Sitting of 8 June 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKEB laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Wolverhampton Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill [Lords].
Prescot Gas Bill [Lords].
Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board Bill [Lords].
Ashington Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill.
Land Drainage (Raveningham) Provisional Order Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill.
Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders Applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First
154
Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
Salop County Council Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Message from the Lords,
That they have agreed to,
Bury and District Joint Water Board1 Bill, without Amendment.
Forfar Gas Order Confirmation Bill, with an Amendment.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill.
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Forfar Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LIGHT RAILWAYS ACTS, 1896 AND 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled the Clayton-le-Moors Light Railway (Extension of Time) Order, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Copy presented of Report of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1914, and of the Proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 254.]
RAILWAY COMPANIES' POWERS ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on applications made during the year 1914, under The Railway Companies' Powers Act, 1864, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 255.]

LAND REGISTRY.
Return ordered, "showing the work done in the Land Registry, in each of the years 1912, 1913, and 1914, respectively, under the various Acts hereinafter mentioned, namely:—
1. Under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897:—

(a) The number, value, and acreage (where known) of estates the titles to which were registered, on first registration, from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1914, showing the numbers of estates registered with absolute, qualified, and possessory title, and good leaseholds; and also the number of estates registered under the Small Holdings Acts, 1892, 1907, and 1908;

(b) The total number of separate titles on the register on the 31st day of December, 1914 (i.) by first registration, (ii.) by sub-division of estates already registered, and (iii.) by transfer from the 1862 register;

(c) The total number of separate titles which have been removed from the register on the 31st day of December, 1914:

2. Under The Land Registry Act, 1862:—

(a) The total number, value, and acreage (where known) of estates the titles to which were registered on first registration;

(b) The total number of separate titles on the register on the 31st day of December, 1914 (i.) by first registration, and (ii.) by sub-division of estates already registered;

(c) The total number of separate titles which had been removed from the
156
register on the 31st day of December, 1913, otherwise than by transfer to the 1875 register:

3. Under both the Acts of 1875 and 1862:—

(a) The total number of separate titles on the register on the 31st day of December, 1914;

(b) The total number of transactions registered from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1914, showing the numbers of (i.) first registrations under the Acts of 1875 and 1897, (ii.) conveyances, transfers, and transmissions of land, (iii.) mortgages, charges, further charges, and transfers of mortgages and charges, (iv.) reconveyances of mortgages and cessation of charges, (v.) leases and surrenders of leases, (vi.) miscellaneous:

4. Under the Mortgage Debenture Acts, 1865 and 1870, and The Improvement of Land Act, 1864:—
A statement, so far as may be practicable, of the nature and amount of the work done under these Acts, from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1914:
5. Under The Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888, and The Land Charges Act, 1900:—
The number of registrations, official researches, and ordinary searches made from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1914:
6. Under The Middlesex Registry Act, 1708, and The Land Registry (Middle sex Deeds) Act, 1891:—
The number of registrations and searches made from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1914:
And, showing the amount of fees received and the amount of salaries and expenses in the Land Registry from the 1st day of April, 1912, to the 31st day of March, 1915, distinguishing for the purposes of Section 22 of The Land Transfer Act, 1897, the fees received and salaries and expenses paid under the Land Transfer Acts and the other Acts above referred to (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 433, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Rowlands.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND ROUMANIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is informed concerning any treaty between Austria-Hungary and Roumania whereby their mutual relations are regulated in the case of Roumania going to war; and whether, if so, such treaty has been published, and where?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any agreement now in force between the Austro-Hungarian and Roumanian Governments.

    VISITS TO FRENCH HOSPITALS.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the most recent requirements as to passports, visé, and any other permits or papers required to be produced by relatives of wounded officers desirous of visiting them at the base hospitals in France?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: British subjects wishing to travel to France must first obtain passports from the Passport Office, for which application should be made in the proper form, which can be obtained either from the Passport Office or from any of the banks, shipping offices, or other agencies. Duplicate photographs of the applicant are required. The passport must then be presented in person at the French Bureau des Passeports, 18, Bedford Square, for the necessary visa, which must be obtained not more than three days from the date of departure. If the hospital to be visited is situated within the "zone of the Armies," a permit must be obtained from the Permit Office before the passport is taken to the French Bureau for the visa. The requirements have been recently published in the Press, and have also been circulated to town clerks throughout the country.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Has there been any relaxation in the passport requirements in these particular cases? I ask that
    158
    question because statements to the contrary have recently been made in the Press, and it is important to these people to know clearly what the position is.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: If the hon. Member asks whether there has been any relaxation in the cases of relatives visiting wounded officers, so far as I know no relaxation has taken place, except that on the production of a telegram signed by the commanding officer at the hospital in which the wounded man is the permission is granted.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Then it is necessary. The permission in itself does not relieve them of the necessity to have a passport. That statement was made.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is necessary to have a passport, the permission, and the visa in every case.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state precisely what permits (if any), other than passport and visé of the French Consul, are required to be produced by relatives of wounded officers for the purpose of visiting them in base hospitals in France; and whether such permits are forwarded direct to relatives by the hospital authorities?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The rules on this subject were fully set out in a communiqué which appeared in the Press on the 29th May. It is too long to read out now, but I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    BRITISH OFFICERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONhad given notice to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the sufferings of those officers in Germany who have been condemned to solitary confinement, deprivation of necessities and comforts, on the excuse of our differential treatment of German submarine officers, he will cancel the said order for differential treatment, and request the good offices of the American Ambassador to notify such cancellation at the earliest possible moment?
    On the question being called, the hon. Gentleman said: I ask leave to postpone this question as the Secretary to the Admiralty will answer the same later,

    159
    but I beg to ask the Noble Lord if he is aware that our officers are still condemned to solitary confinement and locked up in their cells practically all the twenty-four hours; and whether, in view of the fact that there is no distinction between the German officers of submarines and German officers who have committed many outrages and breaches of humanity, he will use his influence with the First Lord to countermand the differential treatment of German submarine officers?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

    SICK SOLDIERS ON FURLOUGH.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers have been instructed to accept certificates given by duly qualified medical men to sick soldiers on furlough residing at a distance of over two miles from military hospitals; if so, whether any such certificates have been ignored and the sick soldiers who obtained them punished; and, if so, whether such action is approved by the superior military authorities?
    Mr. TENNANT: The rule in force is that, when a man forwards a civil medical practitioner's certificate recommending an extension of furlough, arrangements are made for his readmission to the nearest military hospital, where he will remain under treatment until he is fit to rejoin his unit or depot. I am informed that no cases had come to notice, prior to the issue of the instructions I have mentioned, of civilian medical practitioners' certificates being ignored either with or without the approval of the superior military authorities, once it had been ascertained beyond doubt that the certificates were genuine.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman of cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (RIFLES).
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, for the purposes of training,
    160
    the King's Lynn detachment of the Volunteer Training Corps have ordered a small number of Martini rifles from Messrs. Agnew and Sons; that several applications have been made to the War Office for the necessary permit for their delivery; that such permit is still withheld; and will he state when it is likely to be granted?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I can only say that the application is under consideration. The hon. Member will see that it forms part of a large question.

    RECRUITS (DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT).
    General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any arrangements have been made for the special treatment of recruits found to be suffering from defective eyesight caused by the conditions under which they have been industrially employed before enlistment which renders them temporarily unfit for military service?
    Mr. TENNANT: Men suffering from the severer forms of defective eyesight should not, of course, be enlisted, and if by any chance they have got into the Army they should be discharged. Men suffering from the milder forms would receive the same treatment that they would have in civil life, i.e., correction of any error of refraction, tonic drugs, rest or modified exercises, and local treatment to the eye.
    General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of men have been discharged for temporary defects, especially men who have been working underground and who have not received treatment?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand there is a form of disease of the eye which it is very difficult to treat, and possibly those are the cases which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. If he will bring specific cases to my notice I shall be glad to inquire into them.

    RE-ENLISTMENT.
    General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the large number

    161
    of discharges from the New Armies for physical and other causes; and whether any measures are being taken to prevent the enlistment of such discharged men and to retain their services for the industrial or agricultural operations for which they may be fitted?
    Mr. TENNANT: The matter referred to in the first part of the question receives the constant attention of the military authorities. Men who have enlisted since the beginning of the War and have once been discharged are not accepted for re-enlistment, with the sole exception of those discharged on purely medical grounds whom the examining medical officer, with full knowledge of the cause of discharge, pronounces to be fit for service at home and abroad.
    General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these men, after being discharged, go straight away and re-enlist, very often presenting themselves at the places where they were previously enlisted? Has any system been framed for making use of these men in some other capacity for which they may be fitted?
    Mr. TENNANT: The War Office has under consideration a scheme for obviating the trouble suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, by a system of identification, but that involves certain principles which it may be difficult to put into force. As to whether these men will be suitable for other employment I cannot say without more definite knowledge.

    POST OFFICE (ALIEN ENEMY DEPOSITORS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether any action has been taken to prevent the withdrawal of Post Office Savings Bank deposits by alien enemy depositors; and whether such deposits are to be confiscated or held for settlement at the end of the War?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Since the outbreak of war a discretion has been exercised in dealing with such applications, regard being had to the possibility of the money being intended for remittance to an enemy country. No such deposits are being confiscated.
    Mr. KING: May we take it, then, that each individual case is judged upon its
    162
    merits; that there is no rule which applies to all, except that they must come under consideration?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is so.

    MUNITIONS.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a meeting took place in Birmingham on Sunday, 25th April, to further the manufacture of munitions of war, at which a representative of the War Office presided and encouraged those firms who were represented to prepare and organise their factories in anticipation of orders, and that the only communication these firms have since received is to the effect that their services are not wanted; and will he say whether the firm of Vickers, Son, and Maxim are building and equipping a factory in the district; and, if so, is this step being taken in conjunction with an arrangement between this firm and the War Office?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The Birmingham Committee has been in constant communication with the War Office, and satisfactory arrangements are being made. One order has already been placed, and others are under the immediate consideration of the committee. Two factories are being erected by Messrs. Vickers in the Birmingham district. They were put in hand some months ago with the approval of the War Office.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give the approximate number of firms in the United Kingdom who have offered to manufacture munitions of war and with whom no orders have been placed by the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: The approximate number of firms which have offered to manufacture munitions of war but have received no direct orders from the War Office is 300. Each of these firms which appeared capable of carrying out work of this character was placed on the list of firms invited to tender for the particular articles which they desired to supply. In addition, over fifty of them are at present engaged as sub-contractors in the manufacture of munitions of war.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extraordinary difficulty of getting on to the lists of the War Office, and can he see his way to abandon these lists altogether in war time?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know that there is any very great difficulty in getting on to the lists if the firms are in a position to supply the article.
    Mr. WATT: If I give the hon. Member the names of firms that have tried for months to get on to the lists, will he look into it?
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been drawn to the offer made within the last fortnight to the High Explosive Commission of a large quantity of trinitrotoluol; if this Commission expressed their desire to secure all supplies available at the fixed price of 1 dollar but refused to pay any higher price; if France and Russia are taking all they can obtain of this product at a price of 1 dollar 35 cents; and, if so, by what means does he hope to obtain those supplies so urgently needed by the British Government?
    Mr. FORSTER: A great many offers of trinitrotoluol are constantly being received and it is impossible to identify the particular offer referred to. The arrangements made for the production of the explosive are such as to secure an ample supply for our own use, and we are also able to assist our Allies. With regard to the question of price, I do not think it desirable to give the exact figure at which we are able to purchase, but it is substantially below that quoted in the question.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the names of firms who are being subsidised or guaranteed by the Government for the extension of their factories or the erection of new factories for the production of munitions of war?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The arrangements made with individuals under the general discretion given to the Admiralty and War Office by the Treasury have been made by those Departments and are not on record in the Treasury. This general discretion was given by Treasury Minute, as explained in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Treasury in answer to a question asked by
    164
    the hon. Member for Maidstone on the 27th April. In any case, I doubt whether it would be in the public interest to give the particulars asked for at the present moment.
    Sir R. COOPER: Am I to take it, then, from that answer, that at some later date, if one asks for this definite information, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to secure it for us?
    Mr. McKENNA: That question ought to be addressed to the Admiralty or the War Office; we have no record at the Treasury.
    Sir R. COOPER: Arising out of that answer, may I ask is it not a fact that the Treasury have to pay the amounts of money, and should not we have the opportunity, when the time comes, of securing this information upon which the House have got to vote the money to be paid?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will address his question to the Admiralty or to the War Office, I have no doubt that he will get a full answer to it.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reason for excluding from the receipt of proficiency pay ex-naval men, volunteers, and members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether he is aware that this differentiation is causing dissatisfaction and discouragement?
    Mr. FORSTER: The men in question are not excluded from the receipt of proficiency pay, but the conditions of the grant require two years' military service, and service given in the capacities referred to does not satisfy this requirement.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a number of resolutions from boards of guardians relative to an increase in the amount of old age pensions; whether he is aware that the cost of food and fuel tends to continuously increase; and whether he will do justice to the aged poor by either increasing the old age pensions or taking steps to reduce the abnormal cost of living?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest I fear I can for the moment add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 19th May last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich.
    Mr. ALDEN: Did not the Prime Minister promise me to look into this question, and ascertain whether it would not be possible for special pensions to be paid by those recommended, after careful examination by the pensions officers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire further into the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Does the form of words used by my right hon. Friend "for the moment" mean that the subject is under consideration, and that there is a possibility of modification?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should not like to say that it amounts to that.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: What, then, does the right, hon. Gentleman mean?

    ANTI-GERMAN RIOTS (DAMAGE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount of damage done to private property during the riots in the Metropolitan area in May; and whether any damages in respect of the riots have been assessed, or paid, to sufferers under the Riot Damages Act, 1886?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): No estimate can at present be given, and no compensation has yet been awarded or paid.
    Mr. KINGasked how many special constables in the Metropolitan area were injured during the riots in May; and whether compensation or expenses of medical attendance has been, or will be, granted in such cases?
    Sir J. SIMON: Twelve special constables were injured. I am glad to say in no case seriously. Medical aid was in most cases declined. In the four cases where there was medical attendance the expenses have been, or will be, borne by police funds.

    SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a considerable percentage of special constables in certain parts of the Metropolitan Police district consists of young men of age eligible for the Army or Navy, many of whom are unmarried men; whether he is aware that the older members of the special constabulary, having voluntarily given their services in order to free the young men of the ordinary police force for military service, feel aggrieved that young men of age eligible for the Army or Navy are enrolled in their stead; and will he have inquiry made?
    Sir J. SIMON: I can add nothing to the information given in my predecessor's reply on the 27th April to a question upon this subject put by my hon. Friend.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (CUSTODIS, LIMITED).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the firm of Custodis, Limited, is building chimney shafts for private companies and for municipal bodies in this country; that this firm took over the goodwill of the business of the Action Gesell-schaft Alphons Custodis, of Dusseldorf, at 119, Victoria Street, under the style of the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, and that the shareholders are, with three exceptions relating to three shares, Germans; whether he is aware that important contracts, and some with the Government, have been secured by Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company and by Custodis, Limited, since the outbreak of War; and whether he will take steps to ensure that this firm shall have no Government work, nor be allowed to compete with English chimney-constructing companies?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The hon. Gentleman has furnished me with information that various contracts for building chimney shafts have been entered into since the outbreak of War with Custodis, Limited. The facts with regard to the shareholders of the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, Limited, are as stated in the question. Both of these companies are incorporated in this country and are therefore entitled to carry on business here, but I may inform the hon. Gentleman

    167
    that last October an inspector of the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, Limited, was appointed by the Board of Trade in accordance with the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act in order to satisfy themselves that the company was not trading with the enemy.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has this firm any Government contract?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer that.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this company gave the company I am connected with a guarantee that no German capital was involved in it at all, and on the faith of that undertaking, given in writing, I myself gave them an order?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am not aware of what undertakings had been given by the company. The Board of Trade must be guided purely by the register of shareholders.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand that this company is still a German company?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, it is an English company, but the majority of shares are held by Germans, and on that account, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, I appointed an inspector.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If I bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that this company has given to firms in this country a statement that the share capital is all held by British shareholders, will he strike them oft' his list, and prevent them taking any further contracts for Government purposes? I have a letter from them.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure how far I have statutory powers to cancel contracts entered into by this company. I rather think I have not. But if the hon. Baronet will send me the information he suggests I will inquire into the matter.
    Sir J. D. REES: Have they any Government contracts?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
    Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman was asked that question in the question I put down.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member should address that question to the Office of Works, the Admiralty, or the War Office.

    CHEAP BOOKING FACILITIES (HOLIDAY RESORTS).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the distress caused by the War in places whose livelihood depends upon catering for visitors, he will make representations urging the railway companies to issue cheap tickets to holiday resorts which would be available by ordinary trains, so that all hindrance to military traffic would be avoided?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question of restoring cheap booking facilities on the various railways has recently received very careful consideration, but I cannot hold out any hope that an extension of the existing facilities of the character suggested can be given.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend not, at any rate, take into account the issue of the seven-day and fortnightly return tickets which have always been issued to holiday places all over the country; will he note that unless that is done there will be a considerable amount of distress amongst a large body of persons?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, those questions have been considered. I have suggested to the Railway Executive Committee that in so far as these cheap tickets are for the use, say, for example, boys' clubs and others who can only thus get to the sea-side or the country, that the matter should be sympathetically considered. I understood that the Committee was even now considering that question, and I hope soon to get a reply.
    Sir W. H. DAVIESasked whether it is intended by the Government to pay any compensation for compulsorily stopping summer excursion traffic by order of the Commander-in-Chief at Devonport?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The order stopping excursion traffic was necessary on account of naval requirements. If loss is alleged, and formal application is made to the Admiralty, the matter would be referred to the Commission, presided over by the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter, dealing with losses under the Defence of the Realm Acts. But I cannot, of course, express any opinion as to the result.
    Mr. WATT: Does the answer apply not only to Devonport, but to other places throughout the country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to see that question.
    Mr. WATT: I will put it down.

    MEAT PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been informed that during December last the owners of quantities of New Zealand lamb were offering them c.i.f., to arrive during February, March, and April, at 6¼d. per lb.; whether during these months sew season New Zealand lamb is expected to make its top price; whether these lambs are now making 8d. per lb. and over, and are only being put on the market sparingly so as to keep up the price; whether the Government intend to become parties to an arrangement so opposed to the consumers' interests; whether he is aware that there are at least a dozen firms in Smithfield, with premises in good market positions, who would sell the Government's meat on commission and who would submit their books to a chartered accountant to verify that they had returned a true market price and who would also make the Government covering advances against ships' documents or store delivery orders; whether, as the season advances, New Zealand lambs decline in price; and, if so, whether the Government propose to wait until private individuals have reaped the profits of all the best markets and then offer their own goods in a deteriorated condition on a declining market?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to put on the market without delay all meat which is the property of His Majesty's Government and is not required for the Allied Forces. The Government will be no party to any arrangement for keeping meat off the market for the purpose of raising prices, and if any firms through whom the Government are selling meat lend themselves to any such practice their conduct will be viewed with extreme displeasure. I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will furnish me with precise particulars of any cases in which he knows that there has been deliberate withholding of stocks from the market. It is the
    170
    intention of the Government that the meat should be handled by the firms who have dealt with it in the past, and that they should dispose of it through the ordinary channels.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with respect to the relatively high price of beef and mutton fixed by the New South Wales Government compared to that of New Zealand, he is compelled to pay any price this Government fixes and take any quantity they offer; whether he will cable out to New South Wales that their prices are too high and ask for a reduction; whether, in order to steady Colonial prices, he will ascertain through the British Consul at Rio Janeiro at what price a few cargoes of frozen beef can be shipped from the Sao Paulo, Rio Grande, and other cattle-raising districts of Brazil, and also in Venezuela where there is a freezing works capable of treating 120 cattle a day; and whether he will state what arrangements he is making at Colonial freezing works to see that only sheep and cattle up to specified condition are slaughtered for export at the prices named?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have to refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question No. 30 on 4th May and to express my confidence in the actions of the Governments of New South Wales and New Zealand, both as regards the prices fixed for frozen meat and the precautions taken to ensure the maintenance of quality. The development of new sources of supply is engaging my attention, and I am waiting for the results of the importation of some sample shipments from Brazil. The works in Venezuela are, I understand, at present fully employed on contracts for the French Army.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the three persons who have been asked to advise the Government concerning frozen meat arrangements are in each case financially interested parties; whether he proposes to consider advice from retail butchers and working men consumers; whether he will advertise in the "Meat Trades Journal" for a capable Smithfield man at a fitting remuneration to control the importation and distribution of such goods, and place upon this individual the responsibility of making the importation scheme as financially successful as possible; and, if this course be followed, will he exercise every

    171
    care to see that such a person is free of any interests likely to interfere with his giving his best work on the Government's behalf?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have to refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question 89 of 4th May, and to add that I am fully satisfied that such business interests as any of the gentlemen who have been advising the Government may have, in no way preclude them from giving independent advice. The regulations for the disposal of meat sold on behalf of the Government have been drawn up after consultation with representative retail butchers, and seem to me to be satisfactory.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that by Order in Council dated 29th April, 1915, and by subsequent notice served by the Board of Trade upon owners of refrigerated steamers, all the refrigerated steamers engaged in the River Plate trade, with the exception of steamers owned by one company, have been requisitioned by the Government for the conveyance of meat; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding this Order in Council and Board of Trade requisition, the firm of William Mathwin and Son, coal exporters and agents to the Admiralty at Cardiff, acting under instructions from the Director of Transports, on 31st May requisitioned on behalf of the Admiralty one of these refrigerated steamers for Admiralty coal service, notwithstanding the number of tramp steamers suitable for coal service which have escaped requisition by the Admiralty; whether he is aware of the increase in the price of meat charged to the British public and of the necessity of every refrigerated steamer being employed in the carriage of meat for supplying the British and French Armies and the British public; whether he some time ago informed the Director of Transports that the Board of Trade had requisitioned the refrigerated steamers engaged in the River Plate trade for the carriage of meat, giving the names of the steamers; whether the Director of Transports, with abundance of tramp steamers available for carrying coal, is entitled to requisition for coal service a steamer already requisitioned by the Board of Trade for the carriage of meat; and whether the Director of Transports is entitled to override an Order in Council and the acts of
    172
    the President of the Board of Trade and thereby ignore the food requirements of the British Army and the British public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the requisitioning of the vessel referred to was due to an oversight, and was cancelled as soon as this was discovered, namely, on the second day after the requisition was forwarded to the owners.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it was only cancelled when I called attention to the outrageous mistake made by the Admiralty agent, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the powers delegated by the Admiralty to Messrs. Mathwin and Son were in turn delegated by them to the office boy, and will he make representation in the proper quarter that such arbitrary powers as requisitioning ships shall only be put into the hands of those who know something about ships?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole subject of requisitioning by the Admiralty is a subject on which questions should be put to the Secretary to the Admiralty or the First Lord. I cannot answer for them.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Nelson, Line steamers are almost entirely insulated throughout and carry large quantities of meat under contract from the River Plate to London; whether he is aware that this contract was made some years before the War, and that meat has been, and is still being, carried under it at the original rate of freight without any addition or increase; whether several other insulated steamers are also carrying meat at pre-War rates, or very little advance on the same; and whether, seeing there has been practically no advance in freight on the great bulk of the meat carried by these vessels, he can state why the present retail price of meat is so high, and why such a considerable advance has taken place since August last in the price of meat charged to the British public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a large demand for frozen meat for the use of the British and French Armies. The consumption of meat by men under arms is much larger than the consumption by the same men in peace times, and the requirements of the French Government are almost entirely new, refrigerated meat having been consumed only to a very small extent in

    173
    France before the War. The pressure of these demands on the available supplies at a time when there is a shortage (due to War losses) of vessels equipped for the conveyance of meat from overseas has been the main cause of the high prices of meat which have prevailed since the outbreak of the War.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the cold storage in Liverpool is filled with meat, thus causing great delay to those steamers which have arrived, and are arriving with meat, and is the whole of this great supply of meat required for the Army?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was not aware of the condition of the stores of Liverpool and I cannot say how much of the meat in those stores is required for the Army, but the Army requirements are very large and certainly must be met.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Report will be issued containing the evidence and appendices laid before the Committee on Retail Coal Prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The evidence is in the hands of the printers and is expected to be issued this week.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the continued high price of coal, which is advertised by the London coal merchants as at the lowest summer prices; whether he has arrived at a satisfactory understanding with the merchants with regard to the limit of their profit; whether he is in consultation with the coalowners, and has any understanding been arrived at with them; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to take action to secure a lower price at the pit's mouth?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As has already been announced, I have arrived at an understanding with the principal London coal merchants for a limitation of profits during the summer and, I hope, the winter months also. I have been for some time in communication with representatives of the coal owners supplying London with a similar object in view. They have made a proposal which I cannot at present regard
    174
    as satisfactory, and I am not yet in a position to announce a definite arrangement.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of coal at present being charged to our Allies the Italians for the use of the Italian Navy and Government is 35s. a ton, whereas prior to the War the Italian Government were buying coal from us at 17s.; and is my right hon. Friend going to take steps to prevent our Allies, the Italians and French, paying these enormous prices for coal?
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the North of England the price of coal to household consumers in the last few weeks has been raised as much as 7s. 6d. at one time, and whether he proposes to take action to prevent that?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Potteries there has just been an increase of 2s. 6d. a ton on coal?
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London merchants had been told by the coal owners that instead of prices going down they would continue to rise into the winter? Will the right hon. Gentleman take speedy action in this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In answer to the last supplementary question, my information is that the price is not likely to rise this winter, so far as those with whom I have been in negotiation are concerned. I do not wish to make any arrangement with them to start off at too high a level. The various questions put to me on both sides are more or less new to me, and I cannot answer them without notice.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman adopt my proposal and fix a limit at the pit-head based on the prices of the preceding year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. I am not at all anxious to withdraw from my hon. Friend the credit of that proposal. That is exactly the basis on which I have been negotiating with the Midland Coalowners.

    LIVERPOOL DOCKS (CONGESTION).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that congestion in the docks at the port of

    175
    Liverpool is worse than ever, and that on the morning of 26th May seventy-eight vessels were waiting for berths; that of these vessels ten were at noon allotted berths, but were unable to utilise the same by reason of the sheds being congested with cargo from previous vessels; whether he is aware that three steamship companies occupying berths in the South Docks are frequently short of men to the extent of 500; whether he is aware that this congestion and shortage of labour causes delay and loss to shipowners and is largely responsible for increased freights and cost of food; whether he is aware that this congestion and shortage of labour is mainly due to the action of the Admiralty in continuing to use unduly this port for fitting out transports, notwithstanding the representations made to the Admiralty to utilise other ports less congested or free from congestion; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking action in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the facts are substantially as indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but I am glad to say that on Saturday last the number of vessels waiting allotment of berths had fallen to forty-five. Since the reply given to a similar question on the 6th May, the Admiralty, with the concurrence of the War Office and Board of Trade, have appointed a Committee at Liverpool with the object of co-ordinating naval, military and civil requirements at that port, and I hope this may help to reduce the congestion there.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding the improvement he indicates, the expected arrivals will soon bring this congestion to the same condition in which it was formerly, and that on the 5th inst. the three firms referred to were short of 841 men, and on the 7th 757 men?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not verify those statistics without notice, but I have great hopes of this Committee doing a good deal towards co-ordinating the requirements of the port and facilitating the discharge of vessels.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this congestion is largely due to the action of the Admiralty, has he made any representations to the Admiralty regarding this, and have they paid any attention?

    NAVAL WARRANT ENGINEERS.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in making additions to the higher ratings of the engineering branch of the Navy it is proposed to give favourable consideration to the claims for promotion of the warrant engineers, many of whom hold the 1st class certificate of the Board of Trade and have held chief engineering ratings in addition to having undergone periodical training on board His Majesty's ships?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As already stated, the rank of warrant engineer was created in 1903 for the purpose of providing a permanent reserve of warrant officers for the engineer branch of the Royal Navy. In this capacity they are a valuable reserve, as they supply the want most felt in the Engineering Department when a sudden expansion of the Fleet becomes necessary. Temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve have, as a rule, only been granted to engineers taken up with their vessels for service in the Fleet, and these officers do not serve in regular ships of war. These appointments are in no way permanent and terminate when the ship in which the officers are serving pays off.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Could it not be possible, considering the extremely good qualifications of this type of man, to give him his chance for the period of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the earlier part of the answer.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (SENTENCES IN IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many persons in Ireland have been imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act, and how many of them on the uncorroborated evidence of members of military, police, and naval forces?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The number of persons who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for offences under the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland since the commencement of the War is forty. In twenty-three cases no civil witnesses were put forward on behalf of the Crown.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be better to put an end to these picayune prosecutions altogether?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot agree with the hon. Member in that. We keep them down to the smallest possible limits consistent with safety.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he endorses the suggestion that naval, military, and police evidence is less valuable than civilian evidence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I should be very sorry to say that the evidence given by soldiers, sailors, and policemen belongs to that class of evidence that could not be taken uncorroborated.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the circulation of the "Daily Mail" permitted in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I believe the Irish people have that privilege.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether there was any but police evidence of the charge on which Vincent Poole has been sentenced by a Dublin magistrate to six months' imprisonment; and whether, seeing that the Irish Courts have for some years refused to convict of a serious charge on uncorroborated police evidence, he will take any action to mitigate it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answers to both parts of the question are in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state his reason for not intervening?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think the evidence in that case is quite sufficient.
    Mr. GINNELL: Police evidence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
    Mr. GINNELLasked (1) for what offence Sean Kilroy has been arrested and imprisoned in Dublin; if for an expression of his opinion on a public matter, what the words complained of are; if he has been tried, by what sort of Court and with what result; and where he now is; and (2) whether Mr. Sheehy Skeffington is now in prison under the Defence of the Realm Act; and, if so, will he state the charge and the words used if the offence consisted of a speech?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Both prisoners are charged with making statements at meetings at Beresford Place, Dublin, calculated to discourage recruiting contrary to Regulation No. 27 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914. Milroy's case was down for hearing before a Dublin
    178
    City magistrate, on the 2nd instant, but was adjourned for a week on the application of counsel for the prisoner, who is now in Mountjoy Prison. Sheehy Skeffington has not yet been placed on his trial. I am not prepared to give further information with regard to the trial of these men before it takes place.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any opportunity of comparing the words used by these two gentlemen with the words that have been allowed to be used in this country?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is a suggestion which I am sure his counsel will take full advantage of.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this case the prosecuting authorities were guided by the intention of the writers or speakers, or by the effects of their words?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is almost impossible to say whether any written words have any effect whatever. You have to define the grammatical construction to be placed upon the language, and decide the consequences.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Are we to understand that whilst it is an offence in Ireland to endeavour to stop recruiting it is not an offence in this country?
    Mr. BIRRELL: My obligation begins and ends with Ireland.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if action is taken against individuals in Ireland who try to prevent recruiting, the circulation of the "Daily Mail" and other Harmsworth publications is permitted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Chief Secretary is not responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, in Ireland."] The hon. Member asked why measures are not taken in England, and the Chief Secretary is not responsible for that.
    Mr. GINNELLasked under what Statute the police in Ireland are now threatening women and girls with imprisonment unless they give information about their male relatives satisfactory to the police; and if this conduct is in excess of instructions what steps he will take, and when, to have it discontinued?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As the police in Ireland are not exercising pressure of the nature suggested, the second part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hop. Gentleman what happens to a man in Dublin who is suspected of being a suspect?
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House on what information he denies the allegation contained in this question?
    Mr. BIRRELL: On the best possible information.
    Mr. GINNELL: Police information only?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all.

    MALE POPULATION (UNITED KINGDOM).

      COMPULSORY REGISTRATION.
      General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of difficulties that have arisen through the withdrawal of skilled workmen from certain industries, he has considered the advisability of taking measures for the compulsory registration of the male population of the Kingdom with a view to the employment of such men in the most effective manner for the energetic prosecution of the War?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This question is receiving the careful consideration of the Government.
      General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I will put another question to the right hon. Gentleman on this point early next week.

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS.

      STATE COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE.
      Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether in the case of the destruction of private property caused by the attacks of aircraft, such as occurred last Friday night in the Thames district, it is proposed to grant compensation to the individuals owning the property from public sources?
      Mr. FERENS: I desire to ask a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether the Government will have the damage caused by the Zeppelin raid on the East Coast on Sunday investigated with a view to compensation being granted to the sufferers?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the insurance companies who are taking this risk definitely state that if the Government pay the claim, although they have received the premium, they will pay no claim to the persons insured?
      Mr. RADFORD: Will the Prime Minister in his answer include the recent raid on London?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Relief will be granted in these as in previous cases. The Government are also considering the possibility of the initiation of a scheme of insurance of property against war risks.

    RECRUITING.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any obstacle is being placed in the way of superintending and other clerks of military age in district and records offices re-enlisting; and will he take the necessary steps to notify all such clerks that, in the event of their re-enlisting, their present positions will be kept open for them after the termination of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: The clerks in question are doing work which is of importance from the military point of view, and it is not possible to give any pledge that they will be released in order to join the fighting ranks. Permanent clerks may re-enlist, but they must remain on their present work. If temporary clerks enlist, no promise can be made that their present position can be kept open for them.

  Telephone Service.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a telephone call office at Keady, county Armagh, would be a convenience to the residents in that place and the city of Armagh and other neighbouring towns, and would probably lead to a profitable development of telephonic communication in the district; and if the Post Office will take immediate steps to afford the desired facilities?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of affording the telephone service desired at Keady would be considerable, and as the

  181
  funds available for extensions of the telephone service have necessarily been restricted, in view of the urgent requirements of the Government in connection with the War, I regret that I am not in a position to provide a call office at Keady at the present time. I will ascertain on what terms the service could be provided when funds become available.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: The right hon. Gentleman says that the cost would be considerable. Has he made any inquiries as to the cost?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: What is the amount?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I could not give it without notice. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Postal Service (Ireland).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the inhabitants of Coachford, near Cork, are restricted to one postal delivery daily and that letters for that district lie in Cork from 11 a.m. till the next morning; if a second delivery could be arranged by sending a mail-bag out from Cork by the train which leaves at 2.40, at a cost which would not exceed 3s. a week; and if he will give instructions for this additional facility to be afforded?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The existing postal service in the Coachford district is carried on at a heavy loss, and I regret that I am therefore unable to sanction the provision of a second delivery, the expense of which—I may add—would not be limited to the cost of conveyance of the mail-bag by railway.

  Scottish Municipal Sewers (Income Tax Charges).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Commissioners of Income Tax are charging all municipalities in Scotland Income Tax on the valuation of their sewers, while the same tax is not being exacted from many cities in England; if some cities are being asked to pay the tax for three years, others for two years, and others for only one year; and, if any of these inequalities are found to exist, if the Government will postpone the collection of this tax until it can be imposed upon all cities alike?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Sewers which are rateable are also chargeable to Income Tax, and the practice throughout Great Britain conforms to this principle.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case or not that this tax is charged on sewers in Scottish towns, and is not at the present moment charged on sewers in English towns?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is the same principle, and it has only recently been decided in the House of Lords.
  Mr. HOGGE: But is it the fact that at the moment the only towns where this is-being charged are Scottish towns?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If that is so, it is because such sewers are only rateable in Scotland.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend take the view that, owing to the claims that are being made upon municipalities and the large increase in rates, until all these sewers are chargeable they shall not be charged in Scotland?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Income Tax charge follows the rates. If the hon. Member objects to the rates he must move the proper authority to introduce legislation.
  Mr. HOGGE: I desire to give notice that to-morrow, at the close of the discussion on Scottish Estimates, I will raise the question of the inequality of the taxation of Scottish and English sewers.

  Indian Specie Bank.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Thakor Sorheb of Morvi is being sued as a director of the Indian Specie Bank, in liquidation; and, if so, whether ruling chiefs in India can be sued in British-Indian Courts; and, if so, whether any and, if so, what protection is afforded to such chieftains in this behalf?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Thakore Sahib of Morvi was a director of the Specie Bank, which is now in liquidation. The Indian Civil Code contains provisions under which I a ruling chief may be sued with the

  183
  consent of the Government of India, or in certain cases of the local Government. In exercise of their authority the Government of Bombay have granted permission to sue His Highness, who has appealed to the Government of India. His appeal is under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CHAPLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the business in Supply will be on Thursday?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Board of Trade Vote.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS IN CAMERA).
Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made by his colleague who represents Dundee as to the right of Parliament to sit behind closed doors, and will he now give an opportunity to Parliament of discussing the conduct of the War behind closed doors?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
Sir A. MARKHAM: Was the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee made without the sanction of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, because his statement was quite definite?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (SALARIES, ETC.).
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a salary not exceeding five thousand pounds a year to the Minister of Munitions; and of such salaries and remuneration as the Treasury may determine to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry of Munitions, and of all expenses incurred by the said Ministry, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, under any Act of the present Session for establishing, in connection with the present War, a Ministry of Munitions of War; and for other purposes incidental thereto."—[Sir John Simon.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I gave notice last night that I would ask a question in connection with this matter to-day. I am anxious to know first in regard to the amount stated to be paid to the new Secretary of State, and I want to know whether we are to understand that the new Minister of Munitions is to get the whole of this £5,000? There have been rumours that behind the back of Parliament an arrangement has been made that the amount of remuneration that is fixed for particular offices in the Cabinet has been altered, and that any decision that may be come to by Parliament as to the value of the work performed in a particular office no longer stands good, but that outside that Members of the Cabinet themselves place a value upon the services of any particular office. I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether the House of Commons is to understand, in sanctioning this £5,000 to this new office, that any portion of it is mortgaged by consent at the present time. It is not only a question of this particular case, but it sets a precedent which might give rise to a good deal of discussion in future. It seems to me that it would be ridiculous for the House of Commons to solemnly meet and pass, say, £2,000 for the post of, say, Minister of Education, and then outside by an arrangement with the rest of
  192
  the Members of the Government for that amount to be raised to something over £4,000 a year. I should be glad, therefore, to know whether we are to understand that the whole of the £5,000 is to go to the Gentleman who is appointed to this office. I hope that the House, and certainly the occupant of the post, will not imagine for a moment that in any observations I am making I am in any way doubting the amount that is being passed, because for my part I think no money could be too much to pay to the new Minister for the responsible work he has in hand.
  The Resolution provides for the appointment of two Under-Secretaries. The salary is not mentioned. There is a precedent for the salary of an Under-Secretary of any Department being fixed by the House of Commons, and for my part I think that this fixing of salaries for Under-Secretaries who are practically officials in the House ought to be a matter rather for the House of Commons than for the Treasury; or, if that were not possible, that we should at least have some definition on behalf of the Treasury as to what they propose to pay to this particular post. I observe that provision is made for two Under-Secretaries in this new Department, and that they are both to be Members. I imagine that there is to be one for this House and one for the other House. I would only make the suggestion, with regard to the appointment which we have not yet had announced, the second Under-Secretary, that consideration as far as possible should be given to the appointment of a man with great experience in business, and especially in regard to the making of big contracts. I think that the question of any political ideas which he may have, or of any party to which he may belong, might very well be set aside at the present time. The public outside, in the particular emergency in which we find ourselves, are asking for men of experience in business. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is able to give us the name of the additional Under-Secretary who is to be appointed; but I hope, if he cannot, that he will convey that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman who will make the appointment. I hope that I may have an assurance with regard to these points.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): I will deal first with the second of the two matters to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which he mentioned at the end of the Debate yesterday. I would

  193
  point out that it is entirely in accordance with our established practice to provide that the Treasury should fix the salary of Under-Secretaries. The two instances which would, I am told, illustrate that would be the case of the Under-Secretary of the Board of Education and the case of the Under-Secretary of the Local Government Board. Of course, it is quite understood that the Treasury, in fixing such salaries, does not in any way remove the matter from, the survey of the House of Commons, because, of course, these questions come before the House on the necessary Votes to which they refer. My right hon. Friend asked whether an announcement would be made as to the second Under-Secretary in contemplation. I am not authorised to make that announcement, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) will, I am sure, make that announcement at the earliest possible moment. I will certainly make it my business to convey to him the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made as to the character of the choice which will be made. There was one other matter which my right hon. Friend mentioned first. He spoke as if this Resolution was authorising and fixing a salary of £5,000 a year. It is not quite so. My right hon. Friend will agree that it is authorising not more than that sum. That, again, is in accordance with practice and in accordance with what is proper; but certainly, if there were any question about it, we should be prepared to contend that whoever undertakes the duties of Minister of Munitions is worth the full salary of one of those on the higher scale of Cabinet payments.
  My right hon. Friend asked, "Are we to understand or not that there is some arrangement between the Members of the Cabinet as to sharing the salaries which Parliament allots to them?" Really I am as anxious as anybody that Parliament should have its proper control over everything which properly appertains to it, but if any such arrangement were made it would be purely a domestic matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and "No!"] I suggest, moreover, that there is something a little invidious in inquiring into such matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and "No!"] After all, if one of us in this House, who happened to be possessed of more worldly goods than another, thought it right to assist another Member not in the same position it would be misunderstanding the real relations
  194
  which I hope will always exist between the House of Commons and its various Members if that were made a matter for public discussion. I would only say about it that of course the statutory salary which attaches to a given office remains the salary of that office, and is the sum, neither more nor less, which is payable to the holder of that office. He gets neither less nor more, but the way in which he is minded to dispose of that sum, I suggest with every desire to have public discussion on public matters, is not a matter which concerns hon. Members.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think that the speech we have heard from the Home Secretary is really most extraordinary. Here the House is asked to-day to vote a salary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs of £5,000 a year. The House does not grudge that salary. We know that he is well worth that salary, but in point of fact we know that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to receive that salary, because he is going to divide it with Gentlemen whose salary Parliament has fixed at £2,000. We understand that the Lord Chancellor who receives £10,000 is also to divide his salary with Members of the Cabinet who receive £2,000. If we are to take it as a precedent because a man happens to be possessed of more worldly goods than another man, then it is an argument at once why every Member of Parliament who is a Minister of the Crown and who is in receipt of private income should not receive the salary which Parliament says is his due.
  Mr. ALDEN: On a point of Order. Is it strictly in order to Debate this matter on the question of the salary of the Minister of Munitions? It seems to me that we are entering into a private matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter for the taste of hon. Members, It is not a matter which it would be out of order to discuss on the question whether the salary of £5,000 is necessary or not.
  Mr. ALDEN: I do not object to the £5,000 being discussed, but I object to the discussion of the salaries of all the other Members of the Cabinet, and the question whether it is right to divide their salaries or not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The point raised, I understand, is that, although the House is voting £5,000 a year to the Minister of

  195
  Munitions, in consequence of some private arrangement he will not receive the whole of that sum, or, having received it, he will pass on a certain amount of it to somebody else. That is a matter which I must leave to the taste of hon. Members to discuss or not. I think it is relevant and in order, as far as the point of Order is concerned.
  Mr. ALDEN: I am very sorry to press my point. If the Home Secretary gives an assurance now that the new Minister of Munitions will receive his £5,000 a year, will it still be in order to debate the point?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt that he will receive the money. The question is what will he do with it when he has received it. That is the point which some hon. Members are anxious to discuss.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Supposing, for the sake of argument, one of the Ministers receives his £5,000. Has this House any right to debate how he is going to spend it?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: You, Sir, have given your ruling on that point. As to whether it is good taste to raise this question or not, that is for me to decide according to my duty and my responsibility to my Constituents. We are voting public money. We are not voting private means to individual Members of Parliament. We are voting the money of the public for a specific object, and that is a wholly different matter. What is really happening is this: it is a question of the division of the spoil. It is for that reason, and for that reason only, that this extraordinary position has arisen, in which, although Parliament may decide that a Member is worth the full salary to which his office entitles him, he is not to receive that salary, because otherwise unanimity cannot be procured amongst the Coalition Government. The hon. Member who represents the Labour party (Mr. Duncan) seems to be averse to this question being mentioned now. I take it it is for the reason that one of his colleagues who would have received £2,000 a year is going to receive under this pooling arrangement another £2,400 a year. It is all very well for the hon. Member—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the salaries of other Ministers. Strictly speaking, he is entitled to discuss what salary shall be allotted to this particular Minister; but to go into the question of
  196
  what balance will remain in the pockets of other Ministers after a certain arrangement has been carried out is quite beyond the question before the House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am credibly informed that the proportion each member of the Coalition Government will receive was worked out by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. At all events, I wish to place on record my protest against this pooling of salaries. The principle which the Home Secretary has laid down, that a member who happens to be blessed with worldly goods need not take his salary, is one which we must remember in future. If the office of Lord Chancellor is worth not £10,000 a year, but only something over £4,000, we must remember that when we come to reconsider these salaries in time to come. The Home Secretary seems to have forgotten, however, that we have no power to deal with the salaries of Secretaries or Under-Secretaries, as no increase can be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown. If Cabinet Ministers pool their salaries, are the Under-Secretaries also to pool theirs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Resolution.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We are voting salaries not only for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but also for the two Under-Secretaries. Is it not therefore in order to ask whether this pooling arrangement is to apply also to these Under-Secretaries?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Their salaries are to be fixed by the Treasury by-and-by. The salary of the Minister of Munitions is being fixed by the House, and that is why the House is now discussing it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is not the House granting the authority to the Treasury to fix these salaries? Although Parliament may grant a certain sum, it may be altered because of this private arrangement between Members. I shall not carry the matter to a Division, but I wish to protest strongly against any arrangement of the kind.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I confess that I have listened to this discussion with surprise and pain. There is one question, and only one question, before the House, and that is whether the person to be appointed to this new office is to receive a salary which shall not exceed £5,000 a year. I submit to the House with

  197
  great confidence that no other consideration is relevant than whether or not the office deserves such a salary. If you are going into the sort of questions which my hon. Friend has raised, as to how a Minister is to dispose of his salary, or what his personal or private means may be, then there is an end to the decency of Parliamentary debate. As long as I am a Minister of the Crown—and I speak not only for myself, but for all my colleagues—I absolutely deny the right of the House of Commons to inquire for a moment how we spend the money which the State votes to us. If any other rule were adopted, or any other practice sanctioned, we should inevitably be led into the discussion of what were the private means of particular persons who accept office in the State. Five thousand pounds a year is a great deal to one person, but to another man it is comparatively little. For my part, I will never consent to hold office in this House under the Crown subject to the condition that the House of Commons, or any other body in this country, shall have the right to inquire how I spend the money which I receive. I have no concern in this matter myself; therefore I can speak quite freely. If my right hon. Friends and colleagues choose, by a domestic arrangement among themselves, to determine how their salaries are to be allocated, I submit that that is not a matter for the House at all. Let us come back to the question whether the holder of this office shall be entitled to receive £5,000 a year. That is the question, and the sole question before the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to express my great regret that this subject has been raised this afternoon. I have on one or two occasions ventured to make a protest against some action of the Coalition which I thought bad on grounds of public policy. I have made those protests in the interests of freedom of discussion in this House, and I hope the House of Commons will vindicate its right to freedom of discussion by discussing only questions of public policy. I do not go so far as the Prime Minister in excluding the discussion of this matter. I think that it might quite well have been discussed in ordinary times, when we had no great over-mastering interest such as the War. But at the present time the discussions in the House of Commons should be concerned with the policy of the Government in relation to the prosecution of the War,
  198
  and this domestic matter has no relation whatever to the prosecution of the War. I am glad to see that the Coalition have adopted one of the precepts of the Early Christians. I hope they may emulate their example in another direction, and that this also may be said of the Coalition: that you may know the Members of the Coalition Government by how they love one another.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope I am as good a Radical as any man in this House. I hope I am as anxious as any Member of this House to see the House maintain its control over the public purse. I should like the average Member here to try to visualise to himself the impression that this discussion is going to make upon the country. In this morning's paper there are the names of over one hundred dead, and there are thousands of British men who have been wounded, perhaps for life, in the course of the bloody argument in Flanders, yet at a time like this you have hon. Members who have been dignified by the Crown who can come here and raise these petty personal matters. For God's sake, Gentlemen, be Britons!
  Sir R. COOPER: I cannot allow this occasion to go by without adding a word to express my feelings of horror at the direction in which this new Parliament is very fast; going [HON. MEMBEHS: "It is not a new Parliament!"] It is a new Government. If that is to be the temper in which Members of this House are going to approach every little detail concerning the actions of the Government, I can only express my humble opinion that we are living in a fool's paradise and are burying our heads in the sands. [Interruption.] I confess I do not in the least understand the temper that animates Members of this House at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  Mr. CROOKS: We do not get wisdom every day.
  Sir R. COOPER: The one purpose to which we have to apply ourselves is how to get through this War, a subject upon which I believe most hon. Members hold optimistic views. For my part, I cannot help expressing the opinion, in the hope that it may make some little impression, that we are faced with the fact at the present time that we are not winning this War, and if this is the manner in which every action of the Government is going to be approached, we ourselves will be doing the utmost that is possible to bring

  199
  defeat upon this country, in which case it does not matter one iota what salary we are going to pay to the new Minister of Munitions. I hope every Member of this House will—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] Unfortunately we are very far from agreement on this matter, judging from the cheers with which the remarks of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) were met from different parts of the House. As one of the young and humble Members of this House I want to utter a protest against the spirit that has animated it every day Parliament has met since the new Session began. I hope for my part that every Member will unite in giving their fullest support to the present Government, leaving these domestic matters entirely in the background.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Ministry of Munitions.)
    (1) For the purpose of supplying munitions for the present War, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Munitions who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
    (2) The Minister of Munitions may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may determine.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Motion on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel)—[to postpone Clause 1]—is not in order. I call upon him to move his other Amendment.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "for the purpose of supplying munitions for the present War."
    I put this Amendment on the Paper mainly with the view, if possible, of obtaining from the Home Secretary an assurance with regard to the limitations of the post proposed to be created. The right hon. Gentleman might possibly be able to give us an assurance—that is all I ask for—that the work of the office will deal in the main, as I understand it is intended to deal, with the better supply of ammunitions, and that should there be
    200
    any occasion for asking for any increased powers with regard to the larger question of the mobilisation of labour, the House will have a special opportunity of considering the matter.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The right hon. Gentleman has put his point in a very few words, and I will endeavour to answer it as briefly. I know, of course, that he does not desire to strike out these words, because they govern the whole purpose of the Bill. I announced yesterday, and am glad to be able to repeat to-day, that the Member who is proposed to be appointed Minister of Munitions proposes to take the earliest opportunity of making a full statement, both as to the organisation he has in view and as to the policy that he intends to pursue. I might as well indicate at once to the House, in order that there may be no misapprehension, that when we come to Clause 2 we shall make it quite plain, by the insertion of a single word, what is really there involved, that is, by inserting the word "administrative" before the words "powers and duties." I will not deal with that matter now, but my right hon. Friend will see that that proposal which we intend to make will in effect secure the object he has in view.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BOOTHrose—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not object when I put the request for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I rose while you were putting the Question.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not the correct way.
    Mr. BOOTH: I rose before you put the Question.
    The CHAIRMAN: When an hon. Member asks leave to withdraw an Amendment he has moved, no other hon. Member has a right to rise to continue the Debate until the request for leave to withdraw has been negatived.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I understood from former rulings that the fact that an hon. Member rose, and did continue the Debate, meant that leave was refused.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wrong there.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "Minister" ["as the Minister may determine"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Treasury."
    It seems to me that the Government have used the wrong word here. The Subsection says:—
    "The Minister of Munitions may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may determine."
    I think it is in accordance with the general rule that the Treasury should make the appointments. It would make the Clause consistent with Clause 3, which provides that the
    "secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry"
    shall be paid
    "such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine."
    The Amendment makes the Bill consistent with the Resolution passed by the House on Report. It is the universal custom that the extra expenditure incurred in connection with any staff should be sanctioned by the Treasury.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend calls attention to the fact that in Clause 3, the financial Clause, it is for the Treasury to determine what are to be the salaries or remuneration of secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry. On the other hand, he points out that the word at the end of the first Clause is not "Treasury" but "Minister"—the Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may determine. My right hon. Friend will see the reason when I remind him that the new Ministry has the offer of service, which is very greatly appreciated, volunteered by business men of high standing and experience who entirely refuse to receive any payment for what they are proposing to do. In such circumstances it is right that the Minister should appoint those servants, though, on the other hand, any servant or any officer of the Ministry who receives any payment whatever, receives it because the Treasury has determined what the amount should be. I think my right hon. Friend will see therefore that, in order to provide for the case of volunteers, the language of the Bill is really correct.
    Mr. LOUGH: As I understand that the principle that I have suggested is accepted by my right hon. Friend as regards any paid servant—and I certainly would not suggest anything which would restrict their getting voluntary service—I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will now put the question I wished to put a few moments ago, that is to why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) is not here? I understood the Home Secretary yesterday to indicate that the reason for his absence was that he was not entitled to be here. As that objection does not obtain to-day I hope we may be assured that he is attending to this work. If an assurance had been given yesterday that he was busy on munitions, no one would have said another word. The only reason given was that he was not entitled to be here, whereas Mr. Speaker yesterday asserted that he was still a Member of the House and can attend. On that I was expecting an intimation that he was occupied with his duties, and that the House should be asked to excuse him; and we should all agree. In the absence of such assurance I beg to ask my question.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend is either Minister of Munitions or he is not Minister of Munitions. If he is Minister of Munitions, he is not entitled to attend. If he is entitled to attend here, he is not Minister of Munitions. That, I think, is clear. As a matter of fact, he is not Minister of Munitions, because there is no such office until this House passes this Bill. Until it is passed in another place and receives the King's Assent, there will be no such person in the service of the State. It follows that my right hon. Friend is entitled to be here, but not as Minister of Munitions. He is engaged upon important business and will be here very soon.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will this be made retrospective as to the salary of the Chancellor?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Minister.)
    (1) The Minister of Munitions shall have such powers and duties in relation to the supply of munitions for the present War as may be conferred on him by His Majesty in Council, and His Majesty may also, if

    203
    he considers it expedient that, in connection with the supply of munitions, any powers or duties of a Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, should be transferred to, or exercised or performed concurrently by, the Minister of Munitions, by Order in Council make the necessary provision for the purpose, and any Order made in pursuance of this Section may include any supplemental provisions which appear necessary for the purpose of giving full effect to the Order.
    (2) Any Order in Council made under this Section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "such" ["such powers and duties"], to insert the word "administrative."
    I make this proposal because it is of all things desirable that there should be no possibility of misunderstanding. Speeches were made yesterday which showed that some hon. Members thought that the words as they stood in the Bill might be capable of a wider meaning. That is not a view which was held by everyone. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) told us yesterday that he certainly took the narrower view of the words, but it is better to remove all doubt, and inasmuch as all that we had in mind from first to last was that the Minister of Munitions by these words should get certain administrative powers and duties, it is better to put the word "administrative" in. The effect is of course that these are not, and could not possibly be, words which would confer on him any legislative powers whatever. For instance, it would not empower him to impose penalties on people for doing things which they were otherwise lawfully entitled to do, and the consequence is that Clause 2 in effect says that the powers and duties of the new Minister fall into three classes. There are, first of all, certain administrative powers and duties, such as are first mentioned; there are, secondly, certain powers and duties which are transferred to him from one or other of the existing Departments picked out, say, of the War Office and put in his charge instead of remaining at the War Office; and, in the third place, there are powers and duties which he will acquire not by transfer, but by sharing them and exercising them concurrently with existing Government Departments. I hope the Committee will see that the word
    204
    which we now insert does really meet, as it is designed to meet, the anxieties which were expressed in certain quarters yesterday. The Bill as originally drawn, in my belief, was perfectly right, but be that as it may, it is much better to put the word in and get this possible bone of contention disposed of and proceed with the business of manufacturing munitions as fast as we can.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: For the purpose of having this matter perfectly clear I should like to ask whether this word "administrative" would permit the Minister of Munitions to obtain a general register of all persons of military age for industrial purposes?
    Sir J. SIMON: Compulsorily?
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: Yes.
    Sir J. SIMON: No, he could not possibly.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I was anxious that there could not even be the beginning of the thin end of the wedge of any kind of compulsion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There is a series of Amendments standing in my name and that of certain of my hon. Friends with a view to preventing any new powers or duties being imposed upon the Minister of Munitions. They were put down with a view to prevent wide powers, unnecessarily as we believe, ever being conferred on this Minister by the Bill in its original form. The Home Secretary has referred to the discussion which we had yesterday, in which there was a very strong division of opinion on both sides of the House as to the meaning of the earlier part of Clause 2. I am glad that, although the Home Secretary then assured us that the earlier words could not bear the construction that I am certain others put upon them, he is now introducing this Amendment in order to prevent the slightest misconception on the matter. As I and those who have taken the same view as myself in this matter believe that the Amendment which the Government now proposes prevents any wide extension of the powers of the Minister of Munitions in regard to which suspicion was entertained yesterday, it is our intention not to persist in them, but to accept that offered by the Government.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will my right hon. Friend also insert the word "administrative" before the words "powers and duties." That is the part of the Bill in which great widening powers may be given. The first three lines of Clause 2, to which the Amendment applies, would seem really to be confined absolutely to the production of munitions, but afterwards the powers to be transferred are greatly widened. His Majesty may also, if he considers it expedient, transfer any powers and duties to any Government Department or authority, and that might include any local authority which has some legislative power, as well as a Government authority.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The assurance of the Home Secretary just now with reference to the qualification that the insertion of the word "administrative" involves is quite satisfactory, but there is one point upon which he gave us no enlightenment. As I understand his last speech, this Clause proposes to confer on the Minister of Munitions the right of administration of the various Defence of the Realm Acts. The powers of the Defence of the Realm Acts are very wide, and as I understand the situation there is practically nothing under the plenary powers conferred by the various Defence of the Realm Acts to prevent the Minister of Munitions carrying out almost every item in the unauthorised programme which was published at Manchester the other day; and what I want to understand clearly is that under the proposed transfer to the Minister of Munitions of the indeterminate powers under the Defence of the Realm Acts we shall not have some procedure taken of an administrative kind, which is not in the contemplation of the Home Secretary at the present moment.
    Mr. ANDERSON: There is a misunderstanding on this point, and the future Minister of Munitions is very largely responsible for it. We are anxious that there shall be no undue debate on this matter, but his speech at Manchester has raised very grave suspicions among work people and throughout the Labour movement, and the point was that he might get large powers under the Defence of the Realm Acts and bring them to bear upon the question of munitions. He said:—
    "To introduce compulsion as an important element in organising the nation's resources of skilled industry and labour did not necessarily mean conscription in the ordinary sense of the term."
    206
    If the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that this is not in any sense the Cabinet policy, and that there is no intention of bringing these powers of compulsion to bear, so far as we are concerned there will be no reason at all why the Bill should not immediately go through without discussion.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I hope the Government will give no such undertaking. The Labour party do not speak for the working classes on this question at all. The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) made a speech yesterday in which he said, "Under no circumstances will we have compulsion in this country." I should like to ask him this: In the event of the voluntary system, which I believe will see us successfully through, failing, what will he do then? We have not reached that stage yet. The voluntary system has given us what we have. There are certain powers under the Defence) of the Realm Act which, in respect to certain slackers, ought to be put into operation. There was an excellent suggestion made by a recruiting agent of the Government, I believe, Mr. Bottomley, a former hon. Member of this House. He is now a recruiting agent, I believe, and the most effective recruiting agent of the Government, too. He has done very good work indeed. What Mr. Bottomley suggested at a meeting in Yorkshire was this, and it was received with great applause by all the workmen present, that where a man consistently got drunk and did not do his work the recruiting agent should tap him on the shoulder once and say, "If you do this again you are a soldier and work under military law." We cannot play with this question.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a question for another occasion. It cannot arise out of this Amendment, which is merely a drafting Amendment inserting what is the effect of this Clause.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My point is that I do not wish the powers limited, and it was only because the suggestion was made by certain hon. Members that their powers should be restricted that I went out of the line of order to urge upon the Government to stick to what they have got in the Bill and not to weaken the powers of the new Ministry.
    Sir J. SIMON: I will answer the points that have been raised in the hope that we may be able to conclude this discussion without reopening the very large

    207
    questions which really are not involved in this Clause, and to avoid the reopening of which was the object of the insertion of the words which I have proposed. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough) asked whether or not we should be prepared to qualify in line 15 the phrase "powers or duties" in the same way that we are qualifying it in line 11. We cannot do that, and I will point out why. In line 15 we are concerned with transferring certain existing powers exercised by certain existing Departments to the new Department. That new Department will not thereby acquire for the State any greater powers than exist already. The only difference will be that powers which have been exercised hitherto, it might be by the Admiralty, or it might be by the War Office, are powers which then can be exercised by the Minister of Munitions. That does not add one single bit to the extent to which powers may be exercised by the Executive without reference to Parliament. Not at all. It is a pure question of transferring from one hand to another hand powers which have already been defined and have already been conferred upon the Executive by Parliament either in the course of recent years or long ago. My right hon. Friend will see, therefore, that we should only produce confusion if we introduced the words to qualify the phrase in line 15 as he suggests. It would at once raise points of difficulty as to what would be left outside. There may very well be some exceptions, but, whatever the exceptions are, they ought to be transferred without qualification or variation to the new Department from the old Department.
    In the hope that we may, in these circumstances, avoid the very large questions which have by no means been decided by the House by the vote they gave yesterday or the vote they will give today, I should like to remind the Committee of what I said yesterday. I said yesterday, clearly and beyond dispute, something which I will claim leave to repeal here now. I interposed, and said on behalf of the Prime Minister and my other colleagues and the Government as a whole, that this Bill was a Bill to constitute a Minister of Munitions with a Department for that purpose, that there was no intention of using the Bill to procure by a side wind what the Bill does not plainly say, and that if any such powers are needed in respect of labour
    208
    they must be asked for from this House. I think those words were perfectly plain and clear. We have gone further to-day to secure that by the insertion of this word "administrative," and nobody can interpret this Bill in a different sense. I would ask under these circumstances that we might now have our Clause without raising afresh this very highly debateable subject, which really does not arise.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that under this measure we are now considering there will be no compulsory powers to transfer people from one vocation to another, because I understand that already on the Clyde notice has been given to a certain number of shipbuilding yards that they propose to close them. That is a very serious matter, and it affects some of my Constituents. It appears to me, from what I know of them, that a great deal more efficient work could be done by keeping the men where they are than by transferring them to some larger yards which are already overstocked. What you want to do is to redistribute your work and give everybody the opportunity of doing their work without overloading one yard and leaving entirely silent the machinery in another, at the same time leaving a lot of people out of work at the suggestion of a local committee which may or may not have some interest in the transfer.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to thank my right hon. Friend for the very full and ample way in which he has settled the doubts which were expressed on a previous occasion in regard to this matter. Those doubts concerned only the nature of the powers which were asked for by the Government. By the Amendment which he has proposed he has quite clearly and fully defined, as it seemed to some of us they were not defined before, the nature of the powers which the Government seek in this Bill. In no quarter of the House have I found any other desire than the desire to strengthen the hands of the Government in any way that will lead to the earliest possible victory in this War in which we are now engaged. The Government have now clearly defined the powers which they seek towards that end, and I am sure the vote of the House will be now as it has been in the past—a unanimous one.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I confess I am becoming somewhat impatient of this discussion.

    209
    Whilst we are talking here our brave men are being slaughtered in the trenches, and the reason is shortage of munitions. I think the sooner we get to work, and the sooner we cease talking, the better. I have always been opposed to the Liberal instrument of the Guillotine and the kangaroo, but I feel inclined to call upon the Prime Minister to put it into operation now.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Yesterday I expressed the fear that in the creation of this Department we were putting into the hands of the Minister of Munitions the power to exercise control over labour. Although the Home Secretary has introduced a word which he says will meet that objection, and which he says will co-ordinate certain departmental powers held by the War Office and the Admiralty at the present time, my objection has not been met. I expressed the view that the Minister of Munitions will be enabled to exercise a controlling power over labour through the Defence of the Realm Act, and my difficulty was created by the statement which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made in the course of his recent speech at Manchester. He said:—
    "Now I come to the part of labour, and here again I really must speak quite frankly. It is no good putting me into this post unless I am allowed to speak quite frankly to employers and to workmen alike. The employers are now under the Defence of the Realm Act, practically subject to complete State control for industrial purposes."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, dealing with the question of labour:
    "The second point is that we must have greater subordination in labour to the direction and control of the State."
    It seems to me that if the Minister of Munitions is to have complete control of labour—
    Sir J. D. REES: On a point of Order. I should like to know whether a discussion of the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is in order upon this Amendment. It has been mentioned once or twice, and no ruling has been given?
    The CHAIRMAN: Only so far as it is concerned with the definition of the word to be inserted, "administrative."
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: That is my point, that this word "administrative" does not meet the objection raised if the administrator is able to administer the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I have quoted the late Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, because he said in effect that once his office was constituted
    210
    he would have the power to subordinate labour under the Defence of the Realm Act. For that reason I think the objections raised against conscript labour from this side of the House are positively not met by the assurances now given by the Home Secretary. My objection remains to giving to any man this great and uncontrolled power to subordinate labour, as he suggests, in the interests of the State.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. COWAN: I beg to move, in Clause 2, after the word "War," to insert the words "and for the organisation of industry and the utilisation of labour and capital in connection therewith."
    The object of this Amendment is the reverse of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire. A layman, reading the Bill as introduced yesterday, would, I think, be forced to the conclusion that it did provide powers for the compulsory organisation of labour or for what certain hon. Members described as conscript labour. I believe the Ministry of Munitions to be created for the purpose of enabling the nation to win this War. Accepting the assurance of the Government that the shortage of munitions is our greatest handicap in this War, and realising that our brave soldiers are dying in the trenches because they have not enough munitions, I regard the whole discussion which has taken place yesterday and to-day as futile and mischievous, and if this Bill now introduced and amended does not give the Minister of Munitions the powers which he indicated in his speech at Manchester that he ought to have in order to make the output of munitions adequate for this tremendous occasion, I say that those powers ought to be expressly given.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to give powers other than administrative powers by his Amendment?
    Mr. COWAN: I must not say that in view of the Amendment that has been passed.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, if he does say so, I cannot put it.
    Mr. COWAN: Then I do not say so.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Amendment of the hon. Member is either inconsistent with what the Committee has already decided or else it is redundant on what the Committee has decided. He has given two

    211
    explanations of his proposal. According to the first it is inconsistent, and according to the second it is redundant. Whatever be the explanation, we must resist the proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LOUGH: In view of the explanation given already by my right hon. Friend, I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name [to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "and shall not have effect until laid before the House of Commons for thirty days."]
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), that seems to be also in the nature of redundancy; it does not add to or subtract from the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I am told that the form which my words would result in, namely, "varied, added to, or revoked," is a form very common in Statutes. It was furnished to me by a draftsman with a great deal more experience than either you or I.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will the Minister of Munitions under this Clause take over all contracts now in Canada? I understand that the War Office has given the Dominion Government special contracts in the Dominion. Will, or can, the Minister under this Clause take over these contracts?
    Sir J. SIMON: He could.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Then I would like to say that I have a letter from Hamilton, Canada, complaining, with regard to contracts executed in that country by certain firms in Hamilton, that native born Austrians and Germans are being employed. If we are having alien enemies manufacturing ammunition for us it is the duty of the Minister of Munitions to see that alien enemies are cleared out of the way where munitions are being manufactured. I have also a complaint, and I can raise the matter later on when the Minister has been appointed, that the contractors are not paying full salaries to the men who are doing the work.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a question of how the powers are to be exercised if they are to be given by the House, and
    212
    no doubt there will be an opportunity of raising these questions later on.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I understand that these contracts will be taken over by the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the powers that may be conferred on the new Minister of Munitions by His Majesty's Order in Council, and when does he expect the publication of those powers, because that is, after all, one of the most important points in this Bill. Shall we have the publication of the Order in Council before the discussion takes place, which has been promised, on the question of munitions? Personally, I do not want any delay, but I most sincerely hope that the widest possible power will be given to the new Minister. Apparently the Ordnance Department of the War Office have failed in their duty. I am sorry for it, but I do hope that the new Minister for Munitions will have complete control over this Ordnance Department. I do not think we can have two Departments conducting the same operations, and, therefore, I attach some importance to this matter, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly tell us when this Order in Council, conferring powers on the new Minister, will be published, and will it be published before the discussion takes place as to the methods which the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister for Munitions, is to adopt in carrying out the duties imposed on him by carrying out this Bill?
    Sir R. COOPER: I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the ruling which you gave a moment ago, and therefore I would like to ask, if I am in order, whether we can understand that it is the intention of the Government that the new Minister shall, in these powers, have the control of the whole contract system? I do not know whether you ruled that out of order a moment ago. We are in a difficulty, in as much as yesterday, on the Second Reading, the Home Secretary, for very good reasons, I am sure, did not give very much information as to what the powers, under this Clause, of the Minister for Munitions would be. But I think that every Member takes it—and I would like to know, if one may assume—that the new Minister under these powers will have the full control of the contracts that are in existence, as well as the new ones which are to be made.
    Mr. DENNISS: On a point of Order. The question of the transfer of the powers of the Ordnance Department to the Minister for Munitions has already been passed. The powers conferred by the Orders in Council have nothing to do with the powers of Departments, and therefore the last question put to the Home Secretary is, I submit, out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are now on the general question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill. At the same time we are not dealing now with the question of administration. We are merely considering what powers are to be given to the proposed new Minister, and not the way in which he shall exercise those powers, if he gets them.
    Sir J. SIMON: I may venture to reply briefly to the questions raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) asked whether or not the Minister for Munitions would take over pending contracts which were entered into with private firms earlier in the course of the War. It is certainly contemplated that he will have to take over many such contracts. Of course, it depends on what the contracts are. If the hon. Gentleman looks up the Order Paper he will see that in Clause 4 I propose to move a new Subsection, which will, in terms, authorise the taking over of those contracts. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) asked whether the Order in Council would soon be ready. I know that a great deal of work has been done upon it. Nobody knows better than he, owing to his great experience of the administration of one of the fighting Departments, that it is a very complicated subject and that a great deal of care has got to be taken to draw the line exactly. But I am told that the Order in Council is in a very advanced state. Of course, every Order in Council is necessarily published, as my hon. Friend knows, and I should hope that it is possible for it to appear before the Debate which will take place on the general subject of the Ministry of Munitions. On the other hand, it is very undesirable to postpone that Debate, and I would sooner not make a pledge. I will only say that we will do our utmost to produce the Order in Council at the earliest possible moment, and, of course, the sense of the House will be consulted as to the most suitable day for Debate.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton is one which the House ought to bear in mind, and which, no doubt, the country will bear in mind. He has been connected with one of the great fighting Departments, and he tells us that there has been mismanagement in the supply of ordnance by the Ordance Department. That is what we have been contending for.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I am sorry that I had not an opportunity of making a very few observations before the Home Secretary replied. It is entirely my fault, but the superior intelligence and wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman had the preference. This Clause deals with the powers which the new Minister is to possess. We have heard from the Home Secretary that the powers of other Departments are to be transferred to him, in so far as they bear upon the provision of munitions of war. But there is just this difficulty in my mind, that there may be powers possessed brother Departments which are not directly or obviously connected with the provision of munitions and yet which in certain cases have a very distinct bearing upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman who is to be the Minister for Munitions has told the country—and I think that the country received the intimation with very great satisfaction—that one of his chief works will be to get rid of red-tape. It is a very necessary provision before we can get many more munitions of war. I would like to ask the Government, if there is anyone who can reply, whether, for example, the powers now possessed and exercised by the Home Office with regard to the inspection of factories where munitions are being turned out will be exercised, as hitherto, by the Home Office, or whether they will be transferred to the Minister for Munitions?
    I do not know whether members of this Committee have noticed, as I have, recent cases which give great point to this particular consideration. A very short time ago a very large and important firm of engineers in Leeds found themselves in this position: They were employing a considerable number of women in turning out munitions of war, and there was a temporary breakdown in their machinery. In consequence of that it was necessary, in order to keep the whole factory going, so that the work should not be brought to a standstill, to work overtime, so as to make

    215
    up for the loss occasioned by this temporary breakdown. A prosecution was brought against the firm for an infringement of the Factory and Workshops Act. Evidence was given in which it was shown that the employment, generally speaking, was model employment. There were no complications, the conditions were admirable, the wages were high, and the amount of overtime was trifling. At the same time it could not be denied that a technical breach of the law had occurred. The stipendiary magistrate who heard the case had to say on the evidence that there had been a breach of the law. But he said, "At the present time, when we are all straining our utmost endeavours to provide the country with munitions of war, I am certainly not going to do anything to stop them, on a trifling matter of this sort, providing munitions for our Armies at the front." I think that that statement of the magistrate must commend itself to every sensible person in this country. But what must have been the shock to the sense of propriety, not only of people in this country but of our Allies abroad, to find that notwithstanding what the magistrate said, that he would inflict no penalty, the Home Office of their own act insisted on reopening the case, and that the Magistrate having said that a—
    The CHAIRMAN: Other hon. Members wanted to discuss the administration of the powers which it is proposed to confer and I drew their attention to the fact that we must keep ourselves to the question of what powers are to be conferred.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry if I have transgressed your ruling. My intention was to show by argument that the powers possessed by the Home Office as regarding the inspection of factories, at any rate factories engaged in turning out munitions of war, ought to be transferred under this Clause to the new Ministry, and it was in order to give point to that consideration that, I hope not improperly, I was giving an example from our recent experience to show how the improper exercise, as I consider it in the circumstances, of the powers of the Home Office was delaying the attainment of the object which we all have in view. I will not go further into it. I think that I have said enough to show that cases of that sort may arise when, owing to red-tape in other Departments, the clearing axe of the right hon. Gentleman who is to take over this new Department will be extremely useful, and that
    216
    he ought to be given free play in matters of that sort. An example of the same sort of thing are the powers exercised by the Board of Trade. I hope that these powers also will be transferred to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Munitions. The powers of the right hon. Gentleman are to extend to anything connected with the provision of munitions. One of the most important of matters connected with the provision of munitions—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to intervene again, but clearly if I admit the hon. Member I must admit all other hon. Members, and then we should have a full debate as to how the Minister for Munitions is to act if you give him the powers. The points which the hon. Member is raising are all covered by this Clause. Any administrative powers of any other Department may be transferred to this new Minister, but how he is to exercise those powers is a matter which is not to be discussed in the Committee of this Bill.
    Mr. McNEILL: With great respect, Sir, I do not think, if I may say so, that I have made myself quite clear. The point I am raising is not as to how the Minister is to exercise his powers, but whether or not particular powers shall be transferred to him. I shall not go into further details, but I certainly have not understood—from anything that has fallen from the Government Bench up to now—them to say that every sort of powers, of all Departments, including the Home Office or the Board of Trade, which can directly or indirectly have an influence upon the provision of munitions, shall be transferred to this new Ministry. If I have such an assurance then I have nothing further to say in the matter. I will only conclude by stating quite generally that I do hope, for example, that in regard to the powers of the Board of Trade, which are being at the present time and quite recently have been exercised in various matters in ways which have been very detrimental to the provision of munitions of war, that we shall see a completely new departure, and that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the new Department will be able to clear out of the way red-tape methods not only with regard to contract work with which he is concerned, but in other Departments of the Government which, at the present time, I believe are obstructive rather than helpful.
    Dr. ADDISON: The words of the Clause are, that where powers exercised by

    217
    Government Departments, not necessarily the War Office or the Admiralty, are needful in regard to munitions such powers may be transferred to the Minister of Munitions. It is not expected that the Ministry of Munitions would undertake all the practical work of the Home Office; still, as to certain of their powers, as those of other Departments, it may be desirable to transfer them to the Ministry of Munitions. It is because of this that the words "a Government Department" have been inserted in the Clause.
    Mr. McNEILL: Supposing it were brought to the knowledge of the Minister of Munitions that in some particular factory the work in which we are all interested was frustrated or delayed through the red-tape action of any Government Department, would the Minister of Munitions have power to go to that particular factory and say, "I am, for this purpose, going to take the place of the Home Office or the Board of Trade, or whatever Department it is, and I am going to clear them out, and take their powers over for this particular purpose. I am not going to allow any munitions of war to be delayed through any rules or regulations made by another Department." Would the Minister of Munitions have that in his power?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think that an answer should be given to that very important point.
    Dr. ADDISON: Of course the hon. Member will see that the case of a particular factory applies to the Ministry of Munitions, and while the new Department does not take over the whole of the duties of other Government Departments, I have no doubt that other Departments will act in co-operation With the Minister of Munitions, who will consult them, and the matter will be arranged.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid that assurance is not sufficient. We have had too many experiences in the past where Government Departments have not co-operated. They have been fighting each other, competing with each other, totally disregarding each other. We ought to see, as I hope we may, that there is going to be a different spirit from that which has ruled under red-tape regulations. Are we to understand that this particular Ministry will be vigorous enough to assert itself. That is what we want—not merely action in regard to individual works, or individual employers,
    218
    but against the officials of some other Government Department. Unless they are prepared to go into such questions as the hon. Member has indicated, so that the Minister can say, "The supply of munitions comes first," the House will not be satisfied.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Seal, Style, and Acts of Minister.)
    (1) The Minister of Munitions may adopt an official seal and describe himself generally by the style and title of the Minister of Munitions, and the seal of the Minister shall be officially and judicially noticed and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister or of a secretary or some person authorised by the Minister to act on behalf of a secretary.
    (2) Every document purporting to be an Order or other instrument issued by the Minister of Munitions and to be sealed with the seal of the Minister authenticated in manner provided by this Section or to be signed by the secretary or any person authorised as aforesaid shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be such Order or instrument without further proof, unless the contrary is shown.
    (3) A certificate signed by the Minister of Munitions that any Order or other instrument purporting to be made or issued by him is so made or issued shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "on" ["act on behalf"], and insert instead thereof the words "in that."
    Leave out the words "of a secretary" ["on behalf of a secretary."]
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert,
    (4) Where in connection with the undertaking of any duties or powers by the Minister of Munitions it appears to the Minister of Munitions and the Department or authority concerned that in any notice, order, contract, or other document, the name of the Minister of Munitions should be substituted for the name of any Department or authority, or that the name of any officer of the Ministry of Munitions should be substituted for the name of any officer of any such Department or authority, the Minister of Munitions may order that the substitution shall take effect, subject to

    219
    any limitations contained in the Order, and, where such an Order is made, the notice, order, contract, or document shall have effect in accordance with the Order.
    This is the Amendment to which I referred, in answer to the Member for Walsall, just now. The Committee will see that it deals with arrangements to be made between the Ministry of Munitions and other Departments whereby the name of the Minister of Munitions may be substituted for the name of any Department or authority in regard to contracts, notices, and things of that sort.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Ability of Minister and Secretaries to Sit in Parliament.)
    (1) The office of Minister of Munitions or of Secretary in the Ministry of Munitions shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to or sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, but not more than two such Secretaries shall sit as Members of that House at the same time.
    (2) The Minister of Munitions shall take the oath of allegiance and official oath and shall be deemed to be included in the First Part of the Schedule to the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "two" ["not more than two "], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
    My right hon. Friend proposes to have two secretaries in this House for this new Department. Most of the Departments in the State have only one. It may be that there is some good reason for distinguishing this new Department from other Departments by having two secretaries.
    Sir J. SIMON: This provision is really rather a limiting provision than anything else. It is a provision that there shall not be more than two secretaries, otherwise everybody in the House might be appointed an extra secretary to the Ministry of Munitions. In the circumstances, it is felt that there should be two secretaries to represent the new Department in this House. Other Departments of State which have two secretaries in this House are the War Office and the Admiralty.
    220
    [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes; they are not called in simple terms secretaries, but they act together with the Cabinet Minister, and both are Members of the House. That is the reason why it is thought necessary to have this limitation to two in the present case.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not think the statement of the Home Secretary is quite convincing, because, after all, we know perfectly well that when you assert you will take not more than two secretaries, the obvious interpretation is that the Government are not going to have two secretaries.
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I did not gather from the Home Secretary's statement that he committed himself to having two. I understand that he has not stated distinctly that there are to be two.
    Sir J. SIMON: I wish to be quite candid. I do not intend to make any mystery of it. I know enough of the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to know that he hopes to have two secretaries in the House to deal with the work which will come before them.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad to have that assurance. I am quite certain that there will be plenty of work for them to do, and a careful and experienced man should be appointed as secretary. I do not offer any objection, and I think that any demand made by the Minister of the new Department should certainly be welcomed by the House. I said so on the very First Heading of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Cessation of Ministry after the Close of the War.)
    The office of Minister of Munitions and the Ministry of Munitions shall cease to exist on the termination of a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War, or such earlier date after the conclusion of the present War as may be fixed by His Majesty in Council, and then any appointments made under the powers conferred by this Act shall be determined, and any powers or duties which have been transferred to the Minister of Munitions under this Act, shall without prejudice to any action taken in pursuance

    221
    of those powers or duties revert to the Department or Authority from which they were transferred.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words, "after the conclusion of the present War." ["Such earlier date after the conclusion of the present War."]
    The words which I propose to omit seem to me redundant in the first place; and, secondly, there is another and a better reason. It might conceivably be desirable to abolish the Ministry of Munitions before the War comes to an end. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Circumstances might arise in which there would be another rearrangement, and in that case, instead of repealing this Act, the Order in Council might bring the Ministry of Munitions to an end as a matter of arrangement. Therefore, it does give extra powers which are not in the Bill, and it conceivably might be valuable if this Amendment of mine, omitting those words, were adopted.
    Sir J. SIMON: As I understand, my hon. Friend proposes to leave out the second set of words, "after the conclusion of the present War," so that the Ministry shall continue until twelve months after the end of the present War, or that it may be brought to a conclusion at an earlier date by Order in Council. It does not appear that the words he seeks to leave out really alter the sense at all. But, on the principle that brevity is the soul of good legislation, I think it is as well to leave the words out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Munitions Act, 1915.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Edward Carson): I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words,
    "In this Act the expression 'munitions' includes arms, ammunition, warlike stores and material, and anything required for equipment or transport purposes, or for or in connection with the production of munitions, or any other thing required to be provided for war purposes."
    I beg to move this definition of the term "munitions," as was promised yesterday by the Home Secretary. I move it in a somewhat different form from which it appears on the Paper, and I think
    222
    it is very necessary that we should have every possible power to provide anything that may be necessary.
    5.0. P.M.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I had intended moving an Amendment. The definition, as it appears on the Paper, seemed to me to be very restrictive and not nearly to cover the ground, and give those powers, which all parties desire that the Minister of Munitions should possess. It is very difficult to follow a definition that is not on the Paper and I have hardly grasped it yet. I think it ought to be in the widest possible terms. They need not be put in force, but the Minister should have the power, so as not to have to come to the House as difficulties may arise from time to time. What I had particularly in mind was that we should have to supply all sorts of stores for railways in France and possibly Belgium, and we should have to obtain them from some direction or another. From that point of view it is desirable that the Minister should have complete control over those agencies of production.
    Sir E. CARSON: I may tell the hon. Gentleman that we considered his suggestions, and I think he will find that this definition is even wider.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS (Ecclesall, Sheffield): May I ask whether this definition includes aircraft?
    Sir E. CARSON: Certainly it will include aircraft. It will include "anything required to be provided for war purposes."
    Sir R. COOPER: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I am right in interpreting the whole meaning of this Bill and of this definition Clause in this way: That under the new Ministry the whole contract system, both at the War Office and the Admiralty, will be taken over by this new Department? That is a point I wanted to get information about a little earlier from the Home Secretary. I asked whether that is a correct interpretation, or whether, after this Bill has become law, we shall be left with two or three or four Departments dealing with one section or another of the vast number of materials that are wanted.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment. I have already told the hon. Baronet, on an earlier question, that that must be deferred till the Ministry is in existence, and then the hon. Gentleman can find opportunity for criticising their action.
    Sir R. COOPER: On a point of Order. If we cannot know what this Ministry and new Department is being created for, bow can we decide whether or not it is wise to create it? What I desired to really know was whether this Bill, and this Clause in particular, was meant to embody the whole contract system as affecting the War.
    Mr. WATT: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not see his way to put this Amendment on the Paper, especially as we did not hear him reading it, as he spoke in quite the Front Bench manner, in a whisper.
    Sir E. CARSON: If that is so, perhaps I may be allowed to read it again: "Munitions means arms, ammunition, warlike stores and material, or anything required for equipment or transport purposes, or for or in connection with the production of munitions of war, or for anything required to be provided for war purposes."
    Mr. WATT: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Bill as originally brought in had very wide powers, and considerable objection was expressed to those powers. The Home Secretary has to-day met the objections by inserting the word "administrative" before the word "powers." It may be that by this definition Amendment the Government are adding precisely the powers which were taken away in the earlier stage—that is to say, that the insertion of the word "administrative" is cancelled by the definition of munitions. We have not had an opportunity of considering the Amendment now proposed, and I would like an assurance that it does not take away with one hand what was given on an earlier part of the measure.
    Mr. HOLT: I really think the Committee have some right to complain of the way in which this definition Clause has been brought on. We had on the Paper a Clause which we understood, and to which we might be prepared to assent; then the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets up and moves a totally different Clause, which has a very much wider application, and there is no time whatever to consider it. I must say that that is anything but a satisfactory way of carrying emergency legislation through the House of Commons. For instance, the whole of the transport service could not have possibly been included under munitions unless there was a definition Clause. I want to know
    224
    what is the programme the Government have in mind as regards transport. Is it in their minds that this new Ministry is to take the place of the Admiralty, for instance, in negotiations with shipowners with regard to transport and equipment? I really think we ought to have a very clear statement from the Government as to what is in their mind in the alteration of this definition Clause. I was quite prepared to assent to the definition Clause as it originally stood on the Paper. I should like to have an explanation as to what they really intend to do over this very much extended area which they are covering.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I would press for a further explanation of what these last words mean, "Any other thing required for war purposes." It seems to me that that embraces everything. In answer to a question raised by an hon. Gentleman opposite, the right hon. Gentleman said that this includes aircraft. Are we to understand that the new Ministry will be responsible for the manufacture of aircraft of all kinds, and, if so, is it to be responsible for the manufacture of submarines or for the manufacture of torpedo destroyers, or torpedoes? It seems to me that the whole question has changed its aspect by this Amendment, and I really think we ought to have an explanation as to what is its meaning.
    Sir E. CARSON: I regret very much that the definition in the form in which I have moved it has not been on the Paper. The definition was enlarged because of representations made by certain hon. Members of the House that it was not clear enough. Myself, I doubt very much if it is anything more than an enlargement of the words and making clearer the words on the Paper, but it is absolutely necessary that nothing should be done which at any stage in the supply of munitions should hamper the new Ministry. That is the one thing we want to make clear. When you ask me whether I can here now distinctly draw a line as to whether this Ministry of Munitions is to take over certain existing powers in other offices, that is not a matter that is possible to do. You must leave it elastic, and leaving it so, from time to time Orders in Council will be passed if deficiencies are found in the first Order in Council. Therefore we are putting this definition in the very widest possible terms. An hon. Member asked about transports. So far as transports will be necessary and essential

    225
    for equipping our soldiers at the front, certainly the Minister of Munitions will have full power, and he must have full power. You cannot be going from one Department to another; that is just what we want to avoid. We want to give the fullest powers, so far as they are germane for the purpose of supplying munitions for the present War—the purpose set out in the first Clause.
    Reference has been made to various other matters, such as aircraft and submarines. Submarines is a matter for the Admiralty to look after, and they are very properly able and competent to do so, but the Ministry of Munitions will have to see to the supply of munitions for submarines. I think the House may very well consider that this new Ministry will be worked out with common sense and with a view in all Departments to make this Department run. Somebody asked would this Minister be strong enough and have go enough in him to make that effective. All I can say as to that is to refer to the Gentleman whom it is proposed to appoint as Minister of Munitions. The only other question is whether the definition of munitions takes away what was inserted earlier, with the object of making the Section clearer, by putting in the word "administrative." This leaves the matter exactly where it was, because if you read the Clause you will see that it is in connection with the supply of munitions that the word "administrative" is put in. I hope this will satisfy the House that what we have done is really to try and put in such a definition as will prevent the work of this new Ministry being hampered in any way.
    Mr. DUKE: The intention, I understand, is to give the administration the greatest possible latitude. May I ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider before the Report stage whether he would not be more sure of getting a larger definition if he would make the governing words what are now the last words, namely, "all things to be provided for war purposes," and then make the particular words follow those general words? The right hon. Gentleman knows the principle of construction to which I am referring. I am inclined myself to think that the Ministry would have greater latitude by putting the general words first and the particular words afterwards.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the word "munitions" include such requirements as field glasses, telescopes, and similar articles?
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    As amended, considered.
    CLAUSE 7.—(Definition).—In this Act the expression "munitions" includes arms, ammunition, warlike stores, and material and anything required for equipment or transport purposes or for or in connection with the production of munitions, and any other thing required to be provided for war purposes.
    Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move, after the word "munitions" ["the expression 'munitions'"], to insert the words "means anything required to be provided for War purposes and."
    I desire to move this Amendment in order to meet the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Duke). The definition, instead of running as I read it before, will run in this way: "In this Act the expression 'munitions' means anything required to be provided for War purposes, and includes arms, ammunition, warlike stores and material, and anything required for equipment or transport purposes or for or in connection with the production of munitions." I think that that meets the point of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. DUKE: I think that is a better form of drafting. I feel much more sure than I did before that it will include aircraft.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "and any other thing required for War purposes."—[Sir E.. Carson.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to say, particularly to some hon. Members opposite, that they need not be alarmed at occasional ebullitions from this part of the House. As far as I am able to judge the rank and file of the Liberal party, they are thoroughly in earnest in this matter. They delight to see this Bill brought forward. They wish well to the Ministers in charge of it. They think they are rightly chosen, and they intend to give most enthusiastic support to them in their work. I have seen great sadness on some faces when professed Liberal after professed Liberal has got up and endeavoured to confine or cabin this

    227
    particular Department. That is not the interpretation of the general feeling on this side of the House. We want this Department to be alive, vigorous, and, it may be, a growing Department. The efforts which have been made from time to time to belittle the scheme and to discourage the Minister in setting it up—[HON. MEMBMES: "No!"]—in my opinion do not properly voice the feeling on this side of the House. I have good grounds for what I am saying. At the present time there is the nucleus of a small party forming which, in my opinion, will cause trouble a little later on.
    Mr. WATT: Are you the leader?
    Mr. BOOTH: I want to say quite candidly that I believe that this side of the House will with great sincerity support the Government in the determination vigorously to prosecute the War to a successful issue. If there should be manifested—I hope there will not be—any desire to hamper the Government merely because it is a united Government, I am sure that the overwhelming number of Members on this side of the House can be relied upon to do their duty.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to hear the patriotic and well-chosen words in which my hon. Friend has, I am sure, voiced the opinion of the vast majority—indeed the whole—of the Members of the House, in whatever quarter they sit. This is an empowering Bill. Its object is to co-ordinate the work of various Departments—not to aggregate into one hand and centralise work which had better be localised or decentralised in particular ways, but to make one Minister responsible to this House and to the country for the provision of what is necessary for the supply of our troops in the prosecution of the War. There is no sinister intention behind it, as I am sure everybody now recognises. It is directed solely to that particular purpose—a purpose which every Member of this House and every citizen of this country holds in common with equal intensity and resolution. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government, of recognising the admirable spirit in which the discussions have been conducted. Criticisms we do not desire to deprecate or hamper in any possible way, so long as it is honestly directed to the common purpose that we all have in view. I think the Bill emerges in a more satisfactory state than that in which it originally
    228
    stood, and carries out the settled intention of he House of Commons and the country. Now that we have given our assent to it, or are about to do so, I am sure that I can say, on behalf of the House, that we wish to the Minister who will have charge for the first time of this new and most responsible function all possible success in the great task entrusted to him.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I personally welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that the new Government does not in any way deprecate legitimate and honest criticism. The history of the last ten months shows that some of us placed confidence in the Government by our silence. Whether that confidence was well placed or not, time will show. At any rate, in face of the fact that this Bill had to be brought forward ten months after the War started, and of the facts which made it necessary that it should be brought forward, it ill becomes any Minister to appeal to independent Members for no criticism in regard to the Government's policy. We have been silent; we have trusted them; but in my opinion the manner in which things have been conducted up to the present time do not fully justify that confidence. We shall watch the conduct of any Government more in the future than we have done during the last ten months.
    So far as this Bill is concerned, on its first introduction I gave it a most hearty welcome. I knew the necessity for it. I knew the circumstances which made it absolutely necessary. I am glad that the first Bill of the new Government is the Bill we are now discussing. I believe that it is a Bill approved by the country, and that the appointment of the new Minister is applauded by the whole nation. It is a turning point, I hope, in the history of the War. There is need for more vigour; there is need for more capacity; there is need for more industry; there is need for more determination. I deny the taunt that any man may make that as long as I am a Member of this House I and other Members are not able to say what we think of any Government, at any time, under any circumstances. I welcome the new Bill, and I hope that the new Government will show, by the way in which they administer other Departments in the State, that they are worthy of the confidence of every section of the House. Only to-day we had the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty standing at the table and urging the need for this Bill, and telling

    229
    us that the Ordnance Department had been a failure. How can we independent Members sit silent and listen to declarations of that kind. We have the declaration of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that if this Bill had been passed earlier, if our munitions had been what they ought to have been at the beginning of the War, the whole question of the War would have been in a different position. We all hope that the passage of this Bill will be the beginning of a new and brighter era in the history of this unfortunate War.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: This Bill is the first fruit of the Coalition Government, which we all hope will prove to be a National Government. I trust it will not be thought presumptuous on my part if I say a word or two reciprocating the spirit which animated the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I am sure that every Member in the House, and the whole of the country, are anxious that this Government should prove a strong and successful Government. I think that we who are independent, private Members, also have a duty in the matter. We cannot have a real Coalition Government, or a National Government, unless we have a Coalition House of Commons, a National House of Commons. We on this side of the House have for several months had discipline—I do not think we need pretend that there has not been discipline—of supporting, so far as we could, a Government which was composed exclusively of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had previously been our political opponents. We have endeavoured to do that in a patriotic spirit. Hon. Members on the other side will now have much the same measure of discipline in supporting a Government which is no longer exclusively composed of Members of their own political complexion. I hope, therefore, that both sides of the House will be able really to form a coalition in agreement, so that while this War lasts it will not be said of the House of Commons that it did not appreciate the terrible ordeal through which the country is passing, and the awful gravity of the crisis with which we are confronted; that they will not exhibit the spirit of schoolboys trying to score off each other on minor points, and indulging in petty criticism on one side or the other.
    There was, if I may be excused for mentioning it, an old school song which was
    230
    familiar to many of us years ago, describing the rivalries of schoolboys in their camps. They
    "Loved an ally with the heart of a brother,
    And hated the foe with a playing at hate."
    I think that really expresses the spirit which we Members of Parliament on both sides of the House might display at the present time, that some of us on this side do love the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for the Colonies with the heart of a brother and feel towards the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy a mere playing at hate. I think if we follow that spirit, the playing at hate of our quandom political opponents, that we shall really give that support which the House of Commons ought to give to the Coalition Government, to the National Government, whose first-fruits we are passing at this time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I only intervene in this Debate because the suggestion has been thrown out that those who have criticised this Bill form the nucleus of a factious and mischievous opposition. As I had something to do yesterday with initiating the discussion which has led to the modification of the Bill adopted by the Home Secretary to-day, I wish at once altogether to repudiate such a suggestion. That suggestion has been made to-day in the House by the hon. Member for Pontefract—
    Mr. BOOTH: I repudiate that. When I was passing my criticism on matters I do not believe my hon. Friend was listening, but was in one of the Committee Rooms. If he had been in the House I am sure he would not have made these remarks. What I pointed out was that a certain note had been struck. I did not refer to him. Neither do I object to criticism. He is totally wrong, and I ask him to accept that explanation.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I certainly accept the explanation of my hon. Friend, but I was present during his speech, and I heard the exact words that he used. I desired at the first possible opportunity to give him the opportunity of repudiating the words which he used or of explaining that they are not to be taken at their face sense. Now that he has repudiated the suggestion—
    Mr. BOOTH: No; I do not repudiate a word of what I said. I stand to it. So far as I can make the suggestion, I say that some of the speeches—not that of my hon. Friend, but of one or two—indicated

    231
    to me that there is a nucleus of a party forming. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members are boasting about it. I did not allude to them, but I understand that there is a nucleus of a party forming which may cause trouble to the Government. I gave that warning. I know it is perfectly true, and I will not retract it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Some of us are placed in considerable difficulty. But I understand now that the position of my hon. Friend is that he admits that I have nothing to do with this mischievous party which he has discovered. I thought it very important to speak in view of the fact that I initiated the discussion yesterday, and the suggestion had been made that a party was being formed. I thought that hon. Members obviously might think that the observations made by my hon. Friend might refer to myself, and others who were associated with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think it was quite fair to make my statement. My hon. Friend has now withdrawn his statement so far as I am concerned. This explanation is one reason why I have risen; and the other reason is to welcome the statement which the Prime Minister has made to-day. I am extremely glad, as are many others on this side of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the fair spirit in which criticism has been directed on this Bill. I am also glad that the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he, and his colleagues, would welcome any such criticism in the future, based on the ground of policy, which is directed solely to strengthening the Government in the great task which they have to perform.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My hon. Friend who sits beside me is perfectly right in saying that there is a party growing up in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It is a very small party, and they are friends of the Germans. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] My hon. Friend is perfectly correct, but he did not apply his remarks to my hon. Friend who has just spoken. The party is to be numbered on one hand, so therefore they are an insignificant portion—
    Mr. CROOKS: Do not advertise them!
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They advertised themselves at the beginning of the War. But I have risen to utter a few words on another subject. I do trust that the House of Commons, after we have been carrying
    232
    on this War for ten months, is not going to give up the right of criticism. It is essential. This is the only place to-day where criticism can take place in the United Kingdom, the only place where a public and free discussion of all questions can be carried on. I am sure the Prime Minister himself does not desire in any way that there should not be free discussion of all questions that can be dealt with by the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Duchy, speaking at Dundee on Saturday, said there ought to be criticism; that the House of Commons has the right to have discussion, if need be, behind closed doors. I asked the Prime Minister a question to-day to which he gave me a negative reply. Therefore I propose to put on the Notice Paper tonight the words actually used by the Chancellor of the Duchy, so that we may have a statement by the Prime Minister on the question.
    I think it is desirable that we should have the opportunity for speech, for we all know there are many Members in this House who would like to discuss the action of the Government, who do not want to do so, or do not feel disposed to do so if in any case such discussion might be against the public interest. We want to say nothing, no section of the House desires to say anything—even the friends of Germany—or to take any action other than that which will bring the War to a successful conclusion. But what is the use of coming done to the House when we are told that we must not discuss this or that matter? The country is discussing it. We are told by hon. Members to get on with the business. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that we have been finished for weeks past, notwithstanding what hon. Members opposite say, at six and seven o'clock.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I have been here more than you have.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member says he has been here more than I have. He has certainly put a large number of questions, thus taking up the time of the House. Then he gets up and deprecates discussion. We have had during the course of this Debate a very extraordinary statement made which ought not to be lost sight of. We had a statement made by a late Civil Lord of the Admiralty that the Ordnance Department had lamentably failed in its duty. That is a very grave charge to be made from that Front Bench

    233
    in view of the position that he has held. That being the case, it only shows that we ought to have had free discussion on what everybody now says is going wrong, in the early part of the autumn. But Members deliberately closed their mouths, or we might to-day have been in a better position in regard to the munitions of war, while the position of our troops would have been very much different and better. That being the case, I ask the House of Commons not to limit the amount of opportunities which we have for discussion, and not to stifle it. I do appeal to the Prime Minister as to whether he cannot see his way to take the course adopted by the French, German, and Russian Governments, and, if need be, to sit behind closed doors? Why the House of Commons should be the only one assembly of the Allies not to be given the privilege of having information that all the officials know, I do not know. If it is right in the judgment of our Allies that their Parliaments should sit behind closed doors, why should we in this House of Commons not have the same right? Some hon. Members here would like to make speeches at this moment in connection with the matter which we are now discussing. We cannot do so because our mouths are closed. I make an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister that when he answers my question on Thursday he will say that he will give the matter careful consideration. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not shake my head.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then perhaps I may take it that the Prime Minister approves of my suggestion? The Chancellor of the Duchy takes the view I have stated and puts it forward that it is the right of Parliament. Does the Prime Minister not agree with his colleague? It may be so. But I do hope at all events that he will, in order to avoid these questions arising in the House, and of Members when they get up being told that it is not in the public interest to say this or that, that we shall agree to have the opportunity for which I have asked. Then we shall not be placed at the mercy, as we have been during the last fortnight, of the Harmsworth Press, whether of the penny or the halfpenny "Daily Mail."
    Mr. HOUSTON: The hon. Member for Mansfield appears to be running amok against everybody. I have simply to say
    234
    that, as far as wasting the time of the House is concerned, I think I rarely do it, except, as he says, at Question Time, when I do not think I am wasting the time of the House. I am strongly in favour of an end to this discussion. I would give the Government all the powers they ask for and all the criticism they deserve. I think it would, perhaps, be well that this House should sit in camera, when we might express ourselves without being accused of doing injury to the interests of the country.
    Mr. GRETTON: This House has given, or is going to give, the Government most lavish and, in a way, absolutely unlimited powers to deal with these matters. But the business is not settled by setting up a new Department; it will depend upon how that Department is worked. The signs are hopeful. The statement was made by the Home Secretary to-day that the Government intended to avail themselves of the services of persons outside whe were willing to help—of experts in business. There has been in the past suspicion in Government Departments, perhaps, that men who are experts and engaged in business must actually be dishonest, and desirous of making money out of the country in its time of difficulty. I am glad that it is now recognised that that is not the case; that there are patriotic persons who will give of their knowledge of a lifetime for the service of the country. I hope every care will be taken that offers of this kind are used for the greatest service of the country, and that the statement the Home Secretary made will not be interpreted in any narrow spirit, but that service of this kind will be accepted, as I am sure it will be, for the benefit of the Government and of the people.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, persuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly it Fourteen minutes before Six o'clock.

WAR.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  INTERNED CIVILIAN ALIENS (COST OF CAMPS).
  INTERNED CIVILIAN ALIENS (COST OF CAMPS).
  LEAVE AFTER INOCULATION.
  LEAVE AFTER INOCULATION.
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLY.
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLY.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS COMMANDEERED.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS COMMANDEERED.
  ANTI-GERMAN RIOTS (DAMAGE).
  ANTI-GERMAN RIOTS (DAMAGE).
  MEAT CARGOES (INSURANCE).
  MEAT CARGOES (INSURANCE).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Students of Irish.
  Students of Irish.
  Fair Rents (Ireland).
  Fair Rents (Ireland).
  Bibles and Prayer Books for Prisoners.
  Bibles and Prayer Books for Prisoners.
  Conviction of Young Persons.
  Conviction of Young Persons.
  Bibles in Poor Law Schools.
  Bibles in Poor Law Schools.
  Theatrical Scenery (Cross-Channel Transport).
  Theatrical Scenery (Cross-Channel Transport).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Tramways Provisional Orders.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Conway Fisheries Provisional Order.

Sea Fisheries (Cardigan Bay) Provisional Order.

Sea Fisheries (Poole) Provisional Order.

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Lurgan Urban District Council.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

METHODIST CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL.
Committee (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday next.
SKEGNESS URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHELMSFORD CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
DEWSBURY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
SEAFORTH AND SEFTON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
The KING'S consent signified: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
KILMARNOCK GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Stanmore).
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD (EMERGENCY POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Stanmore).
GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
To be read 3a on Tuesday next.
SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909—Special Report by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888:
Light Railways Acts, 1896 and 1912—Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled the Clayton-le-Moors Light Railway (Extension of Time) Order, 1915:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Railways Companies' Powers Act, 1864—Report by the Board of Trade on applications made during the year 1914 under the Act, and of the proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto:
Light Railways Acts, 1896 and 1912—Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade up to 31st December 1914, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date:
Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891 (Conditional Licence)—Licence granted to a convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home:
National Insurance Acts (Unemployment Insurance)—The Unemployment Insurance (Refunds to Employers) Regulations, 1915, made by the Board of Trade on 26th May 1915, in pursuance of Section 91 of the Act of 1911:
Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909—Special Report by the Board of Trade stating the grounds on which they have dispensed with the consent of the Urban District Council of Haworth to the breaking up of certain roads in the said Urban District, for the purposes of the Keighley Electric Lighting (Extension) Order, 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Margate Pier and Harbour Company(1812)—Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 5th April 1915:
Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

FORFAR GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order): An Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLICATION OF PEERS' DEBATES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE) presented and moved the adoption of the Third Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices. The Committee reported—
"The Committee have considered the subject of the present system of publishing the House of Lords Debates referred to them by the House:
"They are of opinion that a re-trial should be given to the different method, similar in principle to that of the House of Commons, adopted at the commencement of the Session of 1909 and shortly afterwards dropped, by which the publishing of the Reports of the Debates can be considerably accelerated. They therefore recommend that as soon as arrangements for the change can be conveniently made, the Daily Parts circulated to all Peers desiring them. But each Peer taking part in a debate would receive direct from the printers two copies of the Daily Part, on which he would mark any necessary corrections, and these corrections would be subsequently made for the permanent record (the Volume). The Committee are advised that provided the times in the Table at the end of this Report are accepted, this change can be effected without involving any increased expenditure either for reporting or printing the Debates. But they think it right to draw special attention to the fact that:—

"(1) Under the proposed new system the sending to Peers of proof slips, as formerly, would be quite impracticable; and

"(2) To avoid the pagination and 'make up' being interfered with—an expensive matter from the printing point of view—the corrections made in the Daily Part for the Volume would have to be strictly limited to putting right inaccuracies.

"The Committee recommend further that in order that the present cost of printing may not be exceeded, the number of Daily Parts to which a member of the House is entitled free of charge should be limited to six.
"They recommend further that, as correction in future will be limited to putting right inaccuracies, the asterisk hitherto used to indicate that a speech has been revised by the Peer should be abolished.
"Lastly, the Committee desire to mention that it would considerably assist the recording of the Debates if all extracts, whether typewritten or printed, read by Peers, were as soon as possible afterwards handed to an attendant of the House for delivery to the Official Reporter."

TABLE.

Duration of Sitting.

Day of Debate.

Time of Publication.

Two hours or less

Monday

Wednesday, 5 p.m.

Tuesday

Thursday, 5 p.m.

Wednesday

Friday, 5 p.m.

Thursday

Monday, 12 o'clock noon.

Between two and three hours.

Monday

Thursday, 10 a.m.

Tuesday

Friday, 10 a.m.

Wednesday

Saturday, 10 a.m.

Thursday

Monday, 5 p.m.

Between three and four hours.

Monday

Thursday, 5 p.m.

Tuesday

Friday, 5 p.m.

Wednesday

Saturday, 5 p.m.

Up till 11.30 p.m. each night for a week (with dinner adjournments).

Monday

Thursday, 6 p.m.

Tuesday

Friday, 6 p.m.

Wednesday

Monday, 6 p.m.

Thursday

Tuesday, 6 p.m.

Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be adopted.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Questin, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS of CREWE): My Lords, there is no more business on the Paper, and I only do not move the adjournment of the House because it is desirable that the House should adjourn during pleasure in order to receive from another place the Ministry of Munitions Bill, which will be read a first time herb to-day and printed. To-morrow an opportunity will be given to those noble Lords who may desire to make some observations upon the Bill. But I propose to place on the Paper for to-morrow a Motion for the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX, and I hope the House will agree to take the Bill through its remaining stages at that sitting, as noble Lords will understand that it is important that this new office should be brought into being with as little delay as possible.
House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the DUKE of DEVONSHIRE.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Earl Curzon of Kedleston), and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 91.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.