do not hesitate to express my hope that the obstacles presented by German East Africa to the Cape to Cairo Railway will be completely taken away. I join entirely with the praise the right hon. Gentleman has given to the grand conduct of our Colonists in East Africa, and the way in which British East Africa withstood the attacks from German East Africa. Although it has been said that the fate of the Colony will be decided at the end of the War, still possession is nine points of the law, and I hope to see that German East Africa will be recognised as a British possession before the end of the War. If I may make one little suggestion, it is this: that in the autumn, when the time comes when the Indian contingent in
    1550
    France can be relieved, I hope to see the Indian Infantry transferred from France to German East Africa, and then these gallant men will have a chance of knowing that they are conquering a Colony that may be colonised by Indians, and getting some reward themselves for the great services which the Indian troops have renedered to the Empire throughout the whole world.
    With reference to Persia, Afghanistan, and Thibet, as these places come under the administration of the Foreign Office, I cannot touch upon them, but I do hope to see Mesopotamia also becoming a British Colony. It is a country which cannot be colonised by Europeans. India is the only country in the world that could really carry out the grand schemes of irrigation which have been planned by that great engineer, Sir William Willcocks, and I hope the day may soon come when we shall see this prosperous Colony become again the granary of the world and the Garden of Eden, as it was once before.
    There are two other points I should like to touch upon. The first is Somaliland. I have known Somaliland from the time when it was administered by the resident at Aden. It was then a most prosperous country. It was open to travellers, it fed the whole garrison at Aden, and supplied it with all kinds of stores, including meat and fodder. It was then taken from the Government of India and handed over to the Foreign Office. That Office was utterly unable to administer it, and speedily handed it over to the Colonial Office. After that everything went from bad to worse. The wretched Colony became the subject of every sort of vacillation and change of policy, which eventually ended in our disastrous retreat to the coast. We gave up the protection which we had promised to the tribes of Somaliland, and thus created a ghastly record of failure to fulfil our undertaking. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the former Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harcourt) is in his place. He acknowledged his mistake and agreed to raise a fresh Camel Corps. I trust, as a result, the deaths of the gallant Corfield and his officers and men will be avenged, and I trust, too, that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he speaks, will be able to tell us how the Colony is going on at the present moment. Finally, I should like to say a word with reference to Ceylon. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham intends to deal with that question—
    Sir J. D. REES: No.
    Colonel YATE: We all know of the disturbances that have occurred there, I would like to point out that if there is one thing more certain than another throughout our Colonial Empire in the East, it is the necessity of having tried officials to rule the country—men who have a thorough and intimate acquaintance with the natives of the country and understand them most thoroughly. What did we see in Ceylon? Again, I am glad to notice that the former Secretary of State is in his place. During his time, as he will remember—two or three years ago—there was an old and tried Colonial Secretary in Ceylon. He was a man with thirty-five years' service; he thoroughly knew the country. He was recommended by the Governor for succession to the post of Permanent Colonial Secretary. What did we see? That old officer of thirty-five years' service, who had been strongly recommended by his Governor for that particular post, was not given it, but a young clerk from the Colonial Office, with only ten years' service, was sent out by the right hon. Gentleman to fill it. He had no know-ledge of the natives, and the result has been a ghastly and terrible mutiny. I venture to assert that we must have tried and strong men in charge of these countries, and I trust that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies will give an assurance that, throughout the Colonial Service, old and tried men will not be set aside. The official to whom I have referred returned home with a broken heart. Many others have felt in the same way. They have been superseded and have come home broken-hearted. I trust that under the present Administration we shall never see old and tried men sent home and replaced by young men who know nothing about the country. We have seen the result of that policy in the disturbances that occurred in Ceylon.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) included our honoured guests, Sir Robert Borden and General Botha, statesman, general, and Privy Councillor, among the second-class Colonial politicians who never by any chance accept honorary distinctions at the hands of the British Government. But when the Colonial Secretary referred to General Botha and his actions in South-West Africa, I could not help recalling—
    "the happy omen, That the staunchest friends are bred out of the stoutest foemen."
    1552
    The same reflection occurs on his eloquent references, so grateful to old Indians like my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, to the conduct of the Indian troops in South Africa and elsewhere. But I did not rise to continue the Debate upon the high altitude which it has reached, and in a few minutes I shall get to my own particular corner. I will only say, as regards Ceylon, I will not accept the invitation of my hon. and gallant Friend—I am not sure it is endorsed by the House—to deal with affairs in Ceylon. I would only ask the Colonial Secretary, who was so good as to give me a very full answer the other day, whether he has any further information regarding my suggestion that the recent racial and religious riots in Ceylon, which have been of a rather serious character, had their origin in German intrigue? In a somewhat similar case in India, when a like suggestion was made by myself, it was at first scouted by the India Office, but it was subsequently acknowledged that the suggestion was correct. I would only like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has anything more to say upon that subject, and with that I leave it.
    As regards Singapore, I think it is pretty well admitted that German intrigue was at the bottom of the riots and of the very serious mutiny which occurred at that place, and I can only say that, in one respect, good has come out of evil, if. as I believe is the case, a Bill has been introduced making service compulsory, or rather I would say, universal, amongst all Europeans in the Colony. If that is the case, they are setting a great and glorious example, which I hope will spread upwards until it reaches the centre of the Empire. I have but one remark to make with regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Macmaster). Although he is a great authority on Colonial affairs, he should remember the spirited departure by Sir Wilfrid Laurier from the policy attributed to him, when he said England at war did not necessarily mean Canada at war. I am glad indeed that Sir Wilfrid has recanted the speech he made on that occasion.
    I come now to my immediate subject, with which I wish to deal quite briefly. In German East Africa, in April, it was found necessary to adopt a defensive attitude all along the northern frontier. I believe that to be the case up to this date. It is better to know the facts, and I am sure the Colonial Secretary thinks so. I

    1553
    should like to know quite clearly whether this is, as I believe, the case up to the present time; also whether Jassin, at the extreme south of German East Africa, just where it borders our territory, and only 20 miles inland from the coast, is still, as I believe it is, in the possession of the Germans after their successful engagement with our troops. I should like to be clear on the point, because this is, in fact, the most serious engagement which has taken place between the British troops and the Germans in East Africa. I believe the Island of Mafia is still in our possession, and I hope it may so remain. I hope the blockade along the East African coast is as effective now as it was expected and intended to be when it was undertaken by us. Would the Under-Secretary kindly consider these points? The Colonial Secretary, in his very interesting resume of military operations, did not refer to a spirited little engagement understood to have taken place at Muenegambe, on the Nyasaland border, in which a small force of North Rhodesian Rifles and Rhodesian Police routed the German force, and when that gallant officer Lieutenant Irvine lost his life. I have not seen this reported anywhere in the London Press. I saw it in a provincial newspaper, and as that was the "Nottingham Guardian," I have no doubt it was correct, but I should like to know.
    As regards the operations in Nyasa-land I am sure the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity which the Colonial Secretary happens not to have taken—I do not at all upbraid him for it—of acknowledging the gallant conduct of, and the great assistance rendered by, the planters and public servants in Nyasaland in the operations which have taken place there. As regards the railway extensions in this Protectorate I should like to know if there is anything to be said? If so, it would be gratifying to those who are interested in this somewhat remote part of the British Empire. I understand that arrangements have been made to make a survey from Blantyre up to the South of Lake Nyassa. If that is the case, I hope nothing has occurred to alter the intentions of the Colonial Office in that respect. That money can be provided at this time is too much to hope, but this is a convenient opportunity of taking all steps short of finding the money. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can say anything about the extension of the railway which runs, under two companies from Blantyre to the Zambesi, down to Beira. I
    1554
    should not be surprised if he tells me he cannot. I dare say it will be news to many Members of the House that railway trains are actually running now from the Zambesi river right into the heart of Nyasaland—Blantyre—and that the Colonial Office proposes at the earliest moment to carry that connection on to Lake Nyassa.
    I do not quite understand the accounts that are presented. It appears that £65,800 was granted by the Colonial Office to Nyasaland as a Grant-in-Aid in 1914–15. I have not yet received any reports from Nyasaland later than 1913–14, when no Grant was made. It would be rather astonishing if a money Grant was made, because the Colony is now self-supporting, and was in 1913–14, and it would surprise me if in the following year, 1914–15, a Grant was made which was double the Treasury Grant ever previously made. There is, no doubt, some explanation of this, so instead of troubling the House I will await it when the Under-Secretary replies. I should also like to know from him whether the rise in the hut tax of £4,000 odd in 1913–14 is due, as I believe, to an increase in the number of huts, which is satisfactory, and not to a large increase in the taxes, which would be unsatisfactory. I should also like to know whether it is the case, as I believe, that the trade of this Protectorate has so far increased and become so satisfactory that we may fairly expect that it will require no further Grants-in-Aid from Imperial revenues. If that is so, and it may prove to be the case, because in 1913–14, according to the last year of the Colonial Office reports, the exports exceeded the imports,, it is an extremely satisfactory feature of this Protectorate, which for a long time had been regarded as a drag upon the-Exchequer.
    I have only one more point. There was recently a small rising in Nyasaland, which cost the lives of a few Europeans, but which was promptly and ably suppressed by the Governor, Sir George Smith. So far from having any criticism to make, I would add my humble praise of the Governor's excellent conduct in that affair. There is much reason for believing that the real trouble arose from the missionary schools. The native missionaries there have charge of single schools without supervision. There are Seventh Day Adventists, or something with corresponding names, who are extremely mischievous people, who are backed up to some extent

    1555
    by negroes in America, and seem to be provided with funds. Under the manner in which education is conducted there—I do not know that it is very different from what it is elsewhere—they seem to have every opportunity for the spread of their sinister propaganda among the youths of the country. I believe very stringent measures are required to meet this difficulty.
    I would ask the Colonial Office to continue to do what it has well done; that is, to see that German firms whose real centre is Hamburg, but who have correspondents in Nyasaland, are not enabled to compete with our own flesh and blood who are trying to make a living in that country. The right hon. Gentleman, who was formerly in charge of the Colonial Office, and whom I wish to take this opportunity of thanking for his invariable courtesy and attention to all business matters which I brought before him, took satisfactory action in this matter, and when I have occasion to come to the right hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Colonial Office, I believe he will be equally kind when I ask him to see that all laws in regard to trading with enemies are enforced in Nyasaland as well as, or I would rather say better than, they are enforced in the United Kingdom. I do not feel justified in travelling over the ground covered in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend Colonel Yate, but I most heartily agree with all he said. I have travelled almost all the countries with which he dealt, and it is only my regard for the feelings of hon. Members of the House, and of the Front Bench opposite who want to reply, that prevents me from following him in detail.
    Mr. KING: I shall not intervene, but for a few moments between the House and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whom I am sure we are all waiting to hear, but I must call attention to the fact, which was borne in upon me as I listened to the very interesting and illuminating speech of the Colonial Secretary, that in 1885, at the Conference at Berlin, a General Act was passed dealing with Africa, Part 3 of which provided for the neutralities of territories over a large area of Central Africa. I believe it is understood that that General Act, which was signed by this country, Austria-Hungary, France, Russia, and Belgium, was ignored, or possibly forgotten, at the
    1556
    outbreak of hostilities. At any rate, it is interesting to remember that when it was signed in 1885, Prince Bismarck, who was, of course, Germany personified at that time, declared that at any rate we ought to preserve Africa from the horrors and miseries of war. I am afraid that those who succeeded Prince Bismarck's rule in Germany did not follow either his spirit or his policy in that connection. I venture at this time to express the hope that when the day comes later on when great Colonial issues will be settled, that the aspirations, in fact, the pledged word and faith of the Allies with that of all the States of Europe, will be remembered and that some attempt will be made to make Africa a neutral zone and to preserve it from the military preparations and military rule which Germany, especially, has established there. It is in that hope and believing that though the faith of our country and other countries pledged in 1885 has come to nought to-day, yet the day may come—I hope it may come soon—when these aspirations and arrangements may be brought up again and established on a firm and more lasting foundation.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I rise to answer as briefly and adequately as I can some of the points raised by various Members. To start with, I would refer to the question raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The real fact is that in a War like the present it has been quite impossible to limit the sphere of its operation, but, at the same time, everyone would agree with the very great desirability, if it were only possible, of trying to preserve a great territory, especially under the conditions like those obtaining in Central Africa, from being a seat of war. There is one fact, which is a palliation of what has occurred, on which the hon. Member may rely. That is, among all the difficulties under which warfare has been carried on in Central Africa we have every reason, from the dispatches we receive, to believe that it is being carried on on our side at present with more restraint than the War has been carried on in the sphere of European operations. As an earnest of our good will, too, the hon. Member would do well to bear in mind that some places in Africa, Northern Nigeria for example, were a mere cock-pit of battles and wars for centuries among the native races, and at any rate it is some set-off against what has occurred that

    1557
    the pax Britannica established there has conferred benefits far greater than the evils which have been caused by the state of warfare existing in Europe. I know that Nyasaland is always close to the heart of the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees). As regards the general position in Nyasaland, he is perfectly right in thinking that economically affairs there, considering the strain that exists everywhere at this moment, are uncommonly satisfactory, and I should like to add one word in that connection as to the obligations which I think the country owes in regard to Nyasaland, to the work which has been carried on there by the British Cotton-growing Association. No doubt tobacco is the principal staple of trade, but cotton has been very greatly increasing there, and the increase, and the satisfactory character of the increase, is a great deal due to the fact that the association has not merely regarded itself as a commercial body, but has taken its responsibility with a very great deal of public spirit. The hon. Member asked a question with regard to the Grant of £65,000. I am afraid in that respect, while I may pay a tribute to his interest in Nyasaland, I am not quite so sure that I can compliment him on the interest he has in the railway with which he was there connected. Had he only studied the affairs of that railway more closely he would have known that the Grant was not given in respect of the Colony generally, but was directly made in connection with the railway of which he himself has borne a great share of administration. It is due as a payment in connection with that railway, and that is the whole explanation with regard to the figures appearing in the Vote. So that I could almost have looked for enlightenment from him rather than have to give it him in this connection.
    Sir J. D. REES: The report for 1914–15 has not reached me.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is the last instalment of the Grant paid in connection with the railway, and that is why it appears in one year and not in the other. As regards the extension of the railway, what the hon. Member thinks is perfectly right, that the survey is being proceeded with, but as regards the upper part of the railway it really is a difficult question of choice as between which routes the railway may possibly take. That is the difficulty in the question. With regard to the downward extension that he has asked
    1558
    about, it is, as he realises, not so much a matter for the Colonial Office, but I do not think there is the same probability now of its being extended downwards towards the coast, as appeared likely in former years. The hon. Member also asked a question with regard to German East Africa. He asked whether the town of Jassin was still in German hands, and it is still in German hands. But, on the other hand, the blockade of East Africa, about which he asked, is carried out with just as much efficiency as ever could have been hoped, and a visible proof of it is in the destruction of the "Königsberg," which took place not so long ago. I do not think the hon. Member himself could wish for more efficiency in the tarrying out of the blockade.
    I now come to one or two other Dominions of the Crown which have been mentioned. With regard to Somaliland, the situation there is, to use a common phrase, quite well in hand, only with the tribes that you have to deal with there there may at some seasons be a recrudescence, and it is just the sort of recrudescence that anyone who administers Somaliland has to be on the look out for. The one thing that the hon. Member knows just as well as 1 is that the Commissioner, Mr. Archer, is as capable an administrator as probably could be found in any Dependency of the Crown, and if they were safe in anyone's hands affairs there at present are as safe in his hands as they could possibly be.
    Colonel YATE: Have you any news of the Mullah?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: There has been no bulletin of late, but we gather that he is as well as could be expected in the circumstances. With regard to Ceylon, as distinct from Singapore, the matter is one of much more recent occurrence, and it is quite possible that German intrigues were at the bottom of the rising in Ceylon. From the evidence that we have, there is no reason whatever to suppose that any change of officers was the cause of the rising. That rising, as far as can be seen, whatever may have been the effect of German intrigues, has been a matter of plotting which really has had nothing to do with any particular change of officers, and to which the change of officers gave no particular scope. It started on the anniversary of Buddha's Day, 28th May. There is no need to deny that it caused a certain amount of loss of life amongst the

    1559
    inhabitants, but since then it has been got completely in hand. The whole of the rising took place amongst the Cingalese, who are two-thirds of the population. The remaining third has not really been affected, and the whole situation is now perfectly under control.
    I pass from that to Singapore, which is a more serious matter in some ways, and about which the hon. Member (Mr. Stewart) spoke with a good deal of feeling. I should like in that connection to express my entire concurrence with him in one matter, and that is the very great bravery, promptitude, and public spirit with which the citizens there came forward to meet an extraordinarily difficult situation. On that I should like to digress for a moment. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) said a word about Lieutenant Irvine in Africa just as the hon. Member (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the bravery of some individuals at Singapore. I have had a considerable number of communications which made it quite clear that those who are fighting in all these Colonies and Protectorates and other Dependencies of the Crown have displayed just the same qualities as we are accustomed to expect from those who are fighting in the field in Flanders. But I find this difficulty, that public attention is focussed, quite naturally, very much more on Flanders, which is so near and where the fighting is on such a vast scale. Equally brave deeds are being done from week to week and from hour to hour in all these different Dependencies. I sometimes think, from what I hear, that those who are engaged in these various smaller operations, or perhaps rather their relatives on their behalf, almost feel that the same appreciation is not being given to what they have done, when they are doing their best, as is being shown to those who are engaged in the Dardanelles or nearer home. But of this I am quite sure: I have always said, in reply to any letters of that kind, that out of sight, in their case, is not in the least out of mind, and that applies both to the case of Lieutenant Irvine and many others who have behaved equally gallantly both in East Africa and in Nigeria, as it does to the civilians in Singapore. I do not think the hon. Member really need have apprehension as to our viewing the matter in a huckstering spirit from the point of view of compensation, or sending in accounts for burial expenses. It is not quite
    1560
    an easy matter to decide, but at the same time I can assure him that all these claims will be really considered as sympathetically as possible and with an understanding of the circumstances under which they arose.
    I go on to some other features in connection with it. I can quite understand the feeling with which the hon. Member spoke, and I sympathise with it. With regard to the Court of Inquiry, I say perfectly frankly that we did not have the information soon enough as to the change. I hope the House will not mind me admitting it perfectly frankly. It was an absolute oversight. It was nothing more, but it was an oversight that we did not have the information quickly enough as to the reconstitution of the Court of Inquiry. The reason for the reconstitution is this, that General Hoghton on arrival was appointed to make it as strong a Commission of Inquiry as was possible. Given a strong Commission of Inquiry, and, given the fact of a very considerable number of influential members on the Council, I think there is no question whatever of the possibility of concealing any facts that ought to be brought out in the public interest; nor is it the wish of the Secretary of State that anything should be concealed in the matter and not properly dealt with.
    Mr. STEWART: Has the right hon. Gentleman the terms of reference to that Committee when first appointed?
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I have not got them. The hon. Member has spoken about German intrigue, and referred to the money which was allowed to the German prisoners. I have not myself any doubt whatever that the Governor was perfectly alive to the disadvantages of allowing money for use for improper purposes in this connection—I mean for purposes of bribery—and I have not the least doubt that there was proper supervision in that matter, but at the same time we are inquiring, and I shall be glad to let my hon. Friend have the answer when we get it. On the other hand, there is no suspicion of German complicity, for this reason, amongst others: It is quite true that the mutineers flung open the gates of the camp where the Germans were interned. I cannot imagine any body of mutineers doing anything else, whether there was German complicity or not, when they knew that there were German prisoners interned. But the fact

    1561
    of the matter was that although the Germans escaped they did not take part with the mutineers, as they might have done, and if they had they would have created an infinitely more serious state of affairs for the Colony than actually existed. I do not for a moment minimise the seriousness of the state of affairs there. But if, as the hon. Member thinks, it was a pre-concerted plan between the German prisoners and the mutineers, surely they would have taken sides, and, if they had, they could have produced a still more serious state of affairs. I sympathise quite sincerely with the feelings which anyone must have who has known what the crisis was like out there. I hope my hon. Friend will not think I do not do that. I think the real gravamen of what the hon. Member feels is that there was undue concealment about the whole matter. For that reason you suspect, or are likely to suspect, that possibly much more has taken place than has actually been the case. I can only give him the perfectly distinct statement that there was absolutely no wish whatever to conceal or to hush up anything of any kind from Members of this House or from our fellow citizens in this country of what took place in Singapore. He must in a case like this exercise some imagination for himself. The hon. Member must realise that there are sometimes other reasons for censorship which prevent us in this House having full knowledge of the state of affairs. I ask the hon. Member, and any other Member of the House, just to use their own imagination in these matters, and I think they will agree with me with what I have said.
    There is only one more topic to which I will refer. It was raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow, and others, in regard to the much more general question of federation. One or two specific points were raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool as to the question of communications. The more communications you can have with any of our great self-governing Dominions, the better. The more we can get news carried there—if it be party news under normal circumstances, than with every view set forward from every side—the better. The more the whole situation is understood as to what occurs here the better. I can say this, that during the whole of the
    1562
    first months of this War a thing was done which had never been done before. Instead of the ordinary summaries which are telegraphed to the Dominions of the really momentous speeches made either in this House or in the country, speeches like those of the Prime Minister or of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, have been telegraphed to the Dominions fully. It was considered they were really of vital importance, and deserved to be transmitted in full. That had never been done before, but I think the advantage of it was very great. On the more general question it is quite clear, and I think everyone knows, what the policy of the Government has been. It was outlined perfectly clearly by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is intended to take the responsible Ministers for the Colonies into our confidence in every matter of importance during the War, and also in matters that may arise at the end of the War, and in regard to the question of the settlement of the terms of peace. Our wish is not to keep them out of our confidence, but to take them into it, and to consider matters with them freely. That is the reason why Sir Robert Borden was present the other day at a meeting of the Cabinet, at which no previous Colonial Prime Minister had ever been present. That is not an isolated phenomenon in itself, but only a part of the general trend of events. In connection with the Naval Conference in 1909, the Ministers of the Dominions were invited to be present, when an outline of the whole of the foreign situation, so far as it affected the British Empire, was given to them by the Foreign Secretary. That is only part of the process of giving them more and more information, and taking them more and more into our confidence. Therefore, the undertaking which was recently given by the late Colonial Secretary is not an isolated incident, but only carries out the general trend of policy which is proceeding further in the same direction.
    When I hear objections being offered to any further development of this kind, they seem to me to show either a lack of analyses or a lack of imagination. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby) was afraid that if this evolution proceeded further there might be an over-centralisation which would involve the Dominions in European politics. I am bound to say that I cannot imagine their being further in-

    1563
    volved in European politics than they are at the present moment. Quite apart from their voluntary action, the fact is that the more we link up the world by means of communications, whether of persons actually travelling from one part of the world to the other, or by the news of the world spreading from one part to the other, the less it is possible to live in isolation. The old ideas that you can keep the world in watertight compartments are becoming obsolete, and consequently the kind of objection raised by the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs does not hold water when it is carefully analysed. Similarly, I am inclined to think that the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Lynch) has hardly shown sufficient imagination, especially in remarks coming from the author of "Evolution and Progress." This evolution does not in the least mean that British Imperialism need resemble German Imperialism. In British evolution you do preserve liberty, self-government, and local autonomy; you do preserve all the local characteristics. Any evolution, therefore, of that kind means that the whole common stock of British, civilisation, and indeed of civilisation generally, is enriched by the fact that you get out of local evolutions different forms and customs, all brought to bear, giving their light and influence, one modifying the other, and so enriching the stock and store of the knowledge and experience of civilisation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution reported.

    Class IV.
    52. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—
    7A. Scientific Investigation, etc., £25,000 "
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir F. BANBURY: As this Vote is for scientific investigation, I would like to know something about it. It is a new service in the true sense of the word, because we have never had any service of
    1564
    the sort before. In these days of economy, and in view of the fact that a short time ago we rejected a Vote of £25,000 for pathological research, I would like to have some explanation why we are at this particular moment taking up the subject of scientific investigation. I do not want to say that scientific investigation in ordinary times may not be a most excellent thing, but at the present moment I think we might easily postpone a proposal of this sort unless there is some very strong reason for bringing it forward.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The hon. Baronet has asked me why we should take up scientific investigation at the present time and spend money upon it. My reply is that at the present time I can conceive of no direction, in which this country can spend money more profitably than in this particular direction. I do not complain that the hon. Baronet has raised this question because the sum of £25,000, to which he has alluded, is a new Vote. It is, as I frankly admit, a new departure. I think those who are interested in the matter will recollect that a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Education made an announcement that he was at work on a scheme, the object of which was to bring science and industry into closer association with each other. There was a very interesting Debate upon that scheme, and, if my recollection serves me aright, every Member who took part in that Debate spoke of this proposal in terms of the highest approval. I have just refreshed my memory by referring to the Debate, and I find that that is so. I have seen a number of references to the matter in the Press, and every Press comment that I have seen upon the question has approved of the proposal. I am perfectly prepared, if the hon. Baronet desires, to give an outline of the case for this Vote.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is this scientific investigation for munitions of war, or is it merely scientific investigation in regard to-the ordinary education of the people?
    Mr. LEWIS: This is scientific investigation in connection with industry. It does not pretend to supplement those scientific-investigations which are now being conducted in connection with munitions of war, but indirectly it will help those investigations very materially. I do not know whether I have satisfied the hon. Baronet, or whether he wishes me to make a case for this Vote.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot say that I am satisfied, and I am afraid the hon. Member would not satisfy me if he made a case, especially after what he has said, that this is not really scientific investigation for munitions of war, but merely for ordinary educational purposes.
    Mr. LEWIS: It is not for ordinary educational purposes, although it will undoubtedly be linked with education. The object of the Vote is to bring science into closer association with industry. I think if this War has taught us one lesson which we ought to lay to heart more than any other, it is that we have more to fear from scientific organisation in this War, and the application of science to industry in the commercial war with Germany, than anything else. I therefore urge upon the House that it could make no better contribution to the commercial success of the country in the future than to pass this Vote. If I am required to make a case for the Vote, I am perfectly willing to go into it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution reported,

    Class VI.
    53. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,776, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    8. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    11,776"

    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolution reported,

    Class VII.
    54. "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    13. Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

    50,000"

    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I would like further information regarding this Vote of £50,000. It is for expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. I should like to know whether any special unemployment is anticipated by the Government in asking for this sum. It is a less sum than is sometimes voted under this particular Act, but during this particular year there has already been very large expenditure on unemployment under other heads. There has been the ordinary Grant which the Government give for unemployment insurance. This year, since the War began, a special Grant amounting to something like £100,000 was made for unemployment insurance, connected with trades out of employment owing to the War. You have larger sums than in any other year granted by this House to relieve unemployment, and yet I should have thought that there-was less unemployment since the War began than in normal years. That being so, I would like an explanation as to why this sum is being granted this year? What unemployment is anticipated, and is the-age of the people to be relieved such as to prevent them from undertaking work in other respects, especially military duties, which are required from all classes, at the present time?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to support my hon. and learned Friend. As I understand, this is a Vote under the Unemployed Workmen's Act of 1905. Under that Act certain distress committees were set up in various towns of the United Kingdom. I looked up the Act the other day, and the directions were that works should be commenced to give employment to people who are out of work When this Act was introduced there was considerable unemployment and it may have been necessary to do something then, but at present there is no unemployment anywhere. The other day, when the Government withdrew the Vote for unemployment, the hon. Member for Yarmouth said that the lodging-house keepers there were in great distress. No doubt they are. Everyone is very sorry for them, but this Act would not touch them at all, because this is merely for the purpose of finding employment for people who are out of work. There is practically no distress at present in any part of the United Kingdom as far as I know. There is certainly none in London, and I do not think there is any in any of the big towns. Why is it necessary, then, to bring forward this particular Vote? The Government withdrew the Vote for £250,000 a few days

    1567
    ago on the very reasonable ground that if they sanctioned public works being undertaken they would be taking men and materials away from purposes for which they were required at the present moment. But that applies equally in this case. I hope that the Cabinet will continue the policy commenced a few days ago and withdraw this Vote. The reason that no observations were made on this Vote in Committee was that it did not come on until after 10 o'clock on last Thursday night, and therefore it was impossible to discuss it. If it had been possible my hon. and learned Friend and myself, and I think some others both on this side and the other side of the House, would have raised the question that the Vote should have been withdrawn.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): As regards the greater part of the country, the description given by my hon. Friend in reference to unemployment is correct. It is a matter of universal rejoicing that after the trials and crises through which we have gone the general condition of employment is so satisfactory as it is, but I am afraid that the statement made by the hon. Member for the City that there is only a certain amount of distress in Great Yarmouth and a few similar towns, which is confined to lodging-house keepers, is not correct. I wish that it were. There are certain towns in the country where conditions are wholly abnormal, and where the prospect is a very black one indeed, and the distress is by no means confined to lodging-house keepers. It has been necessary to take certain precautionary measures which have affected very seriously not only Great Yarmouth, but several others of our seaport towns, and which have produced a great deal of suffering among not only lodging-house keepers, but among fishermen and some of the men who generally earn their living indirectly in connection with the staple industries of the place. My hon. Friend the Member for the City, said that this Vote is not necessary because it could not be applied to these people.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was referring to lodging-house keepers.
    Mr. LONG: So far as that goes he is possibly correct, but with regard to the other men the money could be applied, if necessary. I do not know if it will be necessary to make use of it, but we
    1568
    should not be doing our duty if we did not provide ourselves with the money to set in motion the necessary machinery if the matter became so grave as to require it to be dealt with. The money no doubt could be taken at a subsequent period in the adjourned Session, but there is no great advantage in that. We are not likely to be more accurately informed then than now. The Government hope that we may be able to deal with this difficulty in some other way, but it is necessary to provide this money so that it can be employed in order to advert the suffering and distress which would be the immediate result not of the improvidence of the people but of the War, and the consequences which it has brought on the country. This Vote sanctions the use of the money for the purposes of the Unemployment Act, if it is so required, but we do not get that money unless we apply for it, and require it for this particular purpose.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution reported,

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
  55. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services."
  [For details of the total charge, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, col. 1135.]
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution reported,

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
  56. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services."
  [For details of the total charge, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, col. 1186.]
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution reported,

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
  57. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,738,399, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services

  1569
  included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

  £

  1. Customs and Excise

  …

  1,414,607

  2. Inland Revenue

  …

  1,323,792

  …

  £2,738,399"

  Resolution agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.

    Class VI.
    Resolution reported, 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £446,215, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir J. D. REES: Who are these medical referees?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): These medical referees have a statutory duty in connection with the administration of a large number of Acts. This is not a new service but an old service. It is voted every year. I have not got the paper and details with me, but I will be very glad to give the hon. Member any information which he requires.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions reported,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,584, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £853, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances in Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,387, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for making good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Ireland Development Grant (Grant-in-Aid)."

    Class VII.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,889,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, and for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Resolution reported,
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £235,000, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
    Resolution read the second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir J. D. REES: Is this complementary to some other large Grant? If so, what is this other large Grant? Is it necessary to proceed further in this direction at a time like this—this being, I presume, a luxury—when the country can only afford necessaries?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I am not absolutely certain

    1571
    that this is a Vote for which my Department is responsible or whether it is one of the Votes which are administered by the Treasury, but so far as I understand this Vote is for money to be used for the dependants of insured persons, by agreement between the local authorities and the insurance committees, by whom the Grant is being administered. I very much regret what the hon. Member has said. I cannot imagine that he seriously means to contest this Vote. I pan only assure him that it is doing very good work for the country, and that I hope it will continue to do so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution reported,
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £42,015, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the High lands and Islands (Medical Service) Board, and for a Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir J. D. REES: Why under this Grant are houses provided for doctors on duty in Scotland, while no similar provision is made for medical men in England?
    The SECRETARY of SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): This Grant is applied to sparsely-populated districts, and there are no districts in England where the circumstances are similar. There are cases where it is absolutely necessary that there should be provision of housing accommodation for the doctors, and there are no other means of making it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions reported,
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,712, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for making good the Deficiency on the Income Account of the Fund for Friendly Societies."

    Class I.
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day
    1572
    of March, 1916, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £458,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
    13. "That a sum, not exceeding £160,585, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon, and sundry Grants in Aid."
    14. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,008, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways."
    15. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for a Contribution to the Cost of the Improvement of the Approach to the Mall."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Resolution reported,

  LAW OFFICERS (SALARIES AXD FEES).

    Class III.
    16. "That a sum, not exceeding £44,754, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries of the Law Officers Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of

    1573
    His Majesty's Treasury and King's Proctor, and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to draw attention, on this Vote, particularly to the matter of the payment of the Law Officers. I think it hardly necessary, in opening this Debate, that I should disclaim any intention of attacking personally either the late Law Officers or the present Law Officers. I have had no cause to quarrel with either set of Law Officers. On all occasions that I have had any dealings with them, I have been invariably treated with the utmost courtesy. My sole reason for raising the question this evening is to draw attention to the method of payment, and to suggest that a different method should in the interests of the country be adopted. The House will observe that in this Vote we merely have an estimate of the salaries and allowances. We find, in 1915–16, the sum of £14,405, and a similar sum was voted in the year 1914–15. But unlike nearly every other Vote that appears in the Estimates, this sum does not cover the salaries of the Gentlemen for whom it is voted. There is no Estimate put forward here, nor has there on any occasion for the last twenty years been any estimate put forward, as to the total remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown. If one is to discover what exactly the Law Officers cost, one gets no guidance from the Estimate. It is necessary to hunt through the Appropriation Accounts, which are usually issued twelve months after the close of the financial year. And it is only there that any Member of this House can discover the remuneration actually earned by the Law Officers.
    This question of the method of remuneration has often been in issue in this House in the past. Twenty years ago the question at issue, the question most debated, was whether the Law Officers of the Crown were to be entitled to have private practice while they held their respective posts of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. In 1892 a new rule was made whereby the Law Officers undertook to forgo private practice, and at that time the remuneration was fixed on the mixed basis of salaries and fees. But the result of the new system was severely criticised in the House by a number of Members
    1574
    on the Unionist side, and as a result of that criticism, when Sir Robert Reid, who afterwards became Lord Chancellor, was appointed Attorney-General, and Sir Frank Lockwood, Solicitor-General, a new Treasury Minute was issued fixing the salaries of the Attorney-General and of the Solicitor-General. The remuneration of the Attorney-General was fixed at £10,000 and of the Solicitor-General at £9,000. I think most people will agree that that is surely a fair remuneration for any public servant. However, when the Unionist Government came into power in 1895, one of its first acts was to change this system, and to restore once more the method of paying partly by fixed salary and partly by fees. The fixed salary represented their reward in respect of non-contentious business, the fees being earned in respect of contentious business. At that time my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington raised the question of this change in the House, and in reply to him the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (now Lord St. Aldwyn), intimated that the Government were of opinion that the system of remuneration partly by salary and partly by fees was the better system in the public interests, and that it was estimated that the cost to the public would not exceed the cost under the system of fixed salaries during the last year of the Rosebery Government.
    When the same Gentleman again drew the attention of the House to the question, the then Attorney-General (Sir Richard Webster (now Lord Alverstone) made a statement to the same effect. He indicated that though in the current year he expected that the fees would exceed the sum mentioned, nevertheless in normal years the difference of £6,000 would in no case be exceeded. These were the representations upon which that system was founded. But as the years went on the remuneration earned by the Law Officers progressively increased. In 1897 it went up to £13,000 for the Attorney-General and £9,300 for the Solicitor-General; in 1898, £14,500 for the Attorney-General and £10,946 for the Solicitor-General; in 1899, it rose to £17,264 for the Attorney-General and to £11,814 for the Solicitor-General; and, finally, in 1900 it rose to £18,804 for the Attorney-General and £11,329 for the Solicitor-General. The combined payment amounted to £30,133 for the two Law Officers. That progressive increase obviously did not correspond with the promise made when the system was

    1575
    brought into existence, and consequently when the Vote for the Law Officers came up for discussion in Committee of Supply in 1901 the matter was raised. My right hon. Friend, who was the representative of Mid-Lanarkshire in this House, and subsequently become Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Caldwell), raised the question, quoting the figures which I have just mentioned to the House. A very interesting Debate took place on this subject, a Debate in which nearly all the leading members of the House took part.
    There were speeches from the present Prime Minister, the present Minister of Munitions, from the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and again from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). But I wish more particularly to draw attention to what was said by the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Munitions. The House should remember that this matter at that time was being discussed under conditions very similar to those which prevail at the present time. We were then engaged in the South African War. There was then an urgent call for economy, not so urgent as the call at the present time. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day was, I think, equally persistent in his effort to impress upon the House of Commons and the country the necessity of economy in public expenditure. Consequently, in the course of that Debate, the leaders of the Opposition of that time, whom I have mentioned, took advantage of the opportunity to press upon the Government the advisability of reverting to the old system of paying the Law Officers by fixed salary, instead of the extravagant method of paying partly by salary and partly by fees. I wish, in particular, to quote what was said by the Prime Minister on the occasion of the Debate on the 26th April, 1901. He said:—
    "I cannot imagine a fairer case for economy in these days, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly ever comes down to the House without lecturing the House, the country, and his colleagues on the necessity of economy."
    I also desire to quote two passages from the speech of the Minister of Munitions. The first passage I will quote is as follows:—
    "Considering the advisability of economy in every Department, he did not know where economy could be more sensibly and rationally commenced than in this particular Department."
    He then went on to say:—
    "If the allowance of the fees was to be marked by the solicitor's clerk, whose promotion depended on the
    1576
    man who received them, they were bound to have these bills growing from year to year. The system was thoroughly rotten and unreasonable."
    [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is that?"] The Minister of Munitions, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were all on economy at that time. I think that this is a very appropriate time to remind the House of the particular utterances of Ministers now so important and so influential. Only last week the Prime Minister practically challenged the House to take some measures in the direction of economy. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) raised some questions about the desirability of discussing these Votes in Committee of Supply, the Prime Minister waived his intervention aside and said, "We have no expression of opinion in favour of economy from any Benches in this House except the Treasury Bench. Only here," he said, "is there any desire for economy. From other parts we only receive appeals for increased expenditure." Responding to that invitation I thought it extremely important at the present time on the case put forward by the Prime Minister himself, that we should press the desirability of economy, and I have no doubt in view of the expressions of opinion I have quoted that the present Government, under the influence of the desire of economy, will be willing to change this extravagant system. But, it may be said, why has the matter not been raised since the year 1901. I have taken the trouble to go through all the Appropriation Accounts since that year, and I think I find in those Appropriation Accounts the real reason why this question fell into abeyance. The figures I have already quoted, showed for the year 1900 an expenditure of over £30,000. In 1901 there was a drop to £21,000, or nearly a drop of £10,000. That continued till 1902, when the figures were £12,000 for the Attorney-General, and £10,000 for the Solicitor-General. In 1903 they were £11,800 and £9,700, respectively. With the exception of the year 1904, when exceptionally heavy work fell on the Law Officers in connection with the Alaskan Boundary dispute, the figures stood nearly stationary at something between £12,000 and £13,000 for the Attorney-General, and from £7,000 to £9,000 for the Solicitor-General.
    But once more in 1909 and 1910 an increase began. Evidently the Law Officers had come to the conclusion that they had escaped the vigilance of the House of Commons. We find in 1909 the sum of

    1577
    £14,908 2s. 5d. for the Attorney-General, and £10,136 11s. 3d. for the Solicitor-General. Those figures include fees and salaries. In 1910 the figure for the Attorney-General was £13,845 4s. 10d. I do not know how the tenpences are arrived at, as it is not a usual figure on a brief. In 1910 also the figure for the Solicitor-General was £11,644 2s. 9d. Then we come to 1911, and we have £17,924 6s. 2d. for the Attorney-General, and £9,850 14s. 6d. for the Solicitor-General. In 1912 £16,761 19s. 8d. for the Attorney-General, and £12,415 4s. for the Solicitor-General. But the greatest figure that has been yet reached is that which appears in the last Appropriation Account. We have only, as I indicated, the Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st March, 1914, and it will probably be some months before we know the exact state of things for the last financial year. For the year ended 31st March, 1914, the figures for the office of Attorney-General, and although the office was divided during that period, I am lumping the figures together, were £18,397 6s. 6d., and for the Solicitor-General £19,037 16s. 6d., so that the combined Law Officers of 1914 received a total remuneration of £37,425 3s. An hon. Friend quarrels with my figures, but there is really no substantial difference between us. He has reckoned each individual's receipts, but the total amount of £37,000 is the combined earnings of the two Law Officers for that year. We do not want to go into the question of the personnel of the men who earned it.
    I think that, when the figures of the earnings of the Law, Officers have reached these colossal sums, that it is of the utmost importance that this House should enter a protest, and should see that a different system is brought into existence, so that we should secure the services of Law Officers at a cheaper rate. I do not desire, and I am sure no Member of the House desires, that the country should not have the services of the best legal men who are available for the country, but I do not believe that anybody in this House will contend that it is necessary to spend £37,400 in order to obtain those services. I believe with the Prime Minister in 1901, and with the Minister of Munitions in 1901 also that you could get equally good service by reverting to the practice in vogue during the last year of the Rosebery Government, of paying a fixed salary, £10,000 for the Attorney-General and £9,000 for the Solicitor-
    1578
    General I think nearly everybody will admit that that is adequate remuneration. It may be true that in years of prosperity certain leaders at the Bar have earned fees in excess of those amounts, and that to become a law officer, therefore, there would be financial sacrifice involved for such gentlemen accepting office. Personally I do not see why if gentlemen accept offices of honour like the office of Attorney-General and the office of Solicitor-General that they should not make some financial sacrifice, especially as we know that those offices are the regular orthodox path to the highest judicial preferment. We know that in the past very able and distinguished lawyers have been willing to make the sacrifice, and consequently I think the House is justified in concluding that even in ordinary times distinguished barristers and distinguished advocates would be willing to accept office on this condition. But we must remember this, that in these days the earnings I should say of even the most distinguished leaders of the Bar have considerably fallen owing to the diminution of legal business. Except in one particular department, the Prize Court, we all know that the amount of legal business is nothing like what is going on in normal times, and consequently under existing circumstances, even if the fixed salary I have mentioned would in normal times involve financial sacrifice, under present conditions I think we are safe in maintaining that the fixed salaries I have named would mean no financial sacrifice even to the leaders of the Bar.
    I think I have made out a case that the services of the best legal men in the country could be obtained for a fixed salary, especially under present conditions. I think, therefore, we can assume that the public service would in no way suffer if we reverted to the system of fixed salaries. As I indicated earlier, it is surely incumbent upon this House to give due weight to these considerations when the necessity for economy is so urgent. When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Munitions advocated this proposal in 1901 there was a strong desire, and an urgent call for economy. But strong as was the desire then, and urgent as was the call, the necessity was not anything like as imperative as it is at the present time. I therefore hope that when the Government replies this evening they will indicate that under the conditions of the present time they are willing to effect this economy by reverting to the system of payment by fixed salaries.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think that of those who took part in the discussion in 1901 only four Ministers remain in Parliament, and hardly any Member sitting on the Front Bench at present was a Member of the House at the time. My hon. Friend who brought this matter to the attention of the House omitted to say that the present Prime Minister actually voted in 1901 against the salaries of the law officers, as did also the present Minister of Munitions, Richard Haldane, and the Foreign Secretary. And the Conservative Government, which had a majority at that time of 150, had only a majority in that division of 35. One hundred and fifty was their nominal majority, but at all events it was over a hundred. I wish to make it quite clear that this matter is perfectly impersonal, and I wish to associate myself with what the Prime Minister said in 1901 in order to make it quite clear that it is purely impersonal. The Prime Minister on that occasion said:—
    "I cannot imagine a fairer case for economy in these days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly ever conies down to the House without lecturing the House and the country, and his colleagues on the necessity for economy. I think a fair case has been brought before the House by my hon. Friends, and, without making any kind of personal reflection, I am compelled to vote for the Amendment."
    Then the Prime Minister went on to say:—
    "I am very anxious, and I think we are all anxious, to discuss this question from an impersonal point of view, and simply from the point of view of the economical working of the Department."
    He then proceeded to show that under Lord Rosebery's Administration the total of the Law Officers' remuneration was £19,000. It is extremely distasteful to me to have to raise this question at this particular moment when the two Law Officers happen to be members of the party to which I do not belong. I do not know that I belong to any party. I hope therefore my right hon. Friend (Sir F. E. Smith) will regard this discussion purely from an impersonal point of view. My hon. Friend and I wish to make it quite clear that we have no desire to attack the existing holders of these offices simply because they happen to have come across the floor and are now sitting on the Treasury Bench. What did the present Home Secretary get last year? As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the Estimates presented to Parliament you cannot find how much is actually paid to these gentlemen: you have to go through the Appropriation Accounts. On page 254 of the Appropriation Accounts of this year I find that for the period the present Home Secretary drew in fees
    1580
    £3,406 as Attorney-General and £10,976 12s. as Solicitor-General. In addition to that he received remuneration as Solicitor-General at the rate of £6,000 a year, and for part of the period he was Attorney-General with a salary of £7,000. Therefore his total salary in fees amounted to £14,382, to which has to be added— taking the mean of the two salaries—£6,500, making a total of about £21,000. In point of fact, the Lord Chief Justice left this House some time in September, so that the present Home Secretary received over £21,000 as Law Officer last year. Who fixes these fees? When this question was raised in 1901 the Member for Edinburgh University was very anxious in regard to the statement made by the present Minister of Munitions on this point. What the Minister of Munitions said—and it was not contradicted: in fact other speakers confirmed it—was:—
    "These fees are fixed by clerks in the Department, of the Crown Solicitor, whose appointment and promotion are in the hands of the Attorney-General."
    He then went on to say that the system was thoroughly rotten, and so on. We have this remarkable fact in political life in this country, that when one party is sitting on this side all that they do is wrong in the eyes of those who sit on the other side, and when those who sit on the other side cross the floor they take the opposite view to that which they took when in Opposition. That is the reason we do not get on. The views of Ministers all depend on the Bench on which they happen to sit. If there was this urgent necessity for economy according to the Prime Minister in 1901, how can the Government justify, in a time of much greater national danger, the payment of these immense salaries, which largely exceed those paid in 1901? The present Solicitor-General during the last year has been giving the greater part of his services to the country for no remuneration whatever, and he has undoubtedly damaged his practice by so doing; therefore he is the last person whom I want to bring under the bann.
    This year it is clear we cannot have an alteration. But for the following year the Government ought really to tell us that they will treat this matter in the way in which the Prime Minister said in 1901 it ought to be treated. If what the Prime Minister said in 1901 stands good to-day we shall be able to say that at last a Member in office is consistent with the views he held when in Opposition. But

    1581
    I am afraid we shall not get that answer, so that there will, at all events, be consistency with the usual policy of politicians. I will not trouble the House with a. number of quotations from speeches of responsible Ministers in 1901. I voted then for this reduction in the Estimates; as also did my hon. Friend near me. When the necessity for economy is urged the first people to set an example ought to be Ministers themselves. It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling the working-classes that they must be economical if the Government forthwith proceed to grant pensions to Members of the Cabinet which has recently been broken up. That is not business. Real economy ought to begin at home. If the Prime Minister wants economies to be made, let him start in his own household. [Laughter.] Of course, I mean his political household. No one will suppose that I meant his domestic household. This is no laughing matter. If we, here, set an example of wasteful expenditure, it spreads through all sections of the community. You cannot expect the working-classes, or any other section of the community to start making sacrifices when you at the head set an example of extravagance.
    Mr. HOGGE: This discussion is one of which notice has been given. Notice was given to the Prime Minister himself owing to the way in which we started on the Estimates, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury knew that the matter was coming on. I want once more to draw attention to the fact that when we are discussing this very important matter there is on the Treasury Bench no one connected with the Treasury and no representative of the Prime Minister. We cannot expect a reply from the Solicitor-General on a question in which he is himself concerned. He may have very strong views on the matter, but obviously he would desire to remain outside any discussion of the kind. He has already been assured, and I believe he understands it to be true, that there is no personal animus towards the present occupants of these offices in the remarks that have been made. In the hope that some remedy may be found, I draw attention to the absence of anybody on the Front Bench able to deal with this matter. The Lord Advocate is a Law Officer for Scotland, on a fixed salary without fees. His Department is one of the most economical as well as one of the ablest institutions that we have in
    1582
    Scotland. There is nobody else on the Front Bench—including those who have disappeared since it was pointed out that a reply might be asked for—able to deal with this extremely important point. I understand that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a speech on this question so long ago as 1896. Possibly he may repeat the very sound views on economy which he then expressed in regard to the way in which these offices should be conducted. The late Sir William Harcourt referred to the question in these terms:—
    "It is said that it is necessary for the acuteness of a Law Officer … that he should feel the fee in his hand. But if we fix the salary sufficiently high we may surely expect that both his learning and his eloquence will be at the service of his country for a less amount, than he now receives."
    My hon. Friend has pointed out that last year we spent £37,000 on the two Law Officers. I would remind the House that that is the price of seven Prime Ministers. Surely the House recognises the fact that a Member who occupies the position of Prime Minister in the Government of the day is most frequently an individual who could, at the profession which he has adopted, be making an enormous amount of money, but who sacrifices that to assume the post of Prime Minister. I think, therefore, it is worth while emphasising the remarks made by my hon. Friend, that so long as you pay the Law Officers a substantial amount—and I would remind the House that my hon. Friend's proposal pivoted on the fact that he was willing to allow £10,000 to the Attorney-General and £9,000 to the Solicitor-General—so long, I say, as you make that ample provision, the fact of the extra honour that is conferred upon two gentlemen of high distinction in their own profession in serving their country in that capacity is worth more than its weight in gold. After all, there is something in standing in the line of a distinguished succession of Law Officers in this House. It counts for something. So long as the House is not stingy, or does not attempt to augment the salaries so that they will not stand criticism, I think we are entitled to ask that the honourable position should also count for a great deal.
    Someone connected with the Treasury has, I see, at last scented the fact that a discussion is going on about money in the House of Commons and has come on to the Front Bench. I hope he does not want us to repeat the speeches that we have made to acquaint him with the facts of this discussion. Before I sit down I want

    1583
    to say now to that representative of the Treasury that the Members of this House do feel continually, and are feeling it more and more, that when matters which concern the House, and which the House is entitled to discuss on these Estimates, come up for discussion, we have this continual absence of the Minister who matters from the Front Bench, and we have this continual scouting by some official on the Front Bench, who makes a hurried foray into some of these Lobbies and returns with some sort of capture to the Front Bench. That representative in due course gets up and, with urbanity and courtesy, replies. He suggests to the House that he has not heard the whole of the discussion, which, if he had heard, would have put him in a position to make a much more adequate reply. That is not treating the House of Commons as it ought to be treated on this question. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury now will agree that the House of Commons made a valuable surrender of time to the Government in allowing three days to be taken off the legitimate number of days for Supply. That being so, and this being one of two questions for discussion of which notice was fully given, I think we are entitled—as we ought to have been, I think—to the presence even of the Prime Minister, or, at any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I do not think my hon. Friend was entitled in himself to the presence of a Minister, because, after all, we cannot expect that Ministers will be present for every subject that is discussed. But on a big subject which is raised as a point of which notice has been given, I think the House is entitled that the Minister in charge of that subject should be present, and that Minister in this case is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We feel great sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General who has had to sit there and listen to what we have been saying about his profession. We regret that we have had to say these things in his presence, because we might have been more free in his absence. I would remind this House that we are in an atmosphere of economy. As a matter of fact, the Deputy-Speaker of the House, if I remember rightly, both spoke and voted against the very proposal that we are now discussing; so that with that memory of what the present Deputy-
    1584
    Speaker did on that occasion, and the presence of the Irish Secretary, who also committed that offence in 1896, and who has been maintaining the tradition down to the present, I hope the effect of this discussion will be that, though this year no change can be made, we shall have some definite undertaking given by the Government that something will be attempted to avoid in future this casual way in which the Law Officers of the Crown, in addition to their substantial living and trade union wage, accumulate the luxury of several other thousands.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I had not intended to take any part in this Debate, although I have given some attention to this subject in days gone by. I remember twenty-one years ago, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, that there was a Debate here, and I well remember my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions on that occasion displaying an enthusiasm which had a marked impression on the whole House. So far as I remember, it had the effect of drawing into the Debate a number of distinguished Gentlemen who have been quoted to-night by my hon. Friend. I rose, however, at this time principally to complain of the Cabinet treating the House of Commons with such a lack of courtesy that they have not fixed a Minister to reply to this question. If I am wrong in that, I will, of course, at once withdraw that remark; but I rose just as the Question was being put. I must say that this is part of a policy which has been pursued just a little bit too long. We know we have a Coalition Government. We know that they have practically the full confidence of the House. But the House of Commons is still the House of Commons. There are many things the Cabinet can do. But there is one thing it cannot do, and that is to treat the House of Commons, the representative organ of the nation, with supreme contempt. I hope, therefore, that there may be some Member of the Government, however humble, think it is his duty to get up and say that he will report to his chief, probably to the Prime Minister himself, the matter that has been raised here to-night. We have reason to complain that provision was not made beforehand as to who was to reply.
    No one will deny that my hon. Friend's case, as stated, was a watertight case. I think he was well advised in treating the matter as an entirely impersonal one. My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of

    1585
    the Bar himself, and I think he showed that he, at any rate, was anxious to place the matter on a thoroughly House of Commons basis. I am glad he had the courage to bring it before the House. I desire to associate myself very fully with the remarks made as to the present occupants of the office. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman who has paid us the courtesy of being present to-night—although he showed no inclination to speak—has not been a participant of the large war profits which have been made during the last year. He, at any rate, made a very big financial sacrifice—I suppose the biggest financial sacrifice that any member of his profession has made. At the beginning of the War he practically abandoned his profession, and since that time, I understand, he has practically taken no part in his profession, except to take up the post that he now holds. We can, therefore, discuss this matter without the slightest suggestion that there has been any political feeling about it; in fact, such feeling does not exist. It comes when we are being lectured by the Government on the need for economy My hon. Friend has suggested that this is a direction of economy which might occupy the attention of the Prime Minister. I think the case is complete. The matter is one which might come before the new Committee on Economy. Personally I am not prepared to say that the sum fixed before is the right sum. That is another matter. But there should be a fixed sum. Let the amount be what may be determined. It is wrong in principle, as I said years ago, that however high and distinguished the lawyer may be, who occupies the post, he ought not to be placed in this position: that he may have to recommend a prosecution, that he himself will have to conduct, which may mean the putting of £4,000 or £5,000 in fees into his own pocket. I say we ought not to put any man in that position, and that is one of the reasons I would urge against it. My case has been so fully stated that there is nothing else to be said, and I rise principally to ask that someone on behalf of the Government—I would even press for the Solicitor-General himself; we have not heard his voice for a very long time—would tell us that he would carefully weigh the arguments put forward, and see that they are considered in the proper quarter. At any rate, that would be some recognition on the part of the Government that some attention had been paid to this Debate,
    1586
    and that Members of the House received that courtesy to which, I think, they are entitled.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir F. E. Smith): The Government may be open to the criticism of making an unfortunate selection of their spokesman to-night, and, indeed, I am strongly of opinion they have done so, but they are not open to the reproach which the hon. Baronet levelled at them of not having sent anyone, because, as I have said, their selection, under the circumstances, is open to the criticism which another hon. Gentleman indicated. I was asked last night to be here to listen to this Debate, and to make any observations which it seemed possible for me to make. I begin by saying that, so far from resenting the introduction of this subject by the hon. Gentleman and the speeches which have been made by him and by other Members who have spoken in the same sense, I recognise first of all the personal consideration and kindness with which they were good enough to speak about myself, and, secondly, that the subject which they have raised is one which has repeatedly engaged the attention of the House of Commons. No one can for a moment contend that at the present time there is anything unreasonable in the hon. Gentleman calling the attention of the House of Commons to the matter.
    One hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would not be consistent with the delicacy by which one's actions should properly be governed, that I should address arguments to the House of Commons on behalf of my own salary, but I think he may be reassured by the reflection that if it were a question of my standing here to-night in order to recommend to the House, and to support by argument, the system under which Law Officers at the present time are remunerated, I should certainly have asked that these arguments should be presented by some one else, if it were desirable that they should be presented at all. I do not propose, however, in the very few observations with which I shall trouble the House, to put forward any strenuous contention of that kind, but I think I may usefully remind the House that it is important in dealing with the matter to distinguish between the two considerations which, I think, were unintentionally a little confused in some of the speeches which have been made. There is a broad question to be discussed, and one on each side of which arguments can be found as to

    1587
    whether, quite apart from the present War and under normal circumstances, we have devised that system of remunerating Law Officers which, under all the circumstances of the case, is the best. There is the further question whether, having regard to the fact that we now find ourselves in the middle of a great War, and having regard to the fact, as several Members have reminded us, that responsible Ministers have recently advocated economy, as a matter of temporary stress some step ought to be taken in the matter which the House is now discussing. There are two questions, and they are distinct, one is whether the system on its merits in time of peace is a good or a bad one, and the other is whether in the stress and financial urgencies in which we find ourselves to-day some arrangement could be made of a temporary character.
    I am not going, of course, to attempt to argue to-night the whole case, but I would point out that as to the question whether under normal circumstances this is a good system—without pronouncing any final conclusion on it, because very distinguished members of my own profession have taken different views—very many considerations require to be borne in mind, and it is not irrelevant to recall that the House has itself tried three different systems. It has tried the system of allowing Law Officers to continue private work, and many Law Officers made enormous fortunes by their private practice at the same time as some large part of their time ought to have been, and I dare say was, mortgaged to the public requirements. That system was tried for a considerable time, but Parliament became impatient of it, and, if I may place on record my own impression, I think Parliament was right. It lent itself to abuse, even if abuse never followed. When that arrangement was altered, one Law Officer—a very distinguished lawyer—was so resentful of the change that lie resigned his position, or refused to accept the position of a Law Officer because the permission to practice privately was withheld.
    I do think, without pretending in the least to prejudge the final decision which the Government or the House may take, one or two considerations might usefully be borne in mind. It is true, as one speaker says, whether it is right or whether it is wrong, whether it is an arrangement which the House of Commons approves or disapproves, that the
    1588
    men who are at the very head of the Bar do make salaries which are comparable with those which in the aggregate have been paid to the Law Officers in the past. I might, perhaps, make one observation in regard to two figures which were quoted in reference to the two highest years. I believe that the highest year which the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject to the House mentioned first was a year in which there was a very important international arbitration, which lasted for a very long time, and raised the figure to a height unknown before and unknown for many years afterwards. And I think that the hon. Gentleman confused the very high figure which he quoted with reference to the late Attorney-General. I think the hon. Baronet who spoke said that the figure was £21,000. I understand it was not quite so much as that, but it ought to be explained, so I am told, that in that year was included a very long and very difficult telephone inquiry, which lasted for weeks—and, indeed, I think for months—the fees of which ought to have been paid in the previous year, but which, owing to some accident, was delayed. Making all deductions, there is no doubt at all, I suppose, that the average that has been paid to the Attorney-General—the figures that have been given in relation to the Solicitor-General are comparatively so modest that the change indicated would have no particular terrors for me personally—but the figures that have been put before the House in the case of the Attorney-General have shown—I have only worked them out in my head—an average of something about £14,000 or £15,000 a year, and perhaps a little less, if you take the figures of the last ten years, with a tendency to increase in the last few years.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Might I condole with the right hon. Gentleman, but if I were the Solicitor-General I would get £18,000.
    Sir F. E. SMITH: Oh, no; I can assure the hon. Baronet that up to the present I cannot give him any experience based on facts in the slightest degree—I need not remind the House I am attempting to speak, as every previous speaker has attempted to do, quite impersonally—but I think the hon. Baronet is quite wrong about that matter. When I was asked to take duties in the Coalition Government, I would greatly have preferred at that moment an office the emoluments of which were very much more modest, but when

    1589
    I was invited to accept the position I hold, and which I regard as a great honour, I was not so disinterested as not to inquire what the fees and the salary amounted to. Certainly no such figure as the hon. Baronet has referred to to-night was ever dangled before my eyes.
    I was attempting to point out that there are some considerations which the House would do well to bear in mind. Let me call attention to one of these considerations. The Law Officers are now advising daily on subjects in which many millions of pounds are involved. At the present moment I am conducting, with the assistance of the Attorney-General, a case in the Prize Courts, the result of which means £3,000,000 to this country. Only last week in the Court of Appeal I had to argue a case as to the basis of compensation to be given under the various Defence of the Realm Acts, and I think it was considered that the result was that a sum of many millions was saved to the Government. I am not making any personal claim in this matter, but I think that everybody will admit that whatever system you adopt you must have one which makes it quite certain that the very best lawyers and advocates in the country will be available for the service of the nation. I rather agree with what fell from an lion. Gentleman who said that so long as this condition is fulfilled the House of Commons is perfectly at liberty to make any arrangement which commends itself to the House in dealing with the Law Officers. It should be remembered, however, that the best lawyers and advocates practising at the Bar make sums ranging from £15,000 to between £22,000 and £23,000 a year in cases of very successful men. Those men are often willing, for obvious reasons, to hold these positions of Law Officers of the Crown, although they can make more at the Bar; but having regard to the high position they accept the office, although they may get less than they were getting before. There must not, however, be so wide a disparity that a lawyer will say that it is not worth his while to leave his practice at the Bar. I agree that this subject is one of immense importance. You must have advocates for these positions who possess high prestige, which comes from practice at the Bar, although I am not saying that the House always gets them.
    Perhaps I may make an observation on what is really uppermost in the minds of hon. Members who have spoken, and that
    1590
    is the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time. Any decision arrived at ought to be come to without prejudice to the general and ordinary arrangements, unless hon. Members propose to alter it in reference to war conditions only. There are those who take the view that, having regard to the circumstances of the War and the necessity for economy, this is a time in which these large payments should not be made to Law Officers. I can only say that if a Debate takes place on this question I shall take no part in it, and I am sure the Attorney-General would take no part in it, and as far as the present holders of the office are concerned there will be a complete readiness to fall in with the decision of the House of Commons. The House of Commons has decided to give the Law Officers larger salaries than are given to ordinary Ministers. Some hon. Members may think that that is a large assumption, and one hon. Gentleman has reckoned how many Prime Ministers you could get for a Law Officer's salary. May I say that you would get into very large figures if you contrasted the Law Officers with an Under-Secretary. If the House of Commons was right in the course which for so many generations it has adopted, if it is right that there should be this disparity between the salary of the Law Officers and ordinary Ministers, it would, of course, be a question for the House to consider whether in a time of war like this the reductions made should be proportionate and should apply to the case of all officials and Members of the Government. I know that, in the opinion of a section of the public, there is a feeling that this reduction ought to apply to Members of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons takes that view, I assure hon. Members that there will be no special opposition forthcoming from the Law Officers, but I think the question ought to be considered as a whole. One hon. Member made a request that the views which had been expressed should be laid before the Government. In reply to that request, I may say that I will make it my business to lay the arguments used very fully before my colleagues.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I think we may all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having treated a very delicate subject in a very diplomatic way. Incidentally perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is congratulating himself that he has got hold of a much better thing than he thought,

    1591
    always providing that the hon. Member for Mansfield is right and not the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that I am expressing the Solicitor-General's sentiments if I say that he is open to be persuaded on that point, even by the hon. Member for Mansfield. At the same time, I do not agree that this question ought to be considered from the abnormal period of to-day. I think the hon. Member, and every one of those who have spoken, has presented the case, not because of the economic pressure of the War, and not on account of the urgency of economy, but I think a case has been presented that a change is desirable, even in normal times, as distinct from the abnormal period. Viewing it from the point of view of labour, we are opposed to the principle that anyone should have a direct personal interest in settling affairs of this kind. In every town council we have made propositions, which have been generally accepted, that in every municipality in the country no one shall sit upon any committee where he is likely to be affected by his personal interest. We have done this not because we challenge the honesty of the individual but because we submit that it is an unfair position in which to put anyone. Surely that same principle should apply to the Law Officers of the Crown. I agree that if we develop the argument we can make out that about 100 Members of Parliament are the equivalent of the Law Officers of the Crown, but as against that I would submit this proposition: If a member of the Bar, the highest in their profession, takes the position of a Law Officer of the Crown, he is not making any more sacrifice than the Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor, who equally may be the head of any particular profession. It cannot be argued that the honour of the position is an all-important factor, and from that point of view I most certainly think that the fixing of an inclusive salary is the best way out of the difficulty.
    Sir W. BYLES: There is really only one question in regard to this matter. It has been debated over and over again in the House. It is absolutely necessary that the nation should get the very best legal advice that it can, or, to put it in the other way, it is absolutely necessary that there should be no better advice against them. The whole question is whether that can be obtained by the method which we prescribed before of a fixed salary for these two Law Officers of the Crown. I believe
    1592
    it was in Lord Rosebery's Administration, of which I was a humble supporter, that the method of a fixed salary was tried. I think the salaries were £10,000 and £9,000. If it answered at that period, why should it have been changed? I never knew why it was changed. We have now a Coalition Government, and we have all the wisdom of both Front Benches. Surely they can put their heads together, and at a time when we are told to save all the national money we can they ought to endeavour to put this subject of the remuneration of the Law Officers on a permanent, sound, and satisfactory basis!
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolutions reported,
    17. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,166, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, including Grants in Aid of the Expenses of the Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland."
    18. "That a sum, not exceeding £180,995, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    19. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,497, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
    20. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."
    21. "That a sum, not exceeding £68,982, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
    22. "That a sum, not exceeding £35,308, be granted to His Majesty, to complete

    1593
    the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1916, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
    23. "That a sum, not exceeding £67,744, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    24. "That a sum, not exceeding £470,320, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
    25. "That a sum, not exceeding £68,685, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
    26. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,914, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
    27. "That a sum, not exceeding £774,267, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    28. "That a sum, not exceeding £68,974, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland and of the Establishments under their control, the Registration of Habitual Criminals, and the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics confined in District Lunatic Asylums."
    29. "That a sum, not exceeding £50,516, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."
    30. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,452, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

    Class IV.
    31. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,906,378, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    32. "That a sum, not exceeding £84,935, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    33. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,670, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Mill-bank."
    34. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,493, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery."
    35. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,462, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March; 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Wallace Collection."
    36. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,965, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses in respect of the London Museum, Lancaster House."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Resolution reported,
    37. "That a sum, not exceeding £48,582, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for sundry Grants-in-Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. WATT: Does this Vote for Scientific Investigations include the £25,000 for pathological laboratories, which the House negatived last week?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No, it does not include that £25,000. The House did not negative that Vote; it was withdrawn, and if it is necessary a supplementary Estimate will be produced at a later stage. This was debated on the Committee stage, and one of the hon. Members for Wiltshire raised the question. It deals with annual Grants made to various scientific institutions.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolutions reported,
    38. "That a sum, not exceeding £211,200, be granted to his Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the Expenses under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
    39. "That a sum, not exceeding £145,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for special Grants in Aid of certain Universities, Colleges, Medical Schools, and Agricultural Institutions, to meet loss of Income arising during the War."
    40. "That a sum, not exceeding £825,919, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
    41. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Grant towards the Salaries of Teachers in Secondary Schools in Ireland."
    42. "That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing certain School Endowments in Ireland."
    43. "That a sum, not exceeding £665, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland."
    44. "That a sum, not exceeding £121,287, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Institutions of Science and Art in Dublin, and of the Geological Survey of Ireland, and Annual Grants to Schools and Classes of Science and Art and Technical Instruction, including sundry Grants in Aid, administered by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."
    45. "That a sum, not exceeding £64,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Grants under The Irish Universities Act, 1908."

    Class V.
    46. "That a sum, not exceeding £289,917, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies,

    1597
    Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote."
    47. "That a sum, not exceeding £516,765, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
    48. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,129, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Subsidies to certain Telegraph Companies and a Grant in Aid of the Annual Expenses of the Pacific Cable."
    49. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus."

    Class II.
    50. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,785, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
    Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY.— [17TH JUNE.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPABTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
  Resolution reported,
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPABTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.

    Class II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £167,169, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
    Resolution agreed to,
    Resolution reported,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £45,603, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge
    1598
    which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. WATT: May I ask how much of this Vote is attributable to the Mental Deficiency Act passed last year, and the proportion of the expense which applies to Scotland as compared with England?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am sorry that without notice I cannot give an answer.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolutions reported,

    Class III.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £58,396, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and Expenses in connection with Special Constables and the Police Reserve."
    4. "That a sums, not exceeding£357,990, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £161,824, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,120, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916,

    1599
    for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Criminal Lunatic Asylums at Broadmoor and Rampton."
    Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY.— [12TH JULY.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–10.
  Resolutions reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–10.

    Class VII.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £568,275, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants-in-Aid)."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,300,356, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (England), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and under the National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding£177,553, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (Wales), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and under the National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Resolution reported,
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £419,027, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (Scotland), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the
    1600
    National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. WATT: Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tell us the position on this Vote with regard to unclaimed insurance cards? There are, I understand, at the head office in Edinburgh, a considerable number of such cards, which it has been impossible to trace. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the number approximately?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am afraid that I cannot give the exact figures, but I can say that the members of the Scottish Commission are grappling with the problem of these unclaimed cards with much success, and I hope that the difficulty is really being got over.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The question of unclaimed cards is one of extreme importance. The Comptroller of the Household has told us that he cannot give us the number.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Not without notice.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I thought the hon. Gentleman had received notice on the occasion of the discussion in Committee of Supply, and that probably he would have an idea of the approximate number of the cards. The assurance he has given the House to-night is not very satisfying. I know several of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, and regard them as probably the ablest officials of any of the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Oh, no!
    Mr. PRINGLE: Everybody knows it is a fact. Even granting that their abilities are all that I claim for them, which the hon. Member doubts, that is not sufficient to satisfy the House. In many cases there is absolutely no possibility whatever of identification, and in these circumstances there must be many thousands of insured persons—this applies not only to Scotland, but also to England, Wales, and Ireland—who, in the course of the current year, will lose benefits for which they have actually paid contributions. As it is absolutely impossible to identify them the Insurance Commissioners should carefully consider some

    1601
    means of preventing this situation continuing and increasing in the future.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not in the least underrate the importance of the point that has been raised. As a matter of fact, attention has already been given to it by a recent change, and an identification mark is allowed, which may not be understood by the public at large, but an identification mark which may be sufficient to identify to what approved society the contribution card belongs. I believe that that change in method will enable us to grapple with what remains of the problem, which is not now so serious as it was at first. I hope the reference to that change of method, with which I do not doubt the hon. Member is very familiar, will show him that the matter is under careful consideration and that steps are being taken to deal with the problem.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions reported,
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £228,090, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (Ireland), and for Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance Act, 1913 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £57,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Audit Staff under the National Insurance Act, 1911."
    Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY.— [20TH JULY.]

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1915–16.
  Resolution reported,
  "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 j for the conduct of
  1602
  Naval and Military Operations; for all 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 resale of food-stuffs 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."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: In the House of Lords to-day a question was answered which Ministers in this House have refused to answer on the ground that it was not in the public interest that they should do so. We have come to a pretty state in this House, for only two or three days ago the Government put forward a Bill which originated in another place, and which could not have originated here, and now the Government actually give information in the other place which they deny to the House of Commons. That is treating the House of Commons with contempt, as His Majesty's Government have treated them right throughout since they formed this Coalition. What did Lord Newton say in the House of Lords to-day? He gave to the House of Lords the actual figures of the proportion of married men in the Army and the Territorial Force; information which was denied on this very ground in this House, and the hon. Member who put the question down was asked to take it off the Notice Paper because it was not in the public interest to answer it.
  I wish to raise another point. Out of this sum we are spending in the current year we have been manufacturing, as the House knows, large quantities of fuses for the use of the Army in the field. These fuses are manufactured by armament firms and other people in this country under a licence from Krupp's, who supply the drawings for the making of these fuses to the armament firms in this country. I have raised this question several times. I raised it only last night, and I raise it again now. When I raised the question originally in the form of a question, the Government said it was true that the cost to the British Government had been increased by reason of the fact that the

  1603
  armament firms had agreed to pay Krupp's for this patent right, although the patents had actually expired in July of last year. I want to point out to the House that these fuses are being manufactured in this country to-day under licence from Krupp's on an unexpired patent, the full detailed drawings being actually supplied by Krupp's. The German fuse is identical with our own. That was recently admitted by the Minister of Munitions. When I put a question on the Question Paper asking if that was the fact, the Minister gets up and says that it is not in the public interest to reply. Where are we? We are treated with contempt with regard to the figures given in the other House, and when a Member raises the question in this House time after time, because it is an awkward question to answer, the Minister gets up and says it is not in the public interest to answer it.
  I wish to ask you, Sir, a question on a point of Order of very great importance respecting the procedure and rights and privileges of Members of this House. The matter is so important that I do not in any way desire you to rule on the question unless you have notice of it. My point is this: A question appeared on the Paper in relation to a fuse, which I have just explained to the House is the fuse we are manufacturing in this country to-day. The Minister got up and said that it was not in the public interest to answer the question, although the facts were perfectly well known to everybody in Germany and everybody in this country. Mr. Speaker then ruled, so far as I understood—I addressed two questions to him; I am not quite clear as to the exact form in which I put the questions to him—I understood Mr. Speaker to say that if a Minister from his place in Parliament said that it was not in the public interest to answer the question, that Debate practically ceased on that question. I was even told that the matter could not be raised to-night. What I desire to know is this. If a Minister says it is not in the public interest to answer a question of this kind because it is giving information to the enemy, are Members of the House precluded thereby from raising the question on the Motion for the Adjournment, or at any other time; and is a Member further prohibited from putting a question down about this matter which a Minister says it is not in the public interest to answer? I have given the case of a Minister refusing in the public interest to answer a question which is answered in
  1604
  another place. I want to have it made clear, because it is a question affecting the rights and privileges of the House of Commons in a very great degree. If a Minister can put off discussion by saying he is unable to give information which is perfectly well known to every single German in this country, and therefore we in the House of Commons are not to mention what every single man in Germany is perfectly well aware of, I should like to have your ruling on that point, and if you rule that I could raise the question on the Adjournment I could then reply to any answer that the right hon. Gentleman may think fit to give. I will perhaps ask your ruling before I finish what observations I have to make.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): There is some difficulty in knowing which is point of Order and which is speech. It is, of course, impossible for me to say anything about the very clear ruling which was given to the hon. Member by Mr. Speaker at Question Time today. The practice of the House on that point is clear enough. A Minister gives an answer on his responsibility, and the hon. Member has to take that answer. There is no matter of debate or further discussion. With regard to the question whether the hon. Baronet will be in order on the Adjournment to-night, that, of course, will be for Mr. Speaker to deal with. It had better be left there.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I gather that your ruling is that it is in order to discuss the merits of this fuse now on this particular Vote, though it may not be on the Adjournment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was not giving any opinion as to whether it was in order on the Adjournment or not. If anything arises in the present Debate, I shall, if necessary, deal with it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Then I wish to ask the Under-Secretary for War—I will ask the question which I wrote out this morning—whether he is aware that the fuse being manufactured in the factories of this country to-day is made to detailed drawings supplied to this country by Messrs. Krupp? I do not suppose he is aware of it. Can he also tell the House whether, during the course of the operations in France, large numbers of fuses have been captured by the Germans? We are told that we are giving information to the enemy. What extraordinary nonsense that we should have an argument of that

  1605
  kind advanced. The whole thing is so monstrous. What I object to is not only the absurdity of being told it is not in the public interest, but that we who raise these questions are to be put off and treated as if we were willing to give information to the enemy, when the last possible desire of any of us is to do anything of the kind. Our interest is the interest of our country just as much as that of right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. When we are told that it is not in the public interest to give information about a fuse which is made from German drawings, and which is identical with the German fuse, it is coming to the limit of criticism in Parliament.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The question which my hon. Friend has put to me at the end of his remarks is a totally different question from that which appeared on the Notice Paper. The one on the Paper is before the House and I need not read it. But I should like the House to realise—I hoped they would do it without my statement—that in my answer given at Question Time, that I was unable to give the information because it was not considered in the public interest to do so, I was actuated by nothing but pure desire to conform to the public interest, and I meant nothing at all disrespectful to my hon. Friend. I hope the House will bear me out that in the multitudinous answers which I have given to questions it has always been my endeavour to give the fullest information, and to deny no Member of the House any information I could obtain which I thought it was not derogatory to the public interest to make public. On this question I had a good deal of conversation with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, and he was very strongly of opinion that it was highly detrimental to the interests of this country that this matter should be discussed at all. In point of fact, if I may express my own opinion, I think the damage is really more done by the question appearing upon the Notice Paper than by any subsequent proceeding which might occur upon it. I very much deprecate giving the enemy such advice as is therein contained. I was not able to see the question in time to prevent that, and there it is. But I wish the House and the country to realise that it is not my own view only that it is not in the public interest to discuss this, but that it is held very strongly by a soldier and a Secretary of State for War. If that be so, are hon.
  1606
  Members who are civilians to put their knowledge of these highly complicated, purely military questions on technical subjects before that of a soldier? I am bound to say I think this is a case where one may quite fairly yield to authority, and the House will be well advised to accept the advice given by a soldier of such great experience as the Secretary of State for War. That is the opinion of so high an authority, and that being so, and we being most anxious to defeat the Germans, surely we are right in maintaining that point of view. I do not state it with dogmatism but with a certain amount of decision, because I have thought it over carefully, and I have come to the conclusion in my own mind that it is the only attitude we could adopt, and I would ask the House to support me in my attitude.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will my hon. Friend answer the question about the House of Lords?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course, I have not been able to ascertain what was stated in the House of Lords, but I understand that the question answered by the Paymaster-General in that House had nothing to do with fuses or ammunition. It may have had to do with certain figures which I think were published in the White Paper on separation allowances. I really ought not to express an opinion, because I do not know. But the information that reached me was that the disclosures, such as they were, were nothing more than what has been placed before the House in the White Paper dealing with separation allowances. It may perhaps have been brought more up to date than the White Paper.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We are asked to submit our judgment to such an authority as the Secretary of State for War, especially on a technical matter such as this relating to fuses. While that is our natural disposition on subjects with which, as laymen, we are unacquainted, if we find an inconsistent policy taken up by the War Office on a question in regard to which, as laymen, we can have an opinion, what faith are we to put upon the judgment of the War Office in regard to these technical questions? That is a matter which the House is bound to consider. We have had from time to time questions put in this House as to the number of married men who have enlisted in the Regular Army and in the Territorial Army. Those questions have not been answered because it

  1607
  was alleged by the War Office that it was not in the public interest to answer them.
  Mr. TENNANT: No, all I have said in answer to the question is that we had not got the material.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am afraid my recollection differs from that of the right hon. Gentleman. The questions may not always have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. I know in one particular instance information was refused to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). I know also that the hon. Member for Northants was asked to withdraw a question from the Paper for this very reason, that it was not in the public interest, and the figures were given to him privately, expressly on the understanding that he should make no public use of them. I walked into the House of Lords casually this afternoon, and I found that the House of Lords is really the place where one can get information. I found that a question was put by Lord Devonport on this particular matter, as to the number of married men who had enlisted, and the amount paid in separation allowances. Lord Newton answered the question, and informed the House of Lords that in the Regular Army there were 606,000 married men, and that in the Territorial Army there were 237,000, making a total of 843,000 married men who have enlisted in these two branches of the Service. When we find this information given in the House of Lords, and denied to Members of the House of Commons, what faith have we in the statement made on behalf of the War Office that such and such a question cannot be answered because it is not in the public interest to answer it? The House of Commons is entitled to some definite statement of principle from Ministers as to the considerations which decide them in coming to a conclusion that any particular question cannot be answered on account of the public interest. Unless we get such a statement the Government will be faced time after time with questions put to them, and which will be persisted in, in spite of their profession that it is not in the public interest to answer them. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) has some acquaintance with this matter. He has taken the trouble to find out from armament makers in this country what is the history of this particular fuse. He knows exactly what that history is. It
  1608
  was he who exposed in this House the fact that Krupp's were entitled to royalty on these fuses. After a great many evasions he exposed in this House the fact that Krupp's were entitled to this royalty. Moreover, anyone can know for himself that the Germans can pick up the shells in their lines that we are firing, and find out exactly the nature of the fuse. Therefore, to suggest for one moment that the slightest particle of information could be communicated to the enemy by a frank and candid answer to that question, is really to make a suggestion which is hardly creditable to the intelligence of the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.— [20TH JULY.]
Resolution reported,
"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."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Montagu.

WAYS AND MEANS.— [20TH JULY.]
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION-ALLOWANCES).
Resolution reported,
"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 Magistrates for Chatham and Sheerness, and to amend the Law in respect thereof."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: I asked for some explanation yesterday on the Committee stage in regard to this matter, but I did not get a very satisfactory answer. I want to ask again whether this is an emergency matter, or is it a matter which has nothing whatever to do with the War or with affairs arising out of the War? I wish to know, further, whether, under the Bill to which this Resolution refers, these stipendiary magistrates will receive pensions which they were not expecting when they took office, and whether in fact it is not adding to the expenses of the country in an unexpected way? If that is so, I believe it would not be approved by the House.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Brace): My hon. Friend will have a full opportunity on the Second Reading of the Bill to raise any of these matters. All that this Bill proposes to do is to continue what has been the practice relative to the Metropolitan police magistrates. I hope that after that explanation the hon. Member will be satisfied.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir John Simon, Mr. Montagu, and Mr. Brace.

POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION-ALLOWANCES).
  POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to the Superannuation Allowances payable to the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Dublin Divisional Justices, and the Stipendiary Magistrates for Chatham and Sheer-ness." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PARUAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I should be very glad if we can get this Bill before the House rises for the Adjournment As to three of its Clauses, namely, Clauses 1, 2, and 3, they are necessary as the result of war experience. As to the fourth Clause, we take occasion to introduce a change that might probably
1610
have been introduced before with advantage to the extremely few cases which the Clause will affect. As to Clauses 5 and 6, they are formal. Clause 1 proposes to amend Section 56, Sub-section (3), paragraph (a) of the Naval Discipline Act. That Section sets forth the authorities having power to try offenders summarily, with a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment. I may here intervene the remark that a court-martial can only be ordered by the officer specially authorised for the purpose by the Board of Admiralty. Section 56, Sub-section (3), paragraph (a) of the Naval Discipline Act provides that the power conferred by the Section on the officer commanding a ship may, as respects persons on board a tender to the ship, be exercised, when the tender is absent from the ship, by the officer in command of the tender.
The employment under existing conditions of a large number of small vessels under the command of warrant officers of the Royal Naval Reserve has made the working of this particular Sub-section difficult. Though these smaller vessels are usually acting in company under the orders of a commissioned officer of the Royal Navy or of the Royal Naval Reserve, that officer cannot be empowered to administer punishment on the vessels under his orders. He can only administer punishment on the vessel actually in his command. That is true of each of them. Each boat's officer in command is invested with the authority. Warrant officers of the Royal Naval Reserve who, in these cases, are the officers in command, are men who have not been brought up in the Navy, and they themselves are unaccustomed to discipline, and they have naturally as a rule no trained and experienced knowledge as to the way in which the power that is conferred on them may be exercised. Therefore it is considered necessary that in cases of this sort the punishments on board these boats should be imposed by the commissioned officer in charge of the various groups of boats, and it is considered that this course would be better in the interests of the Service generally, as well as of the men serving on board the vessels.
Sub-clause 2 of Clause 1 is merely drafting. Clause 2 proposes a useful alteration in the original scheme of trial and punishment for offences committed by officers. It is only applicable in time of war. Under the Naval Discipline Act an officer can only be tried and punished by

1611
court-martial, except in the case of subordinate officers, upon whom certain punishments may be imposed under Section 57. In time of war it is always inconvenient and often very difficult to assemble courts-martial, and therefore it is proposed that in time of war officers alleged to have committed minor disciplinary offences under the Naval Discipline Act, shall be triable by a Court consisting of not less than three and not more than five officers, of whom one must not be below the rank of commander. I should say that the most severe punishment which it is proposed that such a Court should award is dismissal from His Majesty's Service, and the main necessity of the disciplinary provision arises in connection with the trawlers and drifters whose skippers are warrant officers of the Royal Navy Reserve. The skippers of these boats have done very fine and brave service, but among the very large number of men employed there are some whose behaviour and conduct are not always satisfactory. Now merely to dismiss them from their employment is not sufficient. The Admiralty of course have full power to discharge from the Naval Service any of the skippers for drunkenness or other misconduct, but that does not enable the Board of Trade to take any action in regard to the man's certificate, as it is contended that the conviction must be before a Statutory tribunal. The setting up of this tribunal will remedy that. Then the power conferred by this Amendment may be useful also in the case of others than warrant officers. That is to say, subordinate officers, junior commissioned officers, and officers temporarily employed. The punishments which may be inflicted under it will be quite severe enough for the class of offence to be dealt with, and the establishment of the Court will secure in all these cases that the offender shall have a fair opportunity of defending himself against any charge which may be brought against him. So much for Clause 2.
Clause 3 is again necessary as a result of war experience. Section 90 of the original Act makes provision respecting discipline on hired ships not manned entirely by naval ratings, such as auxiliary armed cruisers. It has been found expedient to purchase some of these vessels. Therefore they are no longer hired vessels, and thus there may be some question of the applicability of Section 90 of the original Act to these cases. Clause 3 makes
1612
Section 90 applicable beyond all doubt. Apart from that, there is no change in the original Act. Clause 4, which is the last Clause with which I need detain the House, as Clauses 5 and 6 are quite formal, is not a war Clause. It proposes generally to take the powers already taken by the Army Council. It has reference to the enforcement of magistrates' orders against seamen, for payments under maintenance and affiliation orders. A few cases have come under our notice where, these orders having been made, the man has refused to meet them. We have no power at present to make compulsory deduction from pay to satisfy these orders. What we do is to call the man's commanding officer's attention to the matter and ask him to use moral persuasion. As a rule this is efficacious in bringing about the desired result, but not always, and for the rest the civil authority has had to get hold of the man and either make him pay or send him to prison. Representations have been made to us from one or two quarters to ask for the same powers in this respect as are already in the hands of the Army Council.
We have so far hesitated, because it seemed very invidious to the whole body of most self-respecting men to come to Parliament and ask for these new powers. It seemed liable to misunderstanding of a peculiarly unjust character in this case, and in order that such misunderstanding may not arise I may be allowed to preface this matter with this statement. The vast majority of our bluejackets and marines do most faithfully remember and support those who are dependent upon them. Let me make that most clear. During the month of June no smaller a sum than £532,000 was sent home by the bluejackets and marines by way of allotment from pay to wives and dependants, and to naval savings banks. That is a splendid record of thrift, remembrance and recognition of social obligations and duties on the part of the vast body of these men. But there are one or two others. During the six months ended 30th June our attention was called to fifteen separation orders and fifty-one affiliation orders which had not been met. Using the usual methods of persuasion, we secured compliance in thirty-seven of those cases, but twenty-nine refused to comply, and in some cases the men gave reasons which cannot lightly be set aside. Nevertheless we think, on the whole, that we should take powers conferred on the Army Council by Section

1613
145 of the Army Act with an important difference. Owing to the sailor's absence at sea it may be absolutely impossible for him to attend to answer a summons, and it is therefore proposed that the power of compulsory deduction from pay shall only be made use of when the authority ordering that deduction is satisfied that the individual had a reasonable opportunity of defending his case before the magistrates.
There is one other difference from the Army Act, namely, that we do not propose that the power should be extended above the rank of chief petty officer. As regards the new power now proposed to be taken, I will endeavour to put it popularly, if my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me. This is shortly what would happen. In the first place, if the order is made by the civil authority, it would be sent to the Admiralty, and then transmitted to the officer commanding the ship in which the man is serving. That officer would then proceed, under regulations to be framed, to investigate the case, and if he thinks the man has had an opportunity of defending his case, he will make an order for payment by way of deduction from pay. We also adopt from the Army scheme other features. My hon. Friend must not suppose that the necessity to apply the same will arise, except rarely. Clause 4, Subsection (2) (b) of this Bill provides that,
"if it appears to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, or any officer deputed by them for the purpose, that a person subject to this Act has deserted or left in destitute circumstances without reasonable cause, his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age,"
then the Admiralty takes power to make deductions from pay as provided in this Bill. I must apologise for having detained the House, but I thought it well to give an explanation of the Bill, to which I ask the House to give a second reading.
Mr. WING: Will Clause 2 create any new offences in regard to the skippers and crews of trawlers, or does it merely create a new Court before which they are to appear.
Dr. MACNAMARA: The maximum penalty is dismissal from the Service. Number 11 is the lightest penalty, and going from ten to nine, eight, seven, six, and five in each case the penalty increases in severity. The most that can be suffered is dismissal from the Service.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which on the whole is very clear. Unfortunately there is no naval representative here to-night, and so far as I can gather a portion of the Bill is not in any way emergency legislation. It is true that Clause 4 covers the object of the Bill as to the maintenance of wives and children, and other things which no doubt are all right. Of course it is impossible for the layman to understand what the real result of the Bill will be, but I do not propose to offer any opposition, and I only intervene by way of caution, because sometimes the Government expect to get every stage of every Bill within about three minutes. It is not proposed to go further, I think.
Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
Mr. RAWLINSON: It is certainly desirable that somebody who knows something about naval matters should look into the Bill before the Committee stage. Clause 2 undoubtedly introduces a constitutional change of importance in depriving certain officers of trial by court martial in certain circumstances. That, I imagine, is a matter which may be of considerable importance to the Navy. As regards Clause 4, I must say I think it is a strong one to bring in at this particular time. It is very strongly directed against those who are serving in the Navy, and it inflicts a position upon them which does not exist in any other branch of Services—
Dr. MACNAMARA: In the Army.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Power has been given quite recently in the Army. It is a somewhat invidious position in which to put those serving in the Navy to give powers against them which are given against no other citizen in the State. The Clause is certainly very wide indeed, extending not only to orders for maintenance but also to desertion orders.
Dr. MACNAMARA: That is in the Army Act.
Mr. RAWLINSON: To my mind it is no better for that reason. A sailor may be away, and an order may be made against him without his having any chance of offering a defence. It is a somewhat extraordinary power to be used against a seaman at the other end of the world, with no opportunity of knowing what his wife is doing. It also gives power for deducting Is. for the wife and 1s. a day for the

1615
child, so that, suppose a man has a wife and six children, he would be subject to a deduction of 7s.
Sir F. E. SMITH: No, no. The words are "wife or children."
Mr. RAWLINSON: What does it mean? A man leaves his wife, and there is deducted 1s. in respect of her; and, suppose he has three children, there will be 1s. for each child.
Sir F. E. SMITH: It is 1s. for wife or children.
Mr. R AWLINSON: I accept that, though it does not seem to be clearly expressed.
Sir F. E. SMITH: It cannot be other. However, we can discuss it in Committee.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I should have thought it was very doubtful and not very well expressed. As regards Clause 4, it is not a matter of urgency, and I cannot see why this great change should be necessary to introduce at all.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

EXECUTION OF TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

EXECUTION OF TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Revocation of Towers of Attorney.)
  (1) When a power of attorney is deposited pursuant to Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act at the central office of the Supreme Court or the proper office of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, it shall be lawful for the donor to cause any instrument of revocation to be deposited in like manner.
  (2) In the event of the death of the donor of any power of attorney so deposited, or of his becoming of unsound mind, it shall be lawful for any person interested either beneficially or as trustee in the property which is the subject of the trust to deposit at the office where such power of attorney has been deposited a statutory declaration to that effect.
  (3) It shall be the duty of the proper officer in charge of the powers of attorney
  1616
  so deposited on payment of a fee of two shillings and sixpence to give an official certificate to any person applying in that behalf, stating whether or not any instrument of revocation under Sub-section (1) of this Section or any statutory declaration under Sub-section (2) of this Section has been deposited, and such certificate shall bear the date of its issue.
  (4) In favour of any person dealing with an attorney appointed by any such deposited power of attorney on the faith of a certificate issued under Sub-section (3) of this Section, any act done or instrument executed by the attorney before midnight of the third day next after the date of such certificate shall be as valid and effectual as if the donor of the power of attorney were alive and of sound mind and had himself done such act or executed such instrument, unless such person had actual notice of the revocation of the power, or of the death or unsoundness of mind of the donor of the power before such act was done or deed executed.
  (5) In favour of a person dealing with the attorney any such statutory declaration made by the attorney as is mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section one of the principal Act shall be conclusive evidence of the facts therein declared.
  Sir F. E. SMITH: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (1) to (4) inclusive, and to insert instead therof,
  (1) In favour of any person dealing with the donee of a power of attorney made under the principal Act or this Act, any act done or instrument executed by the attorney shall, notwithstanding that the power has become revoked by the act of the donor of the power or by his death or otherwise, be as valid and effectual as if the donor of the power were alive and of sound mind and had himself done such act or executed such instrument, unless such person had actual notice of the revocation of the power or of the death or unsoundness of mind of the donor of the power before such act was done or deed executed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have no doubt that this is all right, but I do not understand it. Who is the donor?
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir F. E. SMITH: If the hon. Baronet will turn to Clause 3 he will see the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) with regard to the power of the donor to cause any instrument of revocation to be deposited pursuant to the provisions of the

  1617
  principal Act, and also provisions as to what is to take place in the ease of the death of the donor, and as to the issue of an official certificate. The point is this, as contemplated when this Bill was drafted, that if the donor died or became of unsound mind it was necessary that the person interested either beneficially or as a trustee should deposit a statutory declaration.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What is a donee and what is the difference between a donor and a donee?
  Sir F. E. SMITH: The donor is the person who gives and the donee is the person who receives. Does that completely satisfy the hon. Baronet?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
  Mr. CAVE: Is it proposed to leave out all the lines mentioned?
  Sir F. E. SMITH: It was pointed out by those who have practical experience of these matters that intolerable complications would follow if the stipulation that the certificate must be produced was persisted in. We had a communication from the Incorporated Law Society pointing out the inconveniences and suggesting an Amendment. That was not accepted exactly but the substance of it was.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Powers of Trustees in Case of Death of Infant Engaged on War Service.)
  Where an infant who has been engaged on war service within the meaning of Subsection (2) of Section one of the principal Act, or who, having been abroad but not actually engaged on war service, has been for any reason connected with the present War unable to return from abroad to the United Kingdom, is dead, all acts and instruments purporting to be done or executed on his behalf under the provisions of Section sixty of the Settled Land Act, 1882, after the date of his death shall, in favour of any person who had not at the time the act was done or the instrument executed actual notice of the death, be as valid and effectual as if such infant were still living.
  Sir F. E. SMITH: I beg to move to leave out the words "is dead," and to insert instead thereof the words "has died."
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the legal difference between "is dead" and "has died? "
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Short Title and Construction.)
  This Act may be cited as the Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Amendment Act, 1915, and shall be construed as one with the principal Act; and this Act and the principal Act may be cited together as the Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Acts, 1914 and 1915.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WATT: May I ask what provision has been made for Scotland under this Act? The original Act applied to Scotland, and this Bill proposes to amend that Act.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I may say that I very carefully considered whether the Act which it is proposed to amend by this Bill should apply to Scotland. I came to the conclusion that that Act was neither required nor desired in Scotland. I have gone into the matter again since this Bill came before the House, and I came to the same conclusion, namely, that it is neither required nor desired in Scotland. We have in Scotland very much larger powers with regard to the assumption of trustees that are possessed in England. The Court further has power to appoint a judicial factor in the event of trustees not being available to administer a trust. Having regard to the distinction in law between the two countries, I have, without any hesitation at all, come to the conclusion that there is no necessity to apply either the original Act or this Bill to Scotland. With regard to the question whether it is desired, I made the fullest possible inquiry, and I am informed by those who are accustomed to administer trusts, and who know much more about the matter than I can profess to do, that the Bill is not desired in Scotland. These are the reasons why neither the original Act nor this Bill should apply to Scotland.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: Is it not the case that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire drafted a Bill on the lines of the English Trustees Bill? That being so, one can hardly allow it to pass that there has been no desire for such a measure.
  Mr. MUNRO: I was not aware that a Bill had been drafted as suggested. What

  1619
  I do know is, that a question was put in this House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. Dewar) as to why the original Act did not apply to Scotland. I gave him an answer in the sense I have indicated to-night, and I understood that he was satisfied. I have not had any communication from the hon. Baronet on the subject nor any complaint from any part of Scotland, which is fully apprised of the existence of the original Act. I have inquired from those associated with the solicitors' branch of the profession, who know more about the matter than I can profess to do, and I am told that the Bill is neither required nor desired.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended considered; read the third time, and passed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to Mortgagees in Possession.)
  It is hereby declared that the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, preserving to mortgagees in possession their powers of realising their security by way of sale without the leave of the Court, shall not extend to and shall be deemed never to have extended to mortgagees other than mortgagees of land or some interest in land:
  Provided that nothing in this provision shall affect a sale of any security completed before the nineteenth day of July nineteen hundred and fifteen.
  Mr. WATT: I understand that the original Act applies to Scotland. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will explain why the amending Act should not also apply.
  Mr. MUNRO: As I understand, the purpose of this Bill is to limit the operation of the original Act to persons who have mortgages over heritable property, as it is termed in Scotland—that is to say, landed property. In the original Act the word "mortgagee in possession" was defined as "heritable creditor in possession," and as heritable creditor only applies to a creditor of land, the purpose of this amending Bill has already been achieved in Scotland.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What is the actual effect of this Clause? When the original Act was passed the idea was that a person owning a house should not be turned out because he had mortgaged it and the mortgagee desired to foreclose. This has been held to extend to people who lent money on negotiable securities. For instance, if a banker had lent money on bearer securities, some people claimed that he could not realise his securities if the person to whom he lent the money was unable to pay, notwithstanding the fact that an agreement had been entered into between them that in such an event the securities could be realised by the banker. What does this Clause do? Does it release the banker from any doubt as to his being able to realise the securities, or does it enact that he is to be in the same position as a person who has advanced money on real property?
  Sir F. E. SMITH: I think the matter is quite simple. The original Act preserves the power of a mortgagee in possession to realise his security by sale without applying to the Court. That was one of the principal provisions of the original Act. We need not go into the policy of it now, but it was considered at the time that, in spite of the special powers which, having regard to the War, were conferred by the Act, a mortgagee in possession should nevertheless be able to realise his security by sale without applying to the Court. It was undoubtedly the intention of the legislature, or at any rate of the Government, that the expression "mortgagee in possession" should apply only to real property. There are obvious reasons why the exemption should apply to the one case and not to the other. But in the case of Ziman v. Komata Reefs Gold Mining Company, the Court of Appeal held that the provision in the original Act preserving the powers of a mortgagee in possession extended to banks and others with whom securities had been deposited to cover loans. That was not the policy of the Act at all, and the object of this Clause is to make it quite clear that the preservation of the rights of mortgagees in possession is limited to real property.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What is the effect of that? Let me take an illustration. Suppose I am a banker and I lend the right hon. Gentleman £1,000 on the security of £15,000 of Consols, and the right hon. Gentleman agrees that if he cannot pay I shall be able to realise Does this Bill prevent me from realising?
  Sir F. E. SMITH: Without applying to the Court.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is so?
  Sir F. E. SMITH: Yes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I object to that. I can see no reason why it should have that effect, or why this Bill should be brought in. I can quite conceive that there was some reason why the owner of a house should not be turned out capriciously when perhaps the market for the sale of houses or land was not very active. I really cannot see why a person who has lent money on ordinary Stock Exchange securities should not be able to realise those securities without the consent of the Court. I really do not see what the Court has to do with it. It is going to strike a very serious blow at the bankers. A great deal of the business in the City is done in this way. It has always been understood that if you entered into an agreement with a person to whom you lent money, that in the event of his not being able to repay the loan at the expiration of a certain date, you should have the power of realising the securities. It is quite true that since the War the bankers in London have entered into an agreement with most of the people to whom they have lent money, that they will not realise the securities until after two years, or one year after the War, whichever is the sooner, but that is a voluntary arrangement. I had no idea that the proposal put forward was of the nature that it is. I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill until I have had some opportunity of consulting people in the City about it. It is news altogether to me I really do not think that such far-reaching legislation as this should be brought in as this was quite late last night; and I again ask the right hon. Gentleman kindly to postpone this until to-morrow, and I will see what is the opinion of the City upon the matter—which is really most important. In order to put myself in order, I beg formally to move, Mr. Maclean, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether the permission here refers to loans made since the beginning of the War or to those made before the War, because it appears to me that if it refers to loans made since the beginning of the War the inevitable result of this Clause will be to put an end to all
  1622
  banking business? Obviously, while mortgagees ought to be protected against realising securities in a depressed market, it is obvious that that course cannot be allowed in regard to securities on money advanced for short periods of time, as is the case with bankers. I take it if bankers are now to be prevented from realising their securities, the obvious result would be to put an end to all loan transactions.
  Mr. CAVE: The answer to that query is to be found in the original Act, which does not apply to any sum of money due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the War has begun.
  Sir F. E. SMITH: In regard to the point raised by the hon. Baronet opposite, I confess I think he has not shown his usual quickness in grasping the purport of this Bill. I took the opportunity of asking him yesterday afternoon his opinion on it; and he said in the House itself that he thought it was a very good Bill, and he thoroughly approved of it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I explain? I asked for this Bill when I came down to the House about 3.30 yesterday afternoon. It was not printed. I told the hon. Gentleman who is Chief Whip that the Bill was not printed, and that I knew nothing whatever about it, and I understood that it would not be taken. About six o'clock I went into the Vote Office, and found that the Bill had been printed. I immediately acquainted the Chief Whip with the fact that my objection, so far as taking the Second Reading of the Bill was concerned, was removed, because the Bill had been printed. My right hon. Friend afterwards spoke to me, and I told him that my objection to the Bill had been removed now that it was printed, and that I had no further objection to it. But I looked at the Bill after that, and I at once admit quite freely that I did not really understand it. I thought it exempted persons from the provisions of the original Act. I know there was a great deal of discussion about that.
  Sir F. E. SMITH(indistinctly heard): It is really not worth pursuing, but the hon. Baronet did state in the course of debate last night that he thought it was a very good Bill. If I do not persuade the hon. Baronet that this Clause is one in respect of which he might withdraw his objection, I tell him frankly I shall agree to postpone it. It is perfectly true that in respect of the securities held on the outbreak of

  1623
  the War it was contemplated at the time of the original Bill that the mortgagee in possession of personal estate should not enjoy the benefit of this, and I anticipate that this provision is one which to some extent may be injurious. But there is not a single Clause in the Bill that is not injurious to somebody. What the legislator had to do was to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of giving relief to certain sections of the community at the expense of other sections of the community. I can assure the hon. Baronet it is within my knowledge that there are creditors in every conceivable quarter of the commercial world to-day who are unable to get their debts paid. The only case here is whether a banker who, on the outbreak of war, had securities deposited with him with the power of realising those, should go to the Court and get them. Having regard to the fact we are living in a time of war, bankers are not placed even in as bad a position as many other classes of the community.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I would like to point out that the bankers entered into an arrangement with the Clearing House of London and with people on the Stock Exchange, and they said to them, "We will not call in your loans, and they can go on for a year after the War or a certain period." But they said that under certain circumstances, supposing the securities touched a certain price, they should be allowed to realise. As I understand this Bill, supposing I, as a banker, lent money on certain securities before the War, I could not call upon the people to realise their securities under a voluntary agreement unless I went to the Court. The Court, I am sure, would be perfectly just and wise, and no doubt, under the circumstances, they would give the power. But is it not a little hard that people should be put to the expense of employing lawyers? It seems a little hard that we should, after having entered voluntarily into a very advantageous agreement, be put to the trouble and expense of going to the Court. It may be that my ideas are not quite right, and there may be cases of hardships, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to go into this matter to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. C. E. PRICE: I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question about the formation of the Committee which was named by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for England and Wales. It refers to the creation of a Committee, over which the late President of the Board of Agriculture presided, to take into consideration what is to be done for the disabled sailors and soldiers in regard to employing them on the land. I raised this question on the Bill dealing with disabled soldiers and sailors, and I pointed out that in the Bill only three lines were devoted to the whole of the suggestions made by the Committee appointed by this House. On that Report the one subject which the Committee did not feel at liberty to go into fully was the question of the placing of sailors and soldiers on the land, and the Report says—
"Various schemes have been placed before us aiming at the settlement of disabled sailors and soldiers on the land. We think the matter is of great importance, but we are unable to express any opinion on the merits of this scheme because these proposals are of a tentative character, and would require more elaboration before we could give attention to them."
The Committee thought that this was a question too wide for them to deal with. I should like to say that one recommendation in the Report was that Scotland and Ireland should have separate Committees to deal with these disabled soldiers, and that was rejected by the framers of the Bill. Now we have this Committee set up not to deal with the placing of soldiers and sailors upon the land so far

1625
as the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland are concerned, but simply to report what should be done with regard to England and Wales. If you appoint a Committee to consider one aspect of the subject which was not dealt with exhaustively by the Committee which was appointed to inquire into it, why should you appoint a Committee to deal with a question which really affects the whole of the country? It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. I want to know what is to be the position of Scotland in this matter. If you are going to have an inquiry to see what you can do to put soldiers and sailors on the land, Scotland should certainly come into consideration as well. I discussed this matter on the Bill when it was considered on Report and pointed out that you had not taken a single suggestion contained in the Report of the Committee. The one thing they did suggest was that you should refer it to a Committee. Now you have referred it to a Committee you are only going to consider it in relation to England and Wales. I should be glad to know why Scotland is left out.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it at all follows because you have a Committee for a certain purpose for England and Wales that it is necessarily advisable to have a similar Committee for Scotland. The procedure in dealing with the land question in England and Wales is entirely different from that which obtains in Scot-
1626
land. I saw the notice of the appointment of this Committee and considered whether it was desirable at the present time to set up a Committee for Scotland, and I came to the conclusion that it was not necessarily desirable because there was one for England that there should be one for Scotland. Of course, in the case of England, the question of small holdings is a matter primarily left to the county councils, whereas in Scotland we have a special Act of Parliament dealing with small holdings, and I cannot help thinking, as at present advised, though I am quite open to conviction, that the Board of Agriculture is the proper authority to consider this matter, and that they can consider it with an amount of acquired knowledge and experience after some three years' working which no Committee could possess. My present view is that the matter is better left to the Board of Agriculture than to adopt the procedure of setting up a Special Committee for Scotland.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY I to the TREASURY (Mr. Gulland): Perhaps I may be allowed to say that to-morrow we intend to take, in the first place, the Committee stage of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill, and then the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill,
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes before Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  MUNITIONS (STANDARDISATION).
  MUNITIONS (STANDARDISATION).
  PRISONERS OF WAR IN GREAT BRITAIN (COST).
  PRISONERS OF WAR IN GREAT BRITAIN (COST).
  PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS.
  PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS.
  COAL MINERS (ENLISTMENT).
  COAL MINERS (ENLISTMENT).
  MILITARY HUTS (INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS).
  MILITARY HUTS (INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS).
  SOLDIER'S WILL.
  SOLDIER'S WILL.
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES.
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES.
  CIVILIAN CLERKS, WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
  CIVILIAN CLERKS, WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (OVERTIME PAY).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (OVERTIME PAY).
  TRADERS' RAILWAY TICKETS.
  TRADERS' RAILWAY TICKETS.
  Development Fund Grant.
  Development Fund Grant.
  Civil Service Examinations.
  Civil Service Examinations.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Scotland).
  Old Age Pensions (Scotland).
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(Southampton (Extension) Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with an Amendment.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(Unopposed Orders.)
Reported, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
DEWSBURY CORPORATION BILL.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): Your Lordships will no doubt like to hear the following telegram which has just been received from South Africa—
"The Governor-General of the Union of South Africa to the Secretary of State.—Your telegram of the 17th July. Ministers have received the Motion with deep gratification, and ask that the high appreciation felt by General Botha, General Smuts, and officers and forces of the Union at its terms may be expressed to the House of Lords."

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 140.)
NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c. BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No. 141.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 142.)
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 143.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
  MASSY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
  WEARDALE AND CONSETT WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
Ordered, That the Standing Orders respecting Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills be reprinted. (No. 144.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Births, Deaths and Marriages (England and Wales)—Supplement to the Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales. Part III. Registration Summary Tables. (1901–1910):
Consular Reports—Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives Abroad on Trade and Subjects of General Interest (with Appendix), 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation—Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1915–1916: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the adjournment for the Recess.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before this Motion is agreed to I should like to suggest to the noble Marquess that we ought to have some undertaking of what use may be made of it. A very important Bill has just been brought up from the other House and read a first time dealing with naval and military war pensions. That Bill has been discussed in another place, and very important Amendments made. As to their merits, this is not the time to sax anything; but as far as I am concerned I think the Amendments have made the Bill a great deal worse than before. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. But I hope we may have an undertaking from the noble Marquess, on behalf of the Government, that not more than one stage of that very important Bill will be taken on any one day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think I can sufficiently reassure my noble friend by saying that the particular Bill to which he has alluded will not be forced or hurried through the House in any way. The various stages of it will be taken in a manner which will enable complete discussion of any disputed point to take place.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Marquess did not say on what day he proposed to take the Second Reading. I am afraid that this Bill will cause a great deal of discussion, and so far as information which reaches me is concerned I think it is impossible that it should be concluded during the present sittings. Therefore I would ask that we might be allowed at least until Monday next before the Second Reading is taken. A number of associations are dissenting from various portions of the Bill, and the
548
fact that the Bill itself challenges the Resolution which your Lordships passed on July 6 and proposes to set up new Government Departments with all the objections to which your Lordships called attention will make it absolutely necessary that there should be a full and thorough discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: my impression is that the points in dispute, although no doubt important and to some extent, as the noble Viscount has indicated, going to the root of the Bill itself, are not very numerous, and although some considerable time might be occupied in their discussion—unless, as I hope may not be impossible, some agreement is reached in regard to them—I cannot think that a very long postponement is required for the purpose of considering them. So far as I am aware it is desired that the Bill, if possible, should become law before the adjournment for the Recess. That adjournment is likely to take place in the middle of next week, and therefore I think it would be unfortunate if the Second Reading of this Bill were postponed until next week. What I would suggest is, if the House agrees, that we should sit on Friday next in order to take the Second Reading, and that the next stage should be taken, if possible, on Monday. The points in dispute are points which can be discussed quite fully in the Committee stage, and I hope that that course may commend itself to the noble Viscount and to other members of the House who are specially interested in this important measure.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope the noble Marquess will understand that my suggestion that the Bill should be put down for Second Reading on Monday was solely in order that he might not feel that there was any obstructive desire with regard to it. But I have been astonished at the amount of public feeling which exists, and at the number of communications that have reached us, in regard to the Bill.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTH: My Lords, may I say that if the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill were delayed it would cause great inconvenience to the various boroughs and corporations in Lancashire, where there are a great number of these cases to be dealt with. The corporations of the great towns are waiting for the

549
passing of the Bill before they can set up the local committees under it, and any delay in setting up those local committees must prejudice the interests of the soldiers. I fully realise that it is necessary that the Bill should be discussed in Committee, but I think it would be a great pity if it did not pass before the adjournment of Parliament for the Recess.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly until the adjournment for the Recess.

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.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

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.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE ENLISTMENT OF MARRIED MEN.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will grant a Return stating the number of married men enrolled in His Majesty's Army since the outbreak of war in August last, and the amount of the separation allowances paid to wives and other dependants of these men. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when the National Registration Bill was before the House on Second Reading reference was made by the noble Marquess who was in charge of that Bill to the large number of married men enlisted, and I took the opportunity during the debate of saying a few words in relation to the costliness of this system, or lack of system, and I suggested that it would be of value if the noble Marquess could see his way to grant a Return such as I now ask for so that we might have the figures in front of us. The noble Marquess was unable to give any definite pledge, but he was sympathetic and promised that he would inquire as to whether such a Return could be granted; and I gleaned from his observations that anything that he could possibly do would be done to ensure such a Return being presented.
I have taken this opportunity of calling attention to the urgency of facing this matter in view of the enormous cost to the country of the haphazard system under which men have hitherto been enlisted. There are two facts that stand out clearly in connection with the enlistment of the Army. One is that the number of married men enrolled is altogether out of proportion to the total numbers. That is not to be wondered at, because the inducements—I think I might say the enticements—are such that one would think the scheme has been specially devised to induce married men to join the Colours. At all events, the numbers are altogether out of proportion to what should be a fair percentage of married men in an Army of 3,000,000. The other point—and I do not wish to disparage in any way the spirit that has prevailed in the country towards recruiting—is this, that there is a considerable number of single men who are shirking their duty and not responding to their country's call. Many of them are in the habit of using the expression that they are "waiting to be fetched." I am not going to dilate on that to-day; that is not my purpose.

551
I am going to deal entirely, or as nearly so as I can, with the question of the cost of the particular system which we have in vogue.
We have already called up 3,000,000 men, and of this number as many as 1,000,000 are married; and if we consider for a moment what this large percentage of married men costs we shall realise its seriousness upon our financial resources. It is estimated—I cannot vouch for the figure; I am using it speculatively, but I feel safe in doing so as the noble Marquess himself mentioned the same figure—that there are 1,000,000 women in receipt of separation allowances, and I compute that the average per woman is £1 a week. If that figure is correct it means that we are paying out week by week £1,000,000 for separation allowances alone. Now, these separation allowances are conceived on a generous scale, but I should be the last to attack the scale or to suggest that it is too generous; but it is well to remember what the scale is. A woman receives 12 s. 6d. a week; the first child receives an allowance of 5s. a week, the second child 3s. 6d. a week, and any further children there may be 2s. a week. I ought to say this, that upon any system known or practised on the Continent, 400,000 married men would be about the number in an Army of 3,000,000; whereas 33 per cent. of our Army of 3,000,000 consists of married men. It will be easily seen that if my figures are right, and if we are in excess in married men to the extent of 600,000, the result is that we are paying out in separation allowances £600,000 a week that ought not to be going out in this direction. That works out at something over £30,000,000 a year in this one particular.
I used the word "enticement" just now. I said that the conditions were such that there was an absolute enticement for married men to join the Colours, and I repeat what I said the other day that if anybody were to disinterestedly examine the principles upon which our Army has been enlisted since the war and were invited to give his opinion as to what was the ultimate object of the system he would undoubtedly say that it was conceived to attract married men to the Colours. The wives in the majority of cases are very much better off with the
552
husband serving than they were when he was following his civilian pursuits. I will trespass upon the indulgence of the House for a minute or two while I give one or two illustrations in support of what I have said. I know that practically every one of your Lordships must have within your knowledge cases of men who have gone to the Front, married men with large families, whose wives have since been in receipt of very much larger financial resources than before. I know one or two cases in my own employment in Buckinghamshire. There is one man who had been a soldier and had been through the South African War and was now called up as a Reservist. He is close upon 17 years of age, and has seven children. He was working as a gardeners' labourer at the wages current in our neighbourhood—namely, 18 s. a week, with cottage and garden ground. But his wife, by reason of the fact that she has seven children, receives about 31 s. a week from the State and still has the benefit of the cottage. I am not complaining of that. I am only pointing out the fearful cost it is to the country to enlist married men beyond the proper proportion when there are plenty of single men who could have been enlisted.
There is a letter in The Times this morning which I would commend to the attention of those who have not already read it. It is a very striking letter headed "Waste," and is signed "A Liverpool Clergyman." He says this—
"From all quarters come statements of gross waste in war expenditure. Lord St. Aldwyn was right when he said on Friday last, 'We want a Committee with motive power behind it.' But the wickedest waste of all at this solemn crisis in our national life is our waste of married men under the present—
He puts in some very strong adjectives which I leave out—
"system of obtaining men for our Armies. I do not know how many maintenance papers I have filled up and signed for widows with children during the past few months. Take one or two examples from last week. A young woman of twenty-five with three children; husband killed somewhere in France. Another of thirty with five children. Another of twenty-seven with three children. The father of a lad in my Bible class is lying dangerously ill (four wounds) with hardly a hope of recovery. This man, thirty-eight years old, will leave a widow and six children—only this lad working. Multiply this in one small corner throughout Britain, and see what it means."

553
This is merely a typical expression of what is going on throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Beyond that I am sorry to have to suggest that married men are not merely being taken but are being taken medically unfit, and their age as well as their fitness is being disregarded. We had the limitation up to forty years of age, about which I will say a word or two in a moment; but I have a case here which cannot be questioned because the facts came out at a coroner's inquest. It was an inquest held on a man who joined quite lately the Army Service Corps and proceeded to Aldershot to take up his duties. He committed suicide a short time afterwards, and at the coroner's inquiry these very interesting facts came out bearing upon the question I am putting before your Lordships. He was forty-six years of age; he was consumptive; he had attended Brompton Hospital before he joined; he was mentally deficient although not certifiable, and he had seven children. I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting the case in full, although I have it here; but that is the gist of the matter. I think we might ask the War Office representative to give us some information, not now but at some other time, in regard to this interesting case. If it is possible for this sort of case to occur under the present recruiting system, I do not know where we shall end up. After observing this case in the Press I noticed with some concern an announcement in all the newspapers that those men who had been rejected at an earlier date as being unfit were requested to re-present themselves so that they might be examined once more.
Such a proportion of married men as I have given would only be justifiable were we at the end of our resources. Were we absolutely fighting at the last gasp it might be necessary to put every one in the line irrespective of age and so on. But the iniquity is that the Government opened with this system and have pursued it all along the line. As far as I can see at the moment there is no particular hope that any other system is going to be adopted, although the cost of the present system is highly extravagant; and, as I hope I have succeeded in showing, when you have paid the first cost yon are not at the end of it. There are the Non-effective Votes of the future, which will have to bear heavy charges for pensions, grants, and allowances
554
to the widows and dependants of these married men. I noticed that in the interesting address which Mr. Harold Cox delivered last week at a meeting where Lord St. Aldwyn also spoke he gave figures anticipating what would be the financial situation in the future, and he suggested, in this particular alone, that there would be a permanent charge of no less than £20,000,000 a year on the Non-effective Votes to discharge this liability. I think he understated it; I think it will be more. Probably he was speaking of the numbers enlisted up to the present time, but those numbers will go on augmenting; consequently the liability will increase also. But apart from that, a mere monetary compensation will not assuage the unnecessary suffering that the Government have, I say deliberately, caused by this system. We shall have with us an enormous number of widows and fatherless children who will remain as a record of what I can only term this perverse folly.
Now a word as to the alternative that might have been adopted. We have available in the country between the fighting ages of nineteen and forty about 8,000,000 men. We have already called up 3,000,000 of those, and that leaves 5,000,000 uncalled. Were we to proceed on some system such as that on which Continental Armies are recruited we should call up at first, of course, the youngest, and we should go on by stages of nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, and so on up to the age of twenty-five, and beyond, of course. But from nineteen to twenty-five the percentage of married men would be very small indeed, not more than six per cent. Once you get past the age of twenty-five and come to twenty-six and twenty-seven the percentage of married men increases very rapidly, and at twenty-seven the numbers more or less balance. I noticed that in Lord Kitchener's last appeal for men—I think 300,000 was the number he called for—the age was expanded; it was previously thirty-eight, and it was expanded at the wrong end—it was increased to forty. That was, I think, a most unwarranted step to take, especially when we consider that of every 1,000 men between the ages of thirty-eight and forty recruited there would be as many as 835 married. I think it is a pits that Lord Kitchener could not have learned something from the systems adopted on the Continent,

555
which work on the basis I have already described—the young being taken first, and the rest being called un subsequently age by age.
The most important thing now is, What hope is there of amendment of this pernicious system? The only hopeful thing that we are told to rely on is the National Registration Act, and that I presume is to be more or less the sheet anchor of the future situation. Lord Lansdowne himself invited my attention to a speech made by Lord Kitchener at the Guildhall as to the effect which the Registration Act would have on recruitment in the future. I have looked up that speech again—I read it at the time—and I have found the particular passage to which the noble Marquess referred me. Lord Kitchener said—
"Steps will be taken to approach with a view to enlistment all possible candidates for the Army, unmarried men to be preferred before married men as far as may be."
But it is evident to all of us that recruiting must and will continue to go on on a large scale. I do not suppose there is anybody sanguine enough to suggest that we are approaching the limits of our requirements. If anybody holds that view he has only to study Ministers' speeches to have it dismissed from his mind.
We have had a series of important speeches made by Ministers in the last few weeks. Lord Kitchener whenever he speaks always makes it clear that he wants more men and yet more men. He has never misled the country upon that, and hitherto he has succeeded in getting what he asked for, and I hope he will continue to do so in the future. But we hail a speech from the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, of a rather discouraging character. I am quoting this speech to prove that, in view of the seriousness of the statements made, it is a self-evident proposition that we must go on augmenting our lighting forces. Lord Curzon told us—
"The situation is one of grave anxiety, and it is not unfair even to speak of this country as being in grave peril."
Mr. Walter Long, whom I have never heard accused of making exaggerated or intemperate statements, endorsed Lord Curzon's speech, and when speaking on the Registration Bill in another place used these words—
"We were never faced with a graver situation. Our enemies are beating at our door; they are threatening our gates."
556
And the present Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, said in the country during a speech—
"I say plainly that if we do not do more in the future than we have done in the past we are going to be beaten."
Doing "more in the future" means, above all things, more men; it means more munitions, but that is being dealt with.
Now how are the additional men to be obtained? Apparently at the moment we are to continue to rely on the spirit of the country and on men springing up from the earth, as it were, at the bidding of Lord Kitchener. I pointed out the other day that the Registration Act will not give you one additional man on different terms from those now prevailing. Lord Kitchener suggested that the information obtained under the Registration Act would be a useful indication as to whether a man was married or single; but I presume that since the outbreak of the war the recruiting officer has had the power to ask the recruit whether he was married or single. Every man who enrolled ought to have stated—and I expect he did—whether he was single or married. So that the Registration Act will not achieve anything more than has already been in existence since the beginning of the war. Therefore unless you adopt some different system of recruitment this extravagance—I hope I shall not be considered to be using too strong language if I describe it as this "Rake's Progress"—will continue; and the costly consequence of course will be, if the Army is augmented on the same system, that the separation allowances, which are already £1,000,000 a week, will rapidly grow into £2,000,000 a week.
The Prime Minister made a statement last night in the House of Commons on the daily expenditure. We received information some little while ago that the daily expenditure was £3,000,000, and that that rate was not to be exceeded. But already we find that it has been exceeded. During July the £3,000,000 had gone up to £3,100,000 a day; and there is not the shadow of a doubt that before the end of the year we shall be nearer an expenditure of £4,000,000 a day than £3,000,000. Therefore it behoves us to ask ourselves a question, the question which Lord Cromer put last night when making his interesting speech in connection with public expenditure, Can we afford it?

557
Lord St. Aldwyn pointed out that the victory will fall to the side which shows the most staying power, and that is going to be the critical thing. There is a general view in the popular mind to the effect that we are so immensely rich, much richer than our enemies, that our pocket is bound to last longest. I would like to see that idea dissipated as much as possible, because it is not at all sure that that will prove to be the fact in the long run unless we take pains to conserve our expenditure and insist upon all those who have the power of spending doing the same. I believe that since the war began Germany has been getting far more value for her money than we have. I believe that for every £1 which Germany spends it takes us an expenditure of £3 to get an equivalent value. That is my belief, and I have discussed this with people who are fairly in touch with conditions and they assure me that that is a very fair computation. For every £3,000,000 that we spend Germany is not called upon to spend more than £1,000,000. That is a very serious situation, if it be true. But this we do know, that there is no squandering of money going on in Germany, for the very best of reasons—they cannot afford it; and we know that they have had the benefit of the preparation of a system extending over a period of from twenty to thirty or forty years, and that system has been built up with the most scrupulous regard to economy. Therefore it is as well for us to be seized of the fact that them is no wasteful squandering of money in Germany if we consider that our pocket is going to outlast theirs; it will not if we are spending in a much greater ratio than they are.
We had an important debate last evening and on a previous occasion [July 6] on the need for economy in relation to civil expenditure, and a Committee has been appointed which I hope will do good work. I agree with what Lord St. Aldwyn said the other day. He could not understand why such a Committee had not been appointed at the beginning of the war and several millions of money thereby saved. Still, this Committee only contemplates, as I judge from the speech of Lord Midleton, effecting an economy of from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000 in Civil Service expenditure per year. Lord Midleton, who introduced the subject to the House on July 6, stated
558
that figure; he thought there might be a saving of from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000. Well, that is insignificant compared with what can be saved on war expenditure. That is where the money is being poured out like water. The Government said the other day that it was impossible to interfere with naval and military expenditure during the war. That is true. To an extent it would be perfectly impossible to set up an independent Committee to go round to the War Office or the Admiralty and say, "You must not spend this," and "you must not spend that." We could not carry on the war under those conditions. But there is no reason in the world why these two great fighting Departments should not have forced upon them the knowledge that our resources are not inexhaustible, and that we can only hope to carry on by their being conserved to the utmost degree.
The reason I have asked this Question is that here to our hands is one of the easiest and most available means of diminishing expenditure—namely, by leaving off recruiting married men at the rate of one in three. If we do that, we shall diminish the daily and weekly expenditure; and further than that, we shall save ourselves from the recurring consequence that would be with us for many years to come in the shape of large grants to meet the Non-effective Services. I hope the Return for which I have asked will be granted. It would be very unfortunate were I to be told that it would be inconvenient, or that under the present pressure it would upset matters to prepare this Return. I have not a shadow of doubt that if I were to be told that, it would be misunderstood in the country where there is a great deal of interest in this question, and it would be suspected that it was inconvenient in more ways than one. However, I will not dilate on that, because the noble Lord who will reply to my Question will no doubt be able to give at all events some information so that we can realise the position with regard to this matter.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the noble Lord who has put this Question will, I hope, excuse me if I decline to-day to enter upon the question of unfit men who have been recruited. That is a totally different subject from the one embodied in his Question, and it might well afford an opportunity for

559
another discussion. But in answer to the Question upon the Paper, I regret to inform the noble Lord that the War Office are not prepared to give him the Return for which he asks. On the other hand, I am prepared to give approximate figures which I think ought to satisfy him in almost every respect.
The number of married men at present drawing separation allowances is approximately in the Regular Army 606,000, and in the Territorial Force 237,000—making a total approximately of 843,000. These figures include men who were in the Regular Army and the Territorial Force at the time of mobilisation. The aggregate cost of the separation allowances paid to wives and children of married men since mobilisation is approximately £25,000,000, but this figure does not include separation allowances paid to dependants other than wives and children; and this amount, I feel bound to state, is nearly certain to increase. The figures that I have given show that the noble Lord behind me (Lord Devonport) has indulged, if I may say so without offence, in a certain amount of exaggeration. There are not, according to the figures I have supplied to the House, 1,000,000 married men in the Army; and the cost of the separation allowances only amounts to 50 per cent. of what the noble Lord believed it to be. I am not going to quarrel with the admirable sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. I seem to recognise sentiments which I have myself uttered before now, here and elsewhere. At the same time I am quite sure that the War Office would welcome any suggestion coming from the noble Lord by which, to use his own expression, unmarried men might be enticed into the Army. When the noble Lord was making his speech as to the obvious inconvenience of the present system I confess that it appeared to me, and appears now, that the answer to him is a perfectly simple and a very short one. Under the voluntary system in a time of emergency you have to recruit men how, when, and where you can. That is my answer to him as regards men. As regards cost, in the House of Commons and throughout the country there was a determination expressed that the dependants of soldiers should be treated with generosity; and in view of this, it appears to me that the figures are less alarming and less unsatisfactory than the noble Lord would lead the House to believe.

TERRITORIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord who represents the War Office whether it is intended to make any increase to the pay of medical officers of the Territorial Force who have been obliged to give up their home practice on volunteering for foreign service. I should not have troubled your Lordships with this question, but that I have on two occasions in the course of debate requested the attention of the War Office and the India Office to it. I would only now say that, as I understand the matter, the Territorial medical officers who were in the Territorial Force before the war and who volunteered for foreign service when war broke out are at this moment receiving less pay than medical officers who have been engaged since the outbreak of war and who are serving side by side with them, in some cases in the same battalions. These medical officers, as I understand, have 14 s. a day and allowances in the first instance, and 24 s. a day in the other, the difference between them being some shillings a day. In addition, the medical officers who were in the Territorial Force before the commencement of the war had to find their own uniforms, whilst those engaged since have been given an allowance for uniform by the State. I believe that on all hands the hardships of these officers is admitted. Many of them have given up practices of £1,000 a year or more, and are paying more than they receive from the Army for substitutes to carry on their practices in their absence. Many of them are now in India, and I think it is a great hardship that they should be called upon to serve at a lower rate of pay side by side with men who did not undertake the liability until later. I have reason to believe that the War Office look very favourably upon the claims of these officers, and I hope that it will be in the power of the noble Lord to give me a favourable reply.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount would be the first to recognise that medical officers do net stand in a different category from other persons. It would be easy to show that many officers in tile Territorial Force had abandoned even more lucrative positions than the medical profession in order to give their services to the country. Therefore I confess that the suggestion that an exception should be made in the case of

561
medical officers does not appear to me to be very strong. The main cause of complaint, I gather, of these medical officers is that the pay of the lower ranks is inadequate, and that Special Reserve and Territorial Force officers were not allowed to count unmobilised service towards the increase of pay given to Regular officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. I understand that it has not been found possible to allow unmobilised service to count, because any proposal which involved reckoning time spent partly in civil employment is calculated to give cause of complaint to the Regular soldier whose whole time has had to be devoted to service with the Colours. In view of the admitted grievance of the junior officers, it has been decided to promote to the rank of captain all lieutenants in the R.A.M.C. and the Territorial Force who have given six months' mobilised service. Steps to give effect to this decision will be taken immediately, and this will date as from April 1 last. I believe I may add that the further consideration of this question is not entirely precluded.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a moment, but the reply of my noble friend opposite has a little bit bewildered me. There has been rather a tangle of words, and the question of unmobilised service is a very difficult one to deal with. I am sure that Territorial medical officers would be grateful for anything that could be done to put them on as satisfactory a footing as their brethren serving in the other branches of His Majesty's Army. I know there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst the ranks of the junior officers in the Territorial medical service, and I think it is a dissatisfaction which they were well entitled to feel.
I am not going into the point raised by Lord Midleton as to these men having given up their civil practices, and so on. It is perfectly true, what he said about it. But they feel that, whatever may have been their condition in the past, it is highly desirable that their service conditions and pay in the present should be commensurate with, and exactly the smile as, those of their brethren serving in other branches of the medical service in His Majesty's Army. Even with the allowances which they get at this moment
562
plus the 14 s. a day as against the 24 s. a day which their brethren in the R.A.M.C. and others serving with the Regular battalions now receive, their pay does not come within something like 2s. 6d. a day of the amount received by the medical officers serving in the other branches, and 2s. 6d. a day works out at a considerable sum per annum—at least a considerable sum for those gentlemen who have given up good positions in coming forward to serve their country in time of need.
I would add that I do not think any more admirable body of men could possibly be found than the officers the Territorial medical service. I have seen a great deal of their work, and been cognisant of what they have done all through the war; and I earnestly hope that the word "economy" will be forgotten in this instance by His Majesty's Treasury. I am certain that no more unwise and unjust thing could be done by the Government and by the Treasury than to refrain from putting on an exact equality the medical officers now serving with the Territorial Force and those serving in the other branches of His Majesty's Forces. It is extremely difficult in existing financial circumstances to get the necessary medical officers for some of the second and third lines of the Territorial Force. Therefore I trust that no question of undue economy will be employed in this case, and that the Government will see their way to meet what I conceive to be the just claims of the Territorial medical officers of His Majesty's Forcer.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, it seemed to me that the reply of Lord Newton did nut appear to be an answer to the Question put by my noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench. I understood my noble friend's inquiry to relate to the medical officer who was in the Territorial Army before mobilisation, who I understand is being paid worse thin the Territorial medical officer who joined since mobilisation. I do not know how much the difference is, but I can calculate on the figures quoted by Lord Midleton, and I should think he is pretty nearly £1 a week worse off than the new Territorial medical officer; and then I doubt whether there has been included the bonus which the new Territorial medical officer is going to get at the end of his service, which has not been promised to the old Territorial medical officer. I may be wrong, but it seemed to

563
me that the noble Lord's reply did not deal with the particular case which the noble Viscount quoted. I must say I hope that the case brought up is being supported by the War Office in its communications with the Treasury.
LORD NEWTON: As I have already stated, negotiations are still proceeding with the Treasury on the subject.
LORD HARRIS: On the subject of the difference between the pay of the old Territorial medical officer and the new?
LORD NEWTON: On the whole thing.
LORD HARRIS: Excuse me, but I want a specific answer to that particular question. Is it the case that the pay of the old Territorial medical officer as compared with that of the new is being taken up by the War Office?
LORD NEWTON: Yes, so I understand.

AIRCRAFT RAID INSURANCE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President whether he can give any information as to the terms and conditions of the Government insurance scheme for dealing with damage to property which may result from bombardments or air raids. Since I put this Question on the Paper the other day the Report of the Aircraft Insurance Committee has been issued, and I notice at the outset that the terms of reference to the Committee which has brought forward the present scheme state that "Any scheme prepared must be on the basis of reasonable contribution being paid by the owners of property insured towards the cost of insurance." In view of the experience that has been gained in a way which I shall mention in a moment, I think that the proposed contributions are most unreasonable.
Perhaps I might explain why it is that I intervene in a matter of this kind. Seven months ago an Air Raid Committee was formed of which I had the honour to be chairman, and in which my associates were Mr. Ram, who has had great experience and is the foremost exponent in insurance matters at this time in England, and Mr. Robert Lewis, of the Alliance Insurance Company. We dealt with on the whole something like 10,000
564
cases in round numbers, and I may say, with I hope becoming modesty, that we had a unique experience of what would probably be a reasonable basis for an insurance scheme. In fact, I may go further and say that we had the only experience which could forma sound basis for developing an insurance scheme under these conditions. Having an immense amount of statistics on this point, we proposed to the Treasury that we should put them at the disposal of the Government in order that a national insurance scheme on a business basis should be formulated, and we had a courteous letter in reply to this effect—
"The Board of Trade are at present considering a scheme for State insurance against air risks, with the assistance of insurance experts. I have expressed to Sir George Barnes, of the Board of Trade, who has the matter in hand, the kind offer of your Committee to assist, and have suggested to him that he should consult you—
That is, the Committee, although the letter was addressed to me personally—
"on whatever stage of the proceedings may seem most convenient."
Well, we have never been consulted from beginning to end, nor have we heard a word from the Board of Trade.
Your Lordships should not consider that this is in any respect a personal matter so far as the Committee are concerned. We are indifferent in that respect. But it surely is a very serious matter, when the Government are going to bring forward for the first time a national scheme of insurance in reference to new conditions and a Committee has been dealing with those very conditions for the last seven months and has made an offer to place their experience at the disposal of the Board of Trade, that not a single answer of any kind or sort should be given to them by that Department, and that a scheme should be developed without any reference whatever to the Committee's experience and knowledge. It is not difficult to see that in the circumstances a merely theoretical scheme may be entirely out of accord with the experience which we have gained on a practical basis. And I am bound to say that the scheme as formulated is so unjust and so unfair as regards the experience which we have in fact obtained in a large number of cases that I propose for a few moments to address your Lordships upon that topic.

565
I want to say at the outset that the Committee of which I am a member are not against an insurance scheme; on the contrary, we not only indicated that we thought an insurance scheme would be the proper way of dealing with the difficulty, but we offered to place at the disposal of the Board of Trade all our facts and statistics. We did so for this reason, that from the outset, although the matter was left in our discretion, we dealt with compensation on the insurance basis in order that if an insurance scheme were subsequently developed our experience might be of use in formulating it. I know it is the current and normal experience of bodies such as that of which I had the honour to be chairman to be regarded without much weight by officials. I make no complaint upon that. But may not that be one of the causes of the chaos and extravagance which is now going to result? It is well known that at the commencement of the war period a large number of Committees were instituted, and I trust that all the Committees have not been treated in the same way as we have been as regards the information we have accumulated.
Let me criticise, not unduly I hope, the proposals contained in the Report of the Aircraft Insurance Committee as compared with our experience. The first matter in this Report is that—
"In consideration of the companies placing their staffs at the disposal of the Government, we recommend that a remuneration of 10 per cent. on the gross premiums should be paid to the companies …"
At a later stage in addition to that there is a per cent. for agency purposes, so that the companies will get 15 per cent. on gross premiums. Now, what is our experience, because we have had ample experience upon this point? We have had to deal with claims of over £100,000—I mean that it is an experience over a wide margin; and our experience is that so far from the cost being 15 per cent., plus whatever the cost may be of a new State Insurance Office, ours has been just one-third percent. In other words, the cost proposed in this scheme is forty-five times the cost according to the experience we have gained during the last seven months. These figures were open to anybody, of course. They were part of the figures we wished the Board of Trade to have. I am not sure whether the Duke of Devonshire is going to answer me, but I
566
want to know the basis on which this percentage was fixed, because it appears to be most extravagant. This is how you get loss; this is how you really do get extravagance. In addition, there is to be the expense of a State Insurance Office. The expenses which we incurred, as I have said, were only one-third per cent., and that represented the whole expense of every sort and kind incurred by us subject only to what are known as assessors' fees; and I may point out that assessors' fees are not in any way covered by the percentages mentioned in this Report. I think we have been very moderate in our assessors' fees, and I should here like to express my gratitude for the splendid work which the assessors did, because although we dealt with something like 10,000 cases the number of complaints has been infinitesimal, although, of course, you cannot satisfy everybody in a scheme of that kind.
There is another important matter as regards the question of valuation. The proposal here is that in certain cases you should not admit what is known as the average clause. There is already fire insurance without it. That is all very well for insurance companies, but it is the most extravagant system you could possibly have. I dare say the noble Duke, when he comes to answer the question, will be able to explain how that is going to be dealt with. Then I notice that on page 6 of the Report it is stated that the amount likely to be received in premiums "may be expected to cover the cost of sporadic raids of the kind already experienced." We were the only body with any knowledge of what the cost of sporadic raids was, having regard to the nature of the property affected. I want to know where this Committee ascertained the cost of sporadic raids. The only body who had the information was not consulted in any way. Had we been consulted we could have pointed out what has been a very essential factor of our inquiry—that so far as aircraft are concerned, the amount of damage has been comparatively small; whereas under the head of "bombardment," which I hope may not occur again, there was a large number of cases of most serious damage.
I now turn to the schedule of rates, because it is this schedule that appears to me to be an absolutely absurd burden, according to our experience, upon the

567
householder, or the person in occupation of premises, or as regards stock. I know, of course, that we are dealing with this on the flat-rate principle. I think myself that probably the fiat-rate principle is right; I am not finding any fault with that. The first is buildings; the rate is 2s. against aircraft only, and 3s. against aircraft and bombardment. That is exactly cent. per cent. higher than according to our experience; it ought to have been 1s. and 1s. 6d. instead of 2s. and 3s. I am at a loss to understand how any such figure has been arrived at. I should like to know what the Committee had before them to lead them to fix such an extravagant figure, having regard to the real nature of the risk
Perhaps more extraordinary still is item No. 3, "Farming Stocks (live and dead)"; the rates here are 3s. and 4s. 6d. respectively. In our opinion 1d. or 2d. would be ample; and I will explain why that is. To begin with, the country districts are not aimed at, and the damage done there is only by accident. What the raids aim at are the industrial centres, and particularly those where munition works are being carried on. In a case which came before my Committee where a bomb had been dropped amongst crops, there had been no damage that exceeded 3s., 4s., or 5s.—nothing but the cost of filling in the hole. Again, in no case has the crop itself been damaged. Then with regard to the farmer's stock, he has not his whole stock in one place, as in the case of munitions. We have had a large number of farmers' claims, and the whole of them have been settled at a really nominal figure. It is really out of all proportion to suggest such a sum as 3s. and 4s. 6d. respectively on farming stocks, live and dead. In form, you suggest a Government insurance scheme; in fact, you impose such terms that no prudent man could touch it at all. That is a wide statement to make, but I make it from experience carefully gained over a period of seven months. It is not that I want to attack this principle of insurance; but I say this, that to disregard the experience gained in a case of this kind is just the basis from which we get the national extravagance and waste to which attention has been called. Then as to "Contents of all buildings other than those specified in Nos. 1 and 5." Here the rates are 5s. and 7s. respectively. I do not
568
know where any such figures can possibly have come from. Lastly, as regards certain merchandise and so on the rate is 7s. 6d. and 10 s. respectively. These figures are so extravagant in proportion to our experience that I can only say frankly that I cannot understand on what basis they have been fixed.
Then the Aircraft Insurance Committee say at the end of their Report, what is true, that if you were to have an insurance for less than the annual period probably you would have the most damage in the first months after insurance. I want to emphasise that. I think it is very likely that the period of most damage has already passed. We had both a bombardment and an attack from aircraft. Of course, one cannot say what the future is likely to be, but the experience gained, according to the Report of this Committee, was gained at the time when the cost was likely to be greatest. Do not let it be thought that I want to be dogmatic upon a difficult question. That is not the object with which I am addressing your Lordships at the present time. It is to point out a real criticism of the extravagant rates here proposed, but still more to say that it cannot be in accordance with national economy that when you have had a Committee sitting for seven mouths dealing with this very question and they offer all their experience to the Board of Trade—and we were referred to them by the Treasury—you should not make one single inquiry of that Committee or take any notice whatever of the experience they had gained. It is only an instance of the normal way in which officials deal with Committees of this kind. But it is extremely important that a custom of that sort should not be followed when an official body is seeking to formulate a new insurance scheme, and when there is a Committee sitting which has all and the only experience at hand.
This insurance scheme does not deal with what has been the difficult and really the most important part of our inquiry—that is, injury to persons. Do the Government intend in future to exclude persons who have been compensated in the past by the Committee of which I have the honour to be chairman? Of course, our Committee will come to an end. We shall not have enough work to keep us going. That is naturally enough a matter of satisfaction, although we should have been

569
glad to carry on our public duty. Next I want to ask the noble Duke whether the Government have had this in mind, that the immense mass of the claims brought before my Committee were very small claims with regard to poor cottage property, windows damaged, and so on. Our experience is that the tenants of property of that kind do not insure. They may be induced insure—I do not know — by the agents to whom the 5 per cent. (unnecessary commission, as I think) is going to be paid; but as a matter of fact they do not insure now. When we were dealing with large properties we found insurance, and of course where we found insurance did not suggest that any further payment should be made because the insurance covered the loss. But I want to ask the noble Duke what information or guarantee the Government have that the poorest class of property, which has been chiefly damaged and which has chiefly come before our Committee, is likely to come within the insurance scheme at all? That is just the class of property which naturally would not be insured and which requires the treatment it has received up to the present time.
I hope your Lordships will not think that the Committee—either myself or my colleagues—have the slightest personal feeling of any kind at our suggestions for information being scouted, as they were, by the Board of Trade. That is quite immaterial. But what I think is most material and a matter of the first importance is that unique information derived under conditions of this sort, carefully collected, which could not be got from any other source, ought to have been considered and due weight given to it before n scheme of Government insurance was floated. It goes really to the basis of economy on questions of this sort, and I dare say the noble Duke, will give some reason why no consultation of any kind was held, and why our offer was not even answered in ally form by the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to hope that serious attention will be given to the important remarks which have just fallen from my noble and learned friend below me. His Committee, as your Lordships know, have dealt with this matter of damage by aircraft and bombardment so far as it has been dealt
570
with up to the present time, and the system upon which they went and which has been acted upon tip to the present time by the Government is to pay for structural damage and not to include consequential damage or loss of profit to the trader. Well, you have left that, and, as the noble Lord has told you, the Board of Trade seem to have paid no further attention to the labours and experience of that Committee. The Government apparently have adopted another scheme; and my reason for rising is this, that no attention seems to have been paid to that matter in the House of Commons. This insurance scheme may be a very large thing, but so far as I am aware there has been no attention of any sort paid to it in the House of Commons. Mr. Runciman made a speech in which he referred to the fact of the Report of this Committee, and he said "This Committee has now formulated a scheme which the Government are prepared to adopt." He then proceeded to state certain portions of what the scheme was. He did not state the whole scheme; he did not say that the scheme had been adopted in its entirety; and as a matter of fact, as I shall show your Lordships, it leas not. He merely made this statement, and when it was finished Mr. C. E. Price, the Member for Edinburgh Central, asked whether the Prime Minister would give the House an opportunity of considering these terms, as he (Mr. Price) was quite sure that those connected with insurance thought that many of the terms were very absurd. And the Prime Minister replied, "I will consider that." The result of that was, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that nothing more was said about the matter in the House of Commons. And here it conies before your Lordships, and you have heard the terms in which the Report has been alluded to by my noble and learned friend whose Committee has had the only practical experience that there has been in this regard.
In what position is the matter at this time? Suppose, for instance, that to-day a house is destroyed by a bomb from aerial craft, what is the position? Until this scheme appeared the Government paid for the structural damage, but does the mere fact that this scheme has been announced—it has not been announced publicly; it was merely referred to, so far as I am aware, in this speech of Mr. Runciman—free the Government from

571
any liability in respect of damage that is done to-day and hereafter? The Government, in their instructions to the Aircraft-Insurance Committee, said that—
"Any scheme prepared must be on the basis of reasonable contribution being paid by the owners of property insured towards the cost of insurance."
This scheme, as I understand, requires that the whole charge shall be put upon the owners of property, and thereby it seems to me that the Government will be wholly exempt from liability of any kind.
In his speech Mr. Runciman read certain extracts from, but did not read the whole of, the Report of this Committee. He omitted one or two matters. I will give your Lordships an instance of what he left out. The Committee say—
"… it is not practicable to fix rates which would cover the State against loss in the event of raids by hostile aircraft resulting in a series of general conflagrations in congested areas. The possibility of any raid having such serious results is a matter on which we can form no opinion, and it is a risk which we think the State must be prepared to accept."
The Government say they are prepared to accept this Report, but they have not stated anything as to whether they are prepared to accept liability in the case of a series of conflagrations arising from bombs. That is a very important matter for all persons who are insuring, and it is a matter on which we ought to be informed. Then with regard to the announcement of these terms. I asked just now whether the Government would, from the day on which this Report was referred to, hold themselves free from all liability. The Committee say in paragraph 41—
"If the Government decide to establish an insurance scheme on the lines which we recommend, we presume that a public announcement will be made to the effect that the Government will not accept any liability in the future for loss or damage by the perils insured against under this scheme unless the property is insured under this scheme."
I have not seen any public announcement of that kind. Surely it is absolutely imperative, if a liability is to be thrown upon the owner, that an announcement should be inserted in the newspapers so that everyone may see it.
Then with regard to the cost of this State insurance body. Perhaps the noble Duke will be able to tell us exactly what it is
572
proposed to do in that way, because it seems to me that the business will be done two or three times over, as it is said that it will be necessary to establish in London a State Office at which insurance can be effected; this will be under the control of a Committee of experts, and so on. What I want to know is, Are we to have another public body? We are first of all to work through the insurance offices, but are we in addition to have a public body? And will any official in the Department be paid? Really the amount of information which the country has with regard to this matter is so small and so fragmentary that it is imperative that we should obtain some additional information from the Government. I must say that so far as I have been able to calculate the matter, we should have done much better had we gone on working through Lord Parmoor's Committee and on the principles which they observed. There is one other question I should like to ask. Under what authority is this scheme set up? Have the Treasury or the Board of Trade power to issue schemes of this sort merely administratively, and to put them into force without any reference to Parliament?
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, as I drew the attention of the House a few weeks ago to the great anxiety that was felt in the City of London with regard to this question of damage by aircraft and bombardment, I think I ought to say a few words. I did not know until I reached the House this afternoon what the form of Lord Parmoor's criticisms would be. However, I may say that there is great satisfaction in the City on the part of merchants at having their anxiety relieved by the knowledge that a System of State insurance is being set up, but at the same time regret has been expressed that there has been no Parliamentary criticism of that scheme. Lord Camperdown has asked the Government upon what authority such a scheme as this could be put into operation without any criticism of any sort or kind. I might say that at the London Chamber of Commerce, of which I am President, a committee has been sitting for some time in connection with this matter, and we were given information as to the nature of this scheme. We sent in our criticisms, but the scheme had already been adopted and therefore none of the criticisms of the City of London were considered.

573
There was great anxiety amongst brokers, merchants, and bankers in the City with regard to large and valuable accumulations and so forth in docks and warehouses. The bankers asked for insurance receipts; they could not be produced; and where advances had been made repayment in some cases was asked for. That gave cause for anxiety, and relief was felt that a scheme of insurance of some sort had been adopted. But I should like to ask whether the rates are definitely fixed, or whether anybody will have the power to say that the rates ought to be half the amounts proposed. The London Chamber of Commerce, in one of their criticisms, said they considered certain of the rates in the schedule at least double as much as they ought to be.
The noble and learned Lord opposite referred to the great cost which will be incurred. That comes hack to the suggestion which I made a little while ago in this House that this should not be a personal but a national liability. There are certain expenses that will by far exceed anything that is justified with regard to any damage likely to be incurred. The plan adopted by Lord Parmoor's Committee was one that seemed to give general satisfaction, and he has told us this afternoon at what a small cost it was done. Of course, there are those who say that the State cannot take upon itself all these liabilities. But, after all, is this a personal liability when we have paid our taxes for the Army and Navy to protect our lives and property. Is not the risk from bombardment and aircraft so small that the State could afford to take over this liability and treat any expense incurred it the same way as if an ironclad is sent to the bottom—namely, as a national loss?
We ought to have been allowed to criticise this scheme in some way, and certainly should have known that all the suggestions and criticisms made had been considered. My noble friend, Lord Devonport, who is Chairman of the Port of London Authority, knows far better than I do the risks and expenses and that sort of thing that great bodies such as his are incurring with regard to this matter. I am afraid this serious matter has been treated far too lightly. I think I gathered from the noble and learned Lord just now that there will be a great number of people who even under this scheme will not insure. We shall find, I think, that that will be the very
574
property, which will be destroyed, and then there will be public sympathy, and the State will have to pay. And the last state will be worse than the first. The insurance companies know how difficult and complicated the matter is, and they could not frame what the premiums should be; and now they are only acting as agents of the Government, and are not taking the risks on their own account. I am sorry I was unaware of the form of the criticism which my noble and learned friend was going to make this afternoon; otherwise I would have come prepared to make a speech which would have been a more useful addition to the debate. But I felt it my duty to rise and say that, although our anxiety in the City has been considerably relieved in regard to this matter, we are certainly sorry that there has been no opportunity of criticising the Government's scheme.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OE DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am afraid that in the position in which I find myself this afternoon I shall not be able to say very much to satisfy the critics of the Government. My noble friend behind me (Lord Southwark) said that in the City they regretted the absence of criticism of the scheme, but the absence of Parliamentary criticism has not prevented some forcible observations being made on the subject. Your Lordships will probably be aware of the history of this scheme. The scheme was described in the House of Commons by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on July 13. He stated then that a Committee had been formed, a Committee which held a very high position especially in regard to matters connected with insurance, and which I have every reason to believe gave confidence to those experienced in this business. That Committee reported, and their Report is now in your Lordships' hands. The Government decided to adopt that Report in its entirety. The scheme, which is the scheme of the Government, is that which has been suggested by the Committee, and that scheme was, I understand, put into operation on Monday last; and a considerable amount of business has already been transacted.
As to one criticism by Lord Camperdown it is rather an unusual position for me to be able to make any reference to a subject which has escaped his vigilance. But in

575
The Times of Monday last there was, under the heading "State Air Risk Insurance: Government Warning," a statement that the Government scheme of insurance against aircraft and bombardment risks came into operation that day, and that the Board of Trade had announced that—
"Now that a public scheme has been established no liability can be accepted by the Government and no claim can be entertained in respect of damage to property by aircraft or bombardment unless the property has been insured under the scheme."
That is in the identical language of the seventh of the specific recommendations of the Committee, to be found in paragraph 42 of their Report, that—
"The Government should announce that after the establishment of the scheme they will not indemnity any person for loss … unless the property concerned is insured under the Government scheme."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Has the scheme been adopted in its entirety?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I understand that the scheme as recommended by the Committee is adopted in its entirety. I hope I can assure my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor that no discourtesy to him or his Committee was intended by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade are most grateful for the work done by them in this connection, and I understand that the letter which the noble and learned Lord wrote was referred to the Aircraft Insurance Committee. Lord Parmoor has sufficient experience of Committees to know that they are not always willing to receive suggestions, even from the people who bring them into existence; but there was no intention of being discourteous to my noble and learned friend.
LORD PARMOOR: There is no question as regards discourtesy. I should not bring such a matter as that forward. The point is that information was offered from the only body which had experience, and no notice whatever was taken of it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade was in the position of having to judge between a variety of counsellors; and after due deliberation he decided to adopt the recommendations of the Aircraft Insurance Committee which he had appointed, and their scheme has now come into operation. Power is taken by the Government—your Lordships will find this in the second paragraph of
576
Schedule III of the Report—to vary the rates from time to time if it is necessary to do so. I am afraid I am unable to reassure critics this afternoon beyond saying that I shall most certainly see that what has passed in this debate is conveyed to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. Not only those criticisms but any further criticisms which experience may produce, in the light of actual operation of the scheme, will be brought to his attention and will undoubtedly receive his most complete investigation and consideration. This scheme is already in operation, and the suggestion which I respectfully make is that it be given a fair trial to see how it works; and if at a later period, when we have had further opportunity of judging its merits, suggestions should be addressed to the Government either in this or in the other House, I can give the assurance that they will receive every consideration.
LORD SANDERSON: I was under the impression that official notifications by the Government were inserted in the London Gazette. The noble Duke alluded to a statement which had appeared in The Times. I do not know whether the ordinary process is going to be abandoned, but I should have hoped that some kind of notice in the London Gazette could be given.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: understand that the usual steps were taken to make the notice as public as possible. But I will inquire into the point raised by the noble Lord.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, at this period of the session I understand that a Bill is invariably brought in to continue various laws that would otherwise expire by the mere effluxion of time. The Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon continues for the space of one year a variety of Statutes of one sort or another which would otherwise expire on December 30 or in the month of March next.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is a Bill merely consolidating the existing laws dealing with milk and dairies. It has been before a Joint Committee of both Houses and has been approved of in another place, and I now ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in making this Motion I hope the House will agree, besides taking the Committee
578
Stage of this Bill, to take also the remaining stages. The Bill was started in this House, and it is desirable that it should go down to be considered in another place as soon as possible. Your Lordships will remember that yesterday when I moved the Second Reading my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who, as Chancellor of one of the Universities, may be regarded as the prime authority on the Scottish Universities in this House, gave it his benediction, and I hope your Lordships will consent to pass it.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended): Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, at a quarter past Four o'clock.