Sitting of 9 June 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London Electric Railway Companies Facilities Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.
Weardale and Consett Water Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 23rd June.
Forfar Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill, Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill, Land Drainage (Raveningham) Provisional Order Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Message from the Lords, That they have agreed to—
Ministry of Munitions Bill, without Amendment.
Streatley and Goring Bridge Bill, with Amendments.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Brighton, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland declaring Police Cells at Dunoon, Inveraray, and Lochgilphead, in the county of Argyll, to be Legal Prisons for the detention of Prisoners for a period not exceeding five days before or during or after Trial [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 256.]
Copy presented of Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland as to the appointment of a Visiting Committee to the Police Cells Prison at Lochgilphead [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 257.]

FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
Copy presented of Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1914, to the 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
Address for Return "showing the estimated position as regards capital expenditure of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction in India on the 31st day of March, 1915, and the proposed expenditure thereon during 1915–16 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 318, of Session 1914)."—[Sir Robert Price.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BEEF PRICES.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in view of the fact that his Department purchased 3,150 tons of corned beef at an average price of 8¼d. per pound, he had

    237
    noticed that in the monthly Reports of the "Australian Pastoral Review" on the London canned meat market 35s. per dozen (six pound tins) is mentioned as the price for July for private buyers for best class goods, 45s. for the conclusion of August, 46s. to 48s. for September and October, while for November and December the Report stated that buying on Government account was not then so active, but available stocks were reduced to a minimum and held at such extreme rates that the home trade declined to make purchases; whether, in the matter of boiled meat, the Government were reported during October to be paying 60s. for six pound meat against 45s. charged to private customers; and whether he will give the names of the principal firms from whom this 3,150 tons were purchased and state upon whose advice these prices were paid?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The average price of 8¼d. per pound, 49s. 6d. per case, includes large quantities bought during September, October, November, and December, when market prices, not mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, were quoted at from 48s. to 52s. per case. The market quotations in the "Pastoral Review" are in all cases dated about six weeks prior to the date of issue of the "Review" in Australia, and are not available when tenders are under consideration. The Department invites the widest competition, and is satisfied that reasonable prices not exceeding fair market values have been paid, having regard to the fact that the Admiralty buys the best quality obtainable and brands which regularly fetch a price above the market quotations even for the best quality. The principal firms accepted for corned meat were: Yuills Limited, Ellis Bedford, C. J. Piggott, Libby, McNeill and Libby, Ltd., Corneillc David and Co., Gordon Woodroffe and Co., W. Weddel and Co., Ltd., Morris Beef Co., Ltd., Dempster, Paterson and Co., R. B. Green and Co., Ltd., Smithfield and Argentine Meat Co., Ltd. No boiled meat has been bought by the Admiralty.

    GERMANS IN CHINA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the decision of the Prize Court at Alexandria
    238
    to the effect that Germans in China are alien enemies is applicable to, and will be adopted in, the United Kingdom?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The point raised by my hon. Friend in this question is one of law on which it would be improper for the Foreign Office to express any opinion.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any action is possible, and, if so, will be taken, to subject German houses in China to the law against trading with the enemy; to prevent such houses from trading with Great, Britain; and to ensure that trade between Great Britain and German firms in China is not practically trade between Great Britain and Germany?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I regret that for the moment I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply returned on the 7th instant to the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

    EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether all negotiations for the exchange of invalid civil prisoners of war with the enemy are at an end; and what steps, if any, are now being taken to this end?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence on this subject with His Majesty's Envoy to the Vatican which was published in the Press on 20th May. In view of the attitude of the German Government in the matter, His Majesty's Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would be useless under existing circumstances again to approach the German Government. At the same time, His Majesty's Government have not changed their opinion that such an exchange is demanded for humanitarian reasons, and will be ready to reopen negotiations if there is any prospect of a useful result being secured.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Has the Noble Lord any information as to the conditions under which these prisoners are confined? I am told it is simply deplorable.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should not like to say that it was as bad as the word "deplorable" would indicate, but undoubtedly the condition of some of the invalid civil prisoners, and some of the

    239
    aged civilian prisoners, is one which every Member of this House must deeply regret. The Government will do their utmost to secure any alleviation that is possible.
    Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware that the German Government refuses to reopen this question apart from the question of the treatment of the officers taken from the German submarines, and that, therefore, the only method of reopening this question will be by considering again our policy in regard to these?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member is not quite accurate. There was an absolutely complete agreement arrived at between this Government and the German Government. It is quite true that after that agreement had been arrived at the German Government suddenly withdrew from it, alleging as a pretext the treatment of their submarine officers.
    Mr. KING: Does it not still hold good, that our only method, at the present time, of reopening this question is by reconsidering the question of the treatment of the submarine officers?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It would be, I think, a very unfortunate precedent for this House, or for the Government, to allow themselves to be blackmailed.
    Mr. KING: Is it not also very unfortunate that we can offer no hope of our prisoners in Germany being helped?

    COAL SUPPLIES TO GERMAN CRUISERS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that American coal was carried in British vessels to a German coal company at Buenos Ayres concerned in coaling the cruisers which were raiding British commerce; and whether any action has been taken in this matter?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Cases of the nature referred to have been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government, but the evidence available has not been sufficient to form the basis of a prosecution of the shipowners or masters concerned. If the hon. Member will furnish in any case information likely to lead to the conviction of the offenders His Majesty's Government will have pleasure in considering it.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (CLAIM FOR GRATUITY).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of William Daly, of Limerick, Royal Naval Reserve man No. 2406 D, who joined the Reserve 9th February, 1895; whether this man answered the mobilisation call when the War broke out, and on arrival in England was medically inspected and was discharged through medical inability to serve owing to having varicose veins, received through an accident when at drill at Kinsale Battery seven years prior to his discharge; and whether Daly, having served in the capacity of a first-class seaman for a term of fifteen years and as second-class seaman for a period of four years and nine months previous to his promotion to the first class, thus having a total service of nineteen years and nine months, and having answered the call of the country and been discharged through no fault of his own, favourable consideration will be given to his claim for the usual gratuity of £50 on the termination of twenty years' service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A record of twenty years' service is necessary to qualify for the award of the gratuity of £50, but Daly did not complete this period, being medically rejected for active service. I must point out, however, that Daly's period of service has not been rendered without advantage of any sort. Royal Naval Reserve men receive in the form of retainers the equivalent of a gratuity of £45 during each period of five years' enrolment, and service in the Reserve is therefore in itself advantageous. The suggestion that Daly's disability arose from an accident when on drill has not previously been made, but inquiry will be made, and if the statement can be substantiated Daly would be eligible for compensation on that account.

    COTTON YARN SHIPPED.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the amount of cotton yarn shipped from Great Britain to Norway, Sweden. Denmark, and Holland in the months of April, 1914 and 1915, respectively; whether the excess of imports of cotton and cotton yarn into Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland during the present year to the end of April is consumed in these countries or

    241
    passes through to enemy destinations; and, in the latter alternative, what further steps he proposes to take to prevent these supplies of the raw material for explosives reaching the enemy?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which I am causing to be circulated with the Votes in reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh. As regards the remainder of the question, no statistics are available, but His Majesty's Government are giving earnest attention to the question of what further steps, if any, should be taken to prevent cotton yarn from reaching the enemy.

    GERMAN ARMIES (USE OF COTTON).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any official estimate has been formed of the daily average use of cotton by the German armies in the field; and whether any official estimate has been published in the French Reports dealing with the state of the German Army?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No, Sir, I cannot find that any official estimate has been formed of the average daily amount of cotton consumed by or on behalf of the German armies. Reliable data for such a calculation are not easy to come by.

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS (ORDERS TO TROOPS).
    Mr. FELLasked if the War Office have now decided to order all armed troops to fire on all Zeppelin airships on their raids over this country whenever they come within range of their rifles?
    Mr. TENNANT: The orders are that all Zeppelins are to be fired at if and when they offer a target.
    Mr. FELL: Does that cover rifle-shooting as well as anti-aircraft guns?
    Mr. TENNANT: That would cover any case where there is a possibility of hitting.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: How long has that order been given?
    Mr. TENNANT: For some time.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      MR. SHAWN MACDERMOTT'S ARREST.
      Mr. GINNELLasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Shawn MacDermott has been arrested and imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act; if so, for what offence; where he now is; when and where he is to be tried; and will he account for the discriminating censorship which has allowed the Report of the arrest and imprisonment to appear in English newspapers while preventing any Report in the Irish newspapers; and (2) the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the charge upon which Mr. Shawn MacDermott has been arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act, and, if for a speech, the incriminating words?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Mr. Shawn MacDermott was arrested and detained on a charge of making statements likely to prejudice the recruiting of His Majesty's Forces contrary to Regulation No. 27 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914. The case, which was adjourned for a week on the application of prisoner's counsel, is being heard today in Dublin, and the hon. Member will thus be in a position to acquaint himself as to the precise statements to which exception has been taken. Reports of Mr. MacDermott's arrest and removal to Dublin appeared in the Irish Press, and the suggestion made in the last part of the question is accordingly unfounded.

      NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War who is accountable for the discriminating administration of the Defence of the Realm Act, whereby the "Times" newspaper is allowed to publish with impunity matter held by the Government to be detrimental to this country and helpful to Germany, while promptly suppressing without trial Irish newspapers for publishing, similar or less objectionable matter and for copying matter from English newspapers; and whether he can give any undertaking that the Act will be uniformly and impartially administered in future?
      Mr. TENNANT: For the administration of the Defence of the Realm Acts His Majesty's Government are of course responsible, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an explicit assurance that the Acts

      243
      will be impartially administered with reference to all the relevant facts and considerations that are within the cognisance of the Government.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to explain the discrepancy stated in the question, which is the point?
      Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman, I think, should ask that question either of the Home Office or of the responsible Department controlling the Director of Public Prosecutions.
      Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the censoring authority in this country recognises republication in Germany as evidence that the matter so republished is helpful to Germany and hurtful to this country; and, if it does, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy stated in the question?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly hand that question in.
      Mr. GINNELL: It is on the Paper.

    SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO SOLDIERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will approach the various Government Departments concerned with a view to the formation of a joint committee for the systematic supply at the public expense of Bibles and New Testaments to all persons in His Majesty's military and naval forces, all prisoners of war, all inmates of workhouses and Poor Law infirmaries, reformatories, Poor Law and industrial schools, and prisons, who may desire to receive the same?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed my hon. Friend of the arrangements for the supply of Bibles and Prayer-books to soldiers. I am afraid that, however desirable might be the object in view, the War Office can hardly find time to take the initiative in any such comprehensive scheme as my hon Friend sketches out; and I may add that the Army Council have no information as to whether the inmates of workhouses, Poor Law infirmaries, reformatories, Poor Law and industrial schools, and prisons are or are not already supplied with Bibles and New Testaments. Those institutions are not in any way within the purview or control of the Army Council.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
    Mr. GRETTONasked if any arrangements have yet been made for transferring business with persons supplying munitions of war or proposing to supply them from the War Office to the new Ministry of Munitions; and, if so, when the transfer of business will be made?
    Mr. TENNANT: When the Bill constituting the Ministry of Munitions has become law an Order in Council will be made under it transferring certain branches of work of the kind referred to in the question to the new Ministry as from dates mentioned in the Order or agreed upon between the Departments concerned. I am not in a position at present to name any specific date.
    Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand from that answer that no change will be made until the Order in Council has been issued and notice has been given?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes. Sir, I think that is substantially accurate.

    GERMAN MILITARY OFFICERS IN IRELAND.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether German spies have been concerned in the bringing over of German military officers, to hold conference with the Ulster Volunteers previous to the Curragh mutiny, and, if so, are these spies under arrest; had the War Office cognisance of the presence in Ulster of the German military officers referred to; and can he state whether the War Office knows the persons with whom the German officers communicated in Ulster?
    Mr. TENNANT: My military advisers have no knowledge of the presence in Ireland of any German spies or German military officers in any such circumstances as those mentioned in the question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's military authorities, will he be good enough to consult his new colleague the Attorney-General, from whom he might be able to obtain first-hand information?
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion

    245
    contained in this question that German officers have held conference with Ulster Unionist Volunteers, and is it not a scandal that such a suggestion should be made by any hon. Member of this House?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot be responsible for what appears on the Notice Paper. I am not taking any exception to it or making any comment upon it at all. The hon. Gentleman will understand I cannot be responsible for that. With regard to his former question, I say my military advisers have no knowledge of it at all. If the hon. Gentleman assures me that what he has stated is so, of course I take it from him.
    Sir J. D. REES: Might the right hon. Gentleman not properly take exception to this?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, it is not in my power.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: A pure invention!
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the hon. Gentleman the right to give information to this House which was asked of the responsible Minister, and also to weaken his case by protesting too much?

    OFFICERS IN ARMY PAY CORPS (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the decision recently taken that officers in the Pay Corps of military age are not to be allowed to join combatant ranks, he will now be prepared to grant commissions to these officers, having regard to the fact that commissions have hitherto been withheld from them in order to encourage them to join combative branches of the Service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The officers who cannot be spared from pay offices to join combatant ranks are the permanent paymasters already holding commissions. The civilian acting-paymasters, to whom commissions are given, are free to join combatant arms if they so desire and are found eligible.

    OFFICERS' KITS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a commanding officer is entitled to require his subordinate officers to purchase
    246
    their kit from one particular firm; and whether he is aware that certain commanding officers in ordinary Infantry regiments are making an order to this effect, and that such practice involves increased expenditure to officers purchasing their kit and operates unfairly to the tailoring trade?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. Such action would not be in accordance with the instructions which have been issued. If my hon. Friend has any specific information in his possession, I should be obliged if he would communicate it to me.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the answer indicate that any such action by a commanding officer would be strongly disapproved of?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; that is so.

    MEDICAL STUDENTS IN COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the arrangements previously announced, whereby medical students in their final year of study, who had only their final examinations to pass, might be released from combatant corps if they applied in order to complete their medical studies and qualify for medical service, have been altered; and, if so, in what respect?
    Mr. TENNANT: The ruling applied to medical students who were serving in the ranks, and has not been altered.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the other regulation been altered so that medical students who now hold commissions may be allowed to finish their course during the last year?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that rule is only applicable to those serving in the ranks.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the rule, as first announced to me in answer to a question, applied to medical students holding commissions, who were in the last year of their medical course?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think so
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It was in the answer.
    Mr. TENNANT: Then, if so, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think it was meant to be.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (FARMERS).
    Mr. JOHN HENDERSONasked whether in the case of a farmer who has joined the Territorial Army since the War began, believing that he could arrange for some one to do his work on the farm, but now finds it impossible to do so, the Government can see their way to release such farmer from military service during the summer and autumn?
    Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case he has in mind I will consider them.

    INTERNED ALIENS.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the following persons of alien nationality or alien extraction, or any and which of them, have yet been interned, in pursuance of the change of policy in that respect recently announced by the Prime Minister, namely. Count Paul Metternich. Count Albrecht von Bassewitz, Von Bissing, half-brother of the German Military Governor of Brussels, Sehmer, residing at Toat Farm, Pul-borough, Kuehnrich, residing at Holly Court, Sheffield. Sachs, residing at South Foreland House, St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe, Frau Weil, residing at The Mount, St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe, Fraulein von Muhlmann, lately residing at No. 17, Trebovir Road, Earl's Court, and Fraulein Schneider, residing at Berwick-on-Tweed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Of the nine names in the question, three are those of women, and it is not, and never has been, the policy of the Government to intern women. Of the remaining six, three are naturalised British subjects, and an Order in Council to cover such cases is being obtained. Of the remaining three, two are German subjects, one of which is interned and the other of which was released from internment in October last by the military authorities in circumstances explained by the Under-Secretary of State for War in reply to a question on the 15th March. The remaining name, Mr. Sachs, is that of a British-born British subject who has been for years engaged in most useful and public-spirited work for the country.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Am I not right in saying that the policy announced by the Prime Minister was that women of alien nationality were to be returned to Germany, and has that been done in this case?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is so. The question I was asked, however, was which of these persons has been interned. It is quite true that as regards women repatriation is the policy which is being pursued, and will be pursued.
    Mr. McNEILL: Has it been pursued in this case?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say.

    MALE REGISTRATION.
    Mr. SHERWELLasked whether the military authorities have ordered a census to be taken of all men eligible for military service within the recruiting area of the 5th Battalion West Riding Regiment; it so, whether such census is to be taken under instructions from the War Office; and under what statutory authority the order for the census has been issued?
    Mr. TENNANT: No orders for a military census have been given by the War Office.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.

      PROFICIENCY PAY.
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reason why proficiency pay of 3d. per day, which was paid when they first enlisted, to those Shropshire National Reservists who had previously been in the Volunteer Force has, since March, been discontinued; and what is the reason why a distinction as regards pay should be made between the members of the National Reserve who were formerly in the Volunteer Force and those who were members of the Territorial Army?
      Mr. FORSTER: It was decided, on military grounds, that service in the Volunteers was not the equivalent of that service in the Territorial Army which counts for issue of proficiency pay. If such pay has in Shropshire been issued in respect of Volunteer service, the reason for its discontinuance is that it was issued contrary to regulation.
      Sir C. HENRY: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered?
      Mr. FORSTER: The whole question has been very carefully considered in quite recent times, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be reconsidered.

      ENLISTMENT AND TRANSFERENCE.
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is aware of the issue of a new and modified form of Army Form E. 624; whether the form as modified is in accordance with the statutes governing the conditions of enlistment to the Territorial Force, especially in respect of Section 7, Sub-section (4) (b) of the Act of 1907; whether a Bill to effect this change and repeal this Section, among others, was not introduced into this House recently and withdrawn in consequence of objections taken to it; whether he is further aware that the new obligation imposed by the modified form has, in a number of cases, already hindered recruiting for the Territorial Force, and whether, if further recruits are desired for the Territorial Force he will represent to the Secretary of State the urgent desirability of the new compulsory obligation being withdrawn?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the Army Form to which my hon. Friend refers. This form so far from being contrary to the letter or spirit of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act is directly in accord with its provisions and the regulations formed under it. The form asks for the consent of the soldier before his transference to another unit, whose consent the regulations declare shall be obtained before such transference. It is clear that soldiers are most useful when their services can be employed as circumstances demand, and in this Form each soldier is merely invited to state definitely that he puts his patriotic feeling above personal convenience, by placing his services unreservedly in the hands of those responsible for the conduct of the War. A Bill for compulsory transference was introduced and withdrawn, as it was felt that compulsion was not desirable in the circumstances. I have no information of the effect on recruiting of the new Army Form, nor has it been in circulation for sufficient time to render any conclusion on this aspect of the matter reliable.
      Sir R. ADKINS: Are we to understand that in the case of new recruits as well as in the case of those already in the Territorial Force, it is only an invitation and not a sine qua non, of enlistment which is now to be imposed upon them in respect of the transfer, or is it to be made a sine qua non of enlistment that they take this obligation?
      Mr. TENNANT: The form, as I have already said in my answer to the question, is purely voluntary. Nobody need take the obligation who does not desire to do so.
      Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not, the case that this proposal has been welcomed by many men in the Territorial Force as giving them a possible chance, which they thought they would not have, of joining the Forces of the Crown?
      Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend informs me that that is so, I am very glad.
      Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: Is it not the case that some Scottish recruits went the other day to enlist in a Scottish regiment and were told they had to sign this form subjecting them to be transferred to any other regiment in the Army, and that if they did not sign the form they could not be enlisted?
      Sir R. ADKINS: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, will he say whether commanding officers are intended to enlist men without insisting upon the compulsory matter, trusting to persuasion, and further knowledge afterwards?
      Mr. TENNANT: With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson), if he will give me the facts privately I shall be glad to investigate them. It comes to me absolutely for the first time. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Middleton Division (Sir K. Adkins), commanding officers who-are enlisting new recruits will ask the new recruit whether he is willing to sign this new form, and if the man says he is not willing to sign it, then the officer will probably inform the recruit that the Home Service units are full, therefore, if a man wishes to join the Territorial Force—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about transfer?"]—inasmuch as the Home Service units are full and that no further recruits are being taken for Home Service, the services of this man, unless he will sign, will not be required.

      GERMAN STORES (INDIA).
      Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for India what action has been taken with regard to the Germans who, whether naturalised or not, have opened stores or shops in different towns in India and obtained influence among the natives in the neighbourhood; will he say whether these stores have been closed; and whether the goods have been confiscated?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): In pursuance of powers under the Hostile Foreigners Trading Order, an Order promulgated by the Government of India, every shop or store owned or managed by Germans, the existence of which has come to notice, has been required to take out a licence either to continue trade or be wound up, or has been closed. Each case has been dealt with on its merits. The inquiry has included all firms of which any member or officer was a hostile foreigner at the time War was declared or subsequently. When liquidation has been ordered the owner or manager has received a licence permitting him to dispose of goods in his shop or store. No action appears to have been taken against naturalised Germans as such in this connection.

      SUCCESSION DUTY.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Succession Duty on estates under £3,000 of officers killed in action is levied from their widows; and, if so, what are the concessions actually made in respect of such estates and of larger estates in similar circumstances?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Under the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914, estates of persons to whom the Act applies are wholly exempted from Death Duties on passing to the wife or lineal descendant, if the value of the estate does not exceed £5,000. If it does exceed that figure, the first £5,000 is removed from charge, while the duties on the remainder are discounted for a period equal to the normal expectation of life of the deceased at the time of his death.

      IMMATURE SPIRITS ACT.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware
      252
      that the Excise officials engaged in enforcing the Immature Spirits Act only recognise as the age of blends the age of that whisky in such blend which is the least, mature, instead of the average age of all the whiskies blended; and whether he will arrange that this interpretation of the Act, for which no justification is supplied by the letter thereof, shall not be adopted by such officials in future?
      Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The action of the Excise officials does not seem to me to conflict with the provisions of the Immature Spirits Act, but the whole question of the treatment of blends is now under consideration.
      Sir J. D. REES: In dealing with this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that this Act was very reluctantly passed by this House at the urgent request of his predecessor?
      Mr. McKENNA: I will bear in mind all relevant facts, but I can only recognise that the Act is now an Act of Parliament, and it has been passed by this House.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the enforcement of this rule in cases where very large quantities of immature spirits were in existence under a small tax will inflict a very great hardship?
      Mr. McKENNA: As I have stated in answer to the question, the whole matter of the treatment of these claims is now being considered.

      MEAT SHORTAGE (LAMBS AND CALVES).
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether lambs and calves are still being killed in the country; and whether he proposes, in view of the possible shortage of meat during the War, to issue Regulations prohibiting for the future the slaughter of immature cattle?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The question referred to by the hon. Member is most difficult, but it is engaging the most earnest attention of the Board. No Regulations have yet been issued.

      POSTAL SERVANTS (ARBITRATION).
      Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make a statement as to the progress of the arbitration between the Post Office and the postal servants on the demand for an increased wage to meet the cost in rise of living?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): If my hon. Friend will repeat his question in a week's time I hope to be able to give him a definite answer.

      POST OFFICE RELIEF FUND.
      Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many postal servants assented at the outbreak of war to the taking from their weekly wage of a contribution to the Post Office Relief Fund, but that now they are unable to continue the contribution owing to the greatly increased cost of living, and have accordingly given notice that they desire their wages paid without deductions; and whether he will give orders that such wishes will be respected and the wages paid in full?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Subscriptions to the Post Office Relief Fund by means of deductions from wages or salary are entirely voluntary, and any notice of discontinuance is duly acted upon. I am glad to say that such notices have been few.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one or two cases have occurred, in which men who, under peculiar circumstances have wished to withdraw, have been very severely reprimanded by their superiors in office?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir. No such case has been drawn to my attention, and I shall be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with particulars.

      POSTAGE ON PARCELS (TROOPS IN EGYPT).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General what is the rate of postage on parcels to Egypt addressed to troops; and if he can reduce the charge, as the present rates press very heavily on the
      254
      parents and friends of the soldiers who are not in affluent circumstances?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The rate of postage on parcels addressed to the troops in Egypt, and at the Dardanelles, is the same as that on parcels addressed to the troops in France up to 3lbs. weight. I will consider whether any reduction can be made in the rates for heavier parcels.
      Mr. FENWICK: Is the Postmaster-General aware that a single parcel containing one pair of socks sent to a soldier at the front costs as much as 10d. for postage, and does he not think these charges are excessive, especially when poor people have to pay them?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that there is some feeling that the postage rates on parcels to the front is somewhat high, and I very much desire to reduce them. Already the bulk of parcels is enormously great, and to reduce the parcels post rate would probably lead to an immense increase in the numbers sent, and this might throw upon the military authorities and the Post Office a burden of transport which they could not carry. Already at the present time 100 tons of mail matter and some 70,000 parcels are sent every evening to the Army in France. I should very much like to reduce the rates, but I am afraid it is not possible.
      Mr. W. CROOKS: Would it not be possible to have cheaper postage for the privates and non-commissioned officers who are the poorest in the Army?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a question of parcels sent to the Army.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the leakage of parcels and letters in the French Civil Post which is often responsible for the trouble?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

      SIGNALLING APPARATUS AND LAMPS.
      Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that at Sunderland a marine engineer has been fined £5 for having in his possession a lamp capable of being used for signalling; and if it is

      255
      intended to place any restrictions upon the sale to the public of signalling apparatus and lamps?
      Sir J. SIMON: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but I have made inquiry and find that the defendant was convicted under Regulation 26 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, which provides that no person shall, without the permission of the competent naval or military authority, or some person authorised by him, display any light in such a manner as could serve as a signal, guide or landmark. As regards the second part of the question, the possession, without lawful authority, of any apparatus intended for signalling is already prohibited by Regulation 25.
      Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the large shops in England these signal lamps are not only advertised but exposed for sale in the windows?
      Sir J. SIMON: I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me a private reference to a case.
      Sir J. LONSDALE: I will.

      INFORMATION FOR USE OF ENEMY.
      Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that, at the adjourned hearing of the charge against Margaret Henderson Smith of having obtained a detailed drawing of a fuse and of giving information calculated to be of use to the enemy, the chief constable, acting on the instructions of the Director of Prosecutions, did not ask for a committal and the Newcastle magistrates accordingly discharged the accused; and if he will state why the prosecution was abandoned in this case?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): The evidence against the accused woman consisted of a telegram sent by her and a statement by her (which she afterwards contradicted) that she had stolen the drawing of a fuse from Elswick, where she had been employed. It was found that the telegram was addressed to a fictitious person, and that no such drawing had been taken from Elswick. There was therefore no sufficient evidence to justify a committal for trial.

      PRO-GERMAN SPEECHES.
      Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Home Secretary if the police have instructions to prevent open-air speeches favouring the German cause in the provinces as well as in London?
      Sir J. SIMON: There is no reason to think that the provincial police need reminding of their duty in this respect. The powers given by the general law, as well as the special provisions contained in the Defence of the Realm Regulations, are already well known to them.
      Colonel LOCKWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of looking at the information which I forwarded to him on this subject?
      Sir J. SIMON: I will have it examined.

      ALIENS RELEASED.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether any persons of alien nationality or alien extraction who, since the beginning of the War, have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment have been released on expiration of their sentences without being thereupon interned; if so, why such persons are allowed to be at large; and whether in future all such persons will be immediately interned on the expiration of their sentences?
      Sir J. SIMON: The rule in the past has been that, before a prisoner of enemy nationality was released, his case should be considered on its merits by the proper authority, and in the great majority of cases the prisoner has been interned. The number so interned after conviction for offences under the Aliens Restriction Act is about 450. In future, as the hon. Member is aware, all alien enemies of military age will be interned except those exempted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

      PARLIAMENT (DURATION OF).
      Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Prime Minister if the Government have come to a decision regarding the duration of the present Parliament?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government.

      BRITISH CASUALTIES.

        FRENCH AND MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES.
        Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister the total number of British casualties up to the end of May, distinguishing the killed, wounded, and missing?
        The PRIME MINISTER: The casualties in the French and Mediterranean Expeditionary Forces to the 31st May are as follows: They include the Territorial Force and the Colonial and Indian Contingents:—

        Officers.

        Other Ranks

        Killed

        …

        3,327

        …

        47,015

        Wounded

        …

        6,498

        …

        147,482

        Missing

        …

        1,130

        …

        52,617

        Total

        …

        10,955

        …

        247,114

        258,069

        I cannot give the complete figures for the Navy and Naval Division, but I hope to be able to answer on Tuesday, if the hon. Member will himself put down a question for that day.
        Mr. HOGGE: Would the Prime Minister now arrange, as suggested yesterday, that these total figures should be given at short intervals in the Press so as to avoid the necessity of having to ask for them in the House?
        The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that suggestion.

      PRESS BUREAU.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the dutiés as Director of the Official Press Bureau, recently performed by the present Lord Chancellor, will be tarried out by the Solicitor-General?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer this question together with a private notice question which has been addressed to me by the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton). The management of the Press Bureau will be undertaken by Sir Edward Cook and Sir Frank Swettenham as joint directors. These two gentlemen have been rendering most valuable service in an honorary capacity as assistants to the previous director. The Home Secretary will be responsible to the House for the Press Bureau.

      WAR NEWS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, as a result of the strict censorship upon War news giving information, neutral countries have received more reports of military operations and other news from German sources than from the Allies and that this reacts in discouraging the cause of the Allies among neutrals generally; and whether he will consider the permission for more and earlier information being sent by cables and otherwise for the benefit of neutral countries?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Careful attention has been paid to this question, and I have every reason to think that neutral countries receive an adequate supply of news from the Allied countries. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. KING: Will the Prime Minister make inquiries through our diplomatic representatives as to whether feeling in neutral countries is satisfied on this point?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot undertake to do that.

      ZEPPELIN RAIDS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to give compensation for damage done by air raids or bombardment throughout the country as they have done, or propose to do, in Hartlepool, Scarborough, and Southend; and, if not, whether, in view of the difficulty experienced by the public in insuring premises against such risks, the Government can see their way to insure the same on similar lines to their marine war risk insurance?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer to the answer which I gave yesterday on this question.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The answer given yesterday was that relief would be granted in these cases as in previous cases, but my question covers all future cases, and I would like to know if there is going to be any change of policy?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask whether compensation will also be given for persons injured and killed, as well as compensation for damage to property?
      The PRIME MINISTER: There has been no change of policy, and there will not be.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Are we to understand that in future depredations will be compensated as in the past?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I said so yesterday, and I also said that we were considering the possibility of a State system of insurance.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the insurance companies do not benefit by the action of the Government, and that the payment of compensation by the Government does not relieve insurance companies who have taken the risk?
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Are we to understand that it is not necessary now for householders to insure against this risk, but that the Government will undertake it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that the Government are considering the question of general insurance with regard to this matter.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Must we continue our insurance until then?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It would be a prudent thing to do.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a scheme of insurance of this kind was placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer last August?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Would the Prime Minister say—yesterday he nodded his head—whether the Government scheme will cover compensation for persons injured or killed? These questions have only referred to the question of damage of property.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

      COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister which Members of the Government are on the Defence Committee?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee of Imperial Defence consists of the Prime Minister and such, persons as, having regard to the nature of the subjects to be discussed, he may summon to assist him. It is impossible, therefore, to state which Members of the Government are on the Committee.

      INCENDIARY BOMBS.
      Mr. NEVILLEasked the Home Secretary if he will issue to the public instructions as to the best means of taking precautions against the effects of explosive bombs, asphyxiating bombs, and incendiary bombs dropped by aircraft?
      Sir J. SIMON: The Commissioner of Police has prepared instructions on this subject and they will be published as soon as they have been revised and approved by the expert officers of the Admiralty. I hope they will be ready in a day or two.
      Mr. NEVILLE: Will they be posted up, as the aircraft instructions were?
      Sir J. SIMON: We will take what seems to be the best course under the circumstances.

      COTTON IMPORTS (SCANDINAVIA AND THE NETHERLANDS).
      Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to state the quantities of raw cotton and cotton yarn imported during the month of April by the Scandinavian countries and Holland from Great Britain and other countries, respectively; and if he can give the corresponding figures for the month of April, 1914?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Statistics of the imports of raw cotton and cotton yarns into the Scandinavian countries during the month of April, 1915, are not available. I am, however, causing a statement to be circulated with the Votes showing for the months mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the imports of raw cotton and cotton yarns into the Netherlands as shown in the Dutch official returns, together with particulars of the exports of raw cotton and cotton yarn from the United Kingdom to the Scandinavian countries and to the Netherlands as compiled by the Statistical Office of the Customs. [See Written Answers this date.]

      RAILWAY COAL SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that recently, during a temporary stoppage of the coal supply from Britain, two Irish railway companies found it necessary to reduce their trains and to borrow coal from other companies, though their lines run through bogs from which an ample supply of efficient fuel is obtainable; and whether, to obviate an inconvenience to the public and to the State, the Board will overrule the coal interest which prevents the development of Irish bogs and require Irish railway companies, as public carriers, to make arrangements this season for obtaining from bogs along their lines at least sufficient fuel for their own purposes for twelve months, manufactured as peat fuel is manufactured for similar purposes in Sweden and other countries?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question seems to be one for the consideration of the Irish railway companies concerned and not of the Board of Trade.

      SINKING OF STEAMSHIP "LUSITANIA" (BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRY).
      Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if there is any other reason for holding an inquiry into the loss of the "Lusitania," except the great size of the ship, than existed in respect of all the other liners and merchant ships which have been sunk by the enemy during the present War; and (2) if there is any precedent for the holding of a Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of a merchant ship which has been torpedoed or sunk by any means by a hostile warship during a time of war?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The main reason which led the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Admiralty, to order an inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act into the loss of the "Lusifcania" was the desirability of ascertaining beyond dispute and by judicial investigation the facts and circumstances of this outrage, which involved such lamentable loss of life. Inquiries have been held during the present War into every case of the loss of a passenger steamer, by torpedo or mine, with consequent loss of life; and it is the general practice of the Board of Trade to order an inquiry into such a loss from whatever cause arising.

      NOBEL TRUST COMPANY.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement that the Nobel Trust Company, Limited, are unable to make out a complete balance-sheet owing to the shares which the company hold in German dynamite and explosives companies; whether the Nobel Company have approached the Government for permission to open up negotiations through a neutral country with their German co-shareholders; whether he can indicate the extent of the Nobel shareholding in German explosive concerns; and what answer the Government have made to any proposal made to them?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has not been called to a statement that the Nobel Dynamite Trust Company, Limited, is unable to make out a complete balance-sheet owing to the shares which it holds in German dynamite and explosives companies. The company has, however, been given permission by the Home Office to enter into negotiations with a view to divesting itself of the shares which it holds in German explosives companies, but I am not at present prepared to state the exact amount of the holding in such companies.

      WAR WORKERS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
      Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the canvass by a London newspaper for men capable of working in a new aeroplane factory, with the result that about 7,000 applications were received in a few days for the 200 vacancies; whether a further canvass by the same newspaper for men capable and willing to perform war work in engineering factories has been vetoed by the Board of Trade on the ground that the advertising of vacancies and the registration of workers is forbidden by the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations except by and at the Labour Exchanges; whether this veto of an effort to find recruits for munition factories among those not regularly occupied in engineering or similar work has his sanction; and, if not, will he take steps to remove the veto which absolutely limits the registration of workers to the Labour Exchanges?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Order in Council which the proposed action by this newspaper would, in my opinion, have contravened was made with a view to avoiding the serious delay in production due to the constant transference of men already engaged on Government work to other work. The rule made is, I think, a salutary and necessary one, and I do not propose to advise its relaxation. Arrangements have been made by which approved newspaper advertisements may still be inserted in such a form as to avoid the risk against which the Order was intended to provide.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask if newspaper advertisements for labour are therefore to be considered illegal unless they are approved by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides?
      Mr. RUNCMAN: No, Sir; that would be much too general a statement. But it has become quite obvious that if newspapers or other bodies take men away from Government work in order to supply other Government work, it must lead to disorganisation and not effective production, which is what is required by the Government.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general opinion among manufacturers is that Labour Exchanges are useless for this purpose?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept that doctrine, as already Labour Exchanges have found no less than 67,000 workmen for war work.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: What proportion is that of the number engaged for war work?

      DEVELOPMENT OF BOGS (IRELAND).
      Mr. GIN NELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), (1) in view of the present opportunity for developing bogs for fuel and other products, and the number of tracts of bog obtainable at a nominal price in connection with the sale of the estates to which they belong, if he will explain why the Department have not exercised their statutory power of buying and developing some of those areas for a useful industry now becoming necessary; whether they
      264
      will do so this season; and (2) if he will state the estimated cost delivered in Ireland of the requisite machinery for the efficient manufacture from bog of fuel as manufactured for engine and domestic use in other countries; and, if the Department have no scheme in operation this season for meeting the growing necessity for this commodity, will he account for its omission?
      Mr. BIRRELL: The price of machinery for the manufacture of improved peat fuel—dealing with an output of 4,000 tons per annum—delivered in Ireland would be about £1,250. This price does not include the erection of the machinery, sheds, rails, trucks, and drainage of bog. Including the above items a capital sum of about £3,500 would be necessary for the starting of such an industry, but this sum would not include the cost of purchase of the bog. The Department have given very careful consideration to the methods in use-on the Continent for the manufacture of peat by means of machinery. Their inquiries have led to the conclusion that, owing to the different conditions existing in Ireland, the same methods would not, generally speaking, be applicable to this country for the production of peat for domestic purposes. Arrangements were made for the Department's representatives to investigate, in August, 1914, the results of the working of a new type of German machine reported to give better results than those previously in use, but the outbreak of hostilities interfered with this inquiry. So far hand-made turf is much cheaper to manufacture in Ireland than the machine-made product. The Department are drawing the attention of those engaged in the peat-cutting industry to the importance of cutting as much as possible during the present season. The Department do not propose to purchase any peat areas.
      Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the cost of the bog-land. Is not that really nominal in connection with the sale of land under the Land Purchase Act?
      Mr. BIRRELL: I said that the sum I would give would not include the price at which the bog was purchased. I hope bogs will be cheap, but I do not know.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what action, if any,

      265
      the Irish Executive has taken with reference to owners of large tracts of bog in Ireland who, instead of availing of the present opportunity for developing the bogs for fuel and other products, have dismissed their normal young labourers in order to force them to enlist; and, seeing that such compulsion is not allowed in England, what action he proposes to take with regard to its practice in Ireland?
      Mr. BIRRELL: In view of a possible shortage of coal supplies in Ireland the Local Government Board have already drawn the attention of boards of guardians to the desirability of suggesting to turf owners the cutting of plentiful supplies of bog, not only for their own use, but for sale, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are circularising county committees in the same sense. I have no grounds for believing that any person is being forced to enlist in Ireland.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is not this one of the cases in which the Chief Secretary prefers not to know the facts?
      Mr. BIRRELL: I am always glad to know facts, but it is difficult to find them.

      WAR SERVICE BADGES.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury will sanction the issue of war service badges to those members of the Inland Revenue Department who have been refused permission to enlist?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Yes, Sir; I am prepared to sanction the issue of suitable badges.

      EXPORTS (LICENCES).
      Mr. GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury who compose the committee dealing with licences to export to foreign countries in cases where such licences are required?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Applications for licences to export are dealt with not by a committee, but by the War Trade Department, which was formed for this purpose to assist the Treasury, and of which the director is Lord Emmott.

      OUTDOOR RELIEF.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the rise in price of food, coal, and other commodities, any circular has been issued to boards of guardians recommending an increase in the scale of out-door relief; whether certain localities are exercising their discretion and increasing relief; and whether, if no national action has yet been taken, he will give favourable consideration to the need for a uniform recommendation?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The Local Government Board have not thought it necessary to issue any special circular on this subject. Guardians are well aware, from previous circulars, that in the view of the Board it is their duty, in fixing the amount of out-relief, to have regard to the cost of living in the locality. I shall, however, carefully watch the matter.

      COAL PRICES (GLASGOW CORPORATION CONTRACT).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Glasgow Corporation, in their new coal contract, have been obliged to pay increased prices of from sixty per cent. to seventy per cent.; whether he will obtain information as to the prices at which the municipal authorities have renewed their coal contracts for this year; and whether, in view of the position being created for some of the vital municipal and industrial enterprises, he will endeavour to get enforced the main recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Retail Coal Prices?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. As I have stated at various times in this House, effect has already been given to the majority of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and, as I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for the Dartford Division, yesterday, I am in negotiation with colliery owners with reference to the pit-head prices of coal. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that information should be obtained with reference to the contract prices for coal paid by municipal authorities.

      DOCKYARD PENSIONERS.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that dockyard pensioners are being taken on at some of His Majesty's dockyards and allowed at the same time to retain their pensions; and can he see his way to adopt the same course at Devonport, so that every man who is efficient may be employed?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the case that certain dockyard pensioners whose services were required have been re-engaged in the dockyards at their trade rates of wages, augmented by such sums as were required to make up for the pension which they are precluded from being paid on being re-employed. This arrangement, however, is intended to be applied only in cases in which the services of certain workmen are particularly required. I may add that the instructions in the matter are, of course, the same for Devonport as for the other dockyards.

      GERMAN SUBMARINE CREWS.

        TREATMENT AS PRISONERS OF WAR.
        The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): I have, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a very brief statement to the House. I should like to inform the House that within the last few days a German submarine has been sunk and that of her crew six officers and twenty-one men have been taken prisoners. As this raises again the question of the treatment of German submarine prisoners, in which the House has shown considerable interest, it might be convenient if I made a short statement on the subject. It will be within the knowledge of the House, from an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on the 29th April, that there is not, and for some weeks has not been, any substantial difference between the treatment of German submarine prisoners and other prisoners of war. As there seems, however, to be some doubt in the public mind on this subject, I desire to say on behalf of the Government that arrangements are being made, under which the treatment will not be merely substantially, but absolutely identical.
        This does not, I need scarcely say, indicate any change of opinion as to the character of the acts in which these prisoners
        268
        have been concerned. We hold not merely that these practices are in flagrant contradiction both of the letter and the spirit of the laws of war, but that they are in themselves mean, cowardly and brutal. It must, however, be remembered that the submarine attacks on defenceless vessels are very far from being the only violation of the laws of humanity of which the Germans have been guilty. The Government are, therefore, of opinion that the submarine problem cannot be treated in isolation, and that the general question of personal responsibility should be reserved until the end of the War.
        Mr. CATHCART WASON: Arising out of that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will at once take means, by the courtesy of the American Embassy, to make that information known to the German Government, so as to do away with all excuse for the horrible treatment of these nineteen prisoners, who are subjected to solitary confinement and only allowed an hour or two a day for exercise, and so that they may be put in the same position they were in before?
        Mr. BALFOUR: I will at once communicate with the Foreign Office in order to carry out the object the hon. Gentleman has in view.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
      Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I desire to ask the Prime Minister when the Government intend to introduce the Bill based upon the Report of the Pensions Committee, which is a very urgent matter?
      The PRIME MINISTER: At the earliest possible moment.

    Dalkey Postmistress.
    Mr. GINNELLasked what time and opportunity were given to Mrs. Somers, late postmistress at Dalkey, for rebutting the charges made against her by a rival in the service; the date upon which she was informed of the charges; the date upon which her defence was considered; the date of her dismissal; and whether, apart from legal right, it is the practice of the Post Office to dismiss without pension after twenty-three years' satisfactory service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The charges made against the late sub-postmistress at

    269
    Dalkey were fully stated to her by an inquiry officer sent from London. The interview took place on the 18th of December last and lasted about half an hour. Mrs. Somers' defence was a denial of the charges. She declined to make any further statement. On the 26th of January she called at the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, Dublin, with her daughter and handed in a statement prepared by the latter. This statement, with all the evidence elicited in the course of the inquiry, was submitted to my predecessor on the 22nd of February last. His decision dismissing Mrs. Somers from the service was given on the same day. Mrs. Somers, as an unestablished sub-postmistress, was ineligible, by the terms of her appointment for a pension under the Superannuation Acts, irrespective of the circumstances under which she might leave the Post Office service.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the practice to dismiss without pension persons with twenty-three years' satisfactory service?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have replied to that point in my answer.

    Western Islands of Scotland (Communication).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether any and, if so, what restrictions have recently been made in the mail services to the western islands of Scotland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The following are the principal restrictions: The Island of Mull has a service on four days a week, with certain additional trips between Tobermory and Oban, instead of every week-day; the Islands of Coll and Tirce and the Outer Hebrides, with the exception of Lewis, have a service on two days a week instead of three; and the Islands of Lewis and Skye have a service on three days a week instead of every week-day.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these restrictions have very severely limited the means of communication between the islands and the mainland, and have inflicted not only much inconvenience but also serious loss upon the inhabitants?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid that restrictions of the kind are necessary.
    Sir J. DEWAR: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the postal service to the Outer Hebrides is now two days a week instead of three? Is it not a fact that the Outer Hebrides formerly had a daily service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not my information.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly look into the case of Rhum?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that communications with the western islands of Scotland have recently been restricted, to the loss of the inhabitants; and whether he proposes to take any steps to maintain an adequate service of communications?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have received various representations on this subject, and am in communication with the Treasury and the Postmaster-General.

    Welsh Church Commission.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether any appointment has been made to fill the vacation in the Welsh Church Commission caused by the resignation of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    Sir J. SIMON: It has not been found necessary to fill up this vacancy at present.
    Mr. KING: Is there any intention of filling it up?

    Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Inland Revenue proposes placing the clerks to surveyors of taxes on the same footing as regards the amount of sick leave allowable to them as the other members of the Department; and, if so, when will this be done?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The same rules as regards sick leave are now applicable to established clerks to surveyors of taxes as to other established officers of the Inland Revenue Department.

    Bromley County School.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the local sub-committee, with the approval of the Kent Higher Education Committee, proposes to dismiss the headmistress of the Bromley County School, notwithstanding the fact that the school has received excellent reports from the Board of Education; whether he is aware that the headmistress was absent from duty, owing to illness, when she was notified that a resolution to recommend her dismissal would be moved at a special meeting of the sub-committee, and that she asked for a postponement of the business until her health had so improved that she could attend without risk or, in the alternative, that Information might be given as to the charges against her on which the resolution was based; that these reasonable requests were explicitly refused; and whether he will call the attention of the local education authority to the matter, and suggest that they should make a full inquiry into all the facts before giving effect to the proposed dismissal?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am in communication with the local education authority on the subject, and will let my hon. Friend know the result of my inquiries.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [ELEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

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

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £41,553, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including certain Grants-in-Aid. [NOTE.—£25,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. MOLTENO: I desire to call attention to what I conceive to be a very great injustice to Scotland, if not an illegality. The Vote for these services last year totalled a sum of £244,100. It has been reduced this year to a sum of £66,558, or a total reduction of £177,000 upon a figure of £244,000. Roughly, we may say it has been reduced by three-quarters. Scotland has been specially selected for this treatment. All the other portions of the United Kingdom have had increased Grants for the Civil Service Estimates. Scotland alone has been subjected to this enormous reduction, and Scotland is further differentiated by the fact that she has a statutory right to £200,000 for the purpose of this Vote. That statutory right is secured by the Small Holdings Act, 1911, and I shall argue that it is illegal by administrative act to prevent Scotland receiving the sum which has been assigned to her by an Act of this Parliament. What has happened in regard to the other parts of the United Kingdom? How have they been treated? Has there been any corresponding reduction? At a time like this we are all prepared to make sacrifices if they are required, but there should be equality of sacrifice. The whole sacrifice should not be placed upon one portion of the United Kingdom while the other portions make no sacrifice but receive increased sums. That is a position which I hope to make perfectly clear and establish absolutely. The English Board of Agriculture has been asked to sacrifice £2,379 out of a total of £344,000, while it
    282
    has no statutory right to any portion of that sum. I know it is said that outside the Estimates a difference is being made in regard to England and Ireland, and that England is not to receive any money for small holdings. We have ascertained by question and answer that that suggestion is not correct. While money will not be forthcoming this year for the purchase of land for the purpose of small holdings, there will be no curtailment whatever in England in regard to the creation of small holdings by lease. As in Scotland all small holdings are created under lease, it is perfectly clear that there is no curtailment in England on similar principles to what is now proposed in Scotland, because the greater part of this reduction must fall upon that portion of the Vote which is utilised for the purpose of providing small holdings in Scotland.
    In regard to England the total Civil Service Estimates are not reduced but are increased this year. What is the position in regard to Ireland? Ireland will receive this year for her Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction a sum less by £19,860 than the amount she received last year—£189,000. In addition, Ireland receives for her Congested Districts Board £169,000, and in connection with the Land Act she receives no less than £785,000, which is itself an increase of £65,000 upon the sum provided last year. So that in regard to the one item of the Land Commission she receives an increased sum equal practically within £1,000 to the total sum to be received this year for the whole purposes of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. Scotland, out of this reduced sum of £65,000, has to provide for the whole purposes of agriculture, and the case is even worse than that, because out of the £65,000 there is provided by Statute £15,000 for the Congested Districts Board, and when we recollect that the old Crofters Commission had an annual Grant of £30,000 we have to reduce the sum of £65,000 by £45,000, leaving a paltry £20,000 for all the purposes of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. These purposes are land reform, small holdings, the provision of loans for smallholders, agriculture education, afforestation, congested districts, Crofters Commission duties, and all the other various activities which will be found detailed in the very excellent Report of the Board which is before us now. I consider that this sum is entirely inadequate to the purposes of Scotland, whereas

    283
    Ireland receives for similar purposes no less than £1,124,000 this year for purposes for which Scotland is to receive £65,000, or a sum no less than seventeen times as great as Scotland is to receive. I do not grudge the sum payable to Ireland. I have no doubt it will be expended to the advantage of Ireland and the United Kingdom, particularly at a time like this when the question of food supply and agriculture was never more important than it is today. All I ask is that we should not at a time like this deny to agriculture in Scotland the necessary funds for maintaining normal agriculture produce.
    The total Estimates for the United Kingdom have been increased by no less than £1,000,000 this year upon last year, so that Scotland has not only been robbed of £177,000, but that money has been given, with increased Grants in addition, to other portions of the United Kingdom. That is an injustice to Scotland which ought not to exist and should not have been permitted by the Secretary of State. I know he will tell us that we have a very considerable Board of Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, so considerable that it is said by the Treasury—not by the Secretary for Scotland, because I understand he has protested against it—that as you have money in hand you ought to ask for no further money until you have expended what you have. What is the position in regard to the establishment of a new Board of this kind? It is perfectly clear that it has to accumulate such a sum for the purpose of capital expenditure in starting its new ventures. No less than £200,000 was given to the Board of Agriculture for Ireland as a capital sum with which to start. In addition to that it has accumulated a very considerable sum out of savings from the initial years of its existence when its schemes were not in full working and it was not able to expend all the money which was voted. These sums are so considerable that they amounted at the end of March last to a surplus in hand of £150,000. On the same principle the Treasury should have said to the Board of Agriculture for Ireland, "You have large sums of money in hand. We are not going to vote you this large sum that you are getting to-day." Instead of that they have enormously increased the Grants to Ireland for purposes similar to those which we have to provide for Scotland out of this very limited sum.
    284
    4.0 P.M.
    I should like to point out that when the sum of £200,000 was granted by the Act of 1911 it was intended and was known that the whole of that sum would not be expended in the first or the second year by the Board. If the intention had not been that, it would have stated in the Act that any balance should be surrendered. It was intended that the sum should accumulate for the capital purposes of the Board for starting farm schools, agricultural colleges, veterinary colleges, and for various other purposes. It was intended that the fund accumulated should be so used and it was secured by Statute that it should be so. If the Treasury is to apply this rule about sums in hand, then the rule ought to be fairly applied all round. The Irish Board has so large a sum in hand, which is invested with the Bank of Ireland, that it received last year a sum of just about £6,000 in interest, showing that it had at least £200,000 in hand in the Bank of Ireland for the purposes of the Board. If we are to have fair treatment, then it ought to be borne in mind what are the circumstances in regard to the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, Personally, I think that all these moneys in hand should be available for the purposes of the respective Boards, and it could be perfectly well used. There are many admirable uses for all these funds. When it is said that the Scottish Board has this large sum in hand it is quite forgotten that £86,000 was transferred from the Congested Districts Board, and that helps to swell the balance. It is forgotten at the same time that there were liabilities on the other side of the account, not matured yet, amounting to £60,000. Therefore, of the balance in hand the Congested Districts Board accounts for £86,000, and when the commitments of the Board itself for schemes already in hand are taken into account, have £200,000 of that balance already ear-marked.
    Take the question of small holdings. Is the provision of small holdings up to date? Have we had a considerable creation of small holdings? The Act was passed in 1911. It is now 1915—four years since the Act was passed. During those four years have we had a great creation of small holdings? Is the supply equal to the demand? Has there been any substantial satisfaction of that demand? There has been nothing of the kind. I think the figures which I can presently put before the Committee will demonstrate absolutely

    285
    that there has been no substantial satisfaction of the demand of the small holders. I am not going to blame the Secretary for Scotland nor the Board. I think the machinery with which they have to work is such that it can only work very slowly. It can only work very unevenly and with great difficulty. So much was this recognised that last year we passed a Bill in this House which I am sorry to say is not an Act to-day, because it did not pass through the other House. That was a Bill to remedy the anomalies and difficulties of the original Act. Therefore I admit at once that we cannot blame the Board or the Secretary for Scotland for the slow progress which has been made. It has been due to the machinery.
    Sir G. YOUNGERmade a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. MOLTENO: My hon. Friend reminds me that the Bill did not quite get through this House owing to certain difficulties. It got through the Second Reading and through the Committee Stage, but it did not become law. Grit was put into the machinery which has obstructed the fair progress of this Act and defeated the legitimate aspirations of Scotland in regard to small holdings. I would briefly point out what is the position in regard to small holdings. In the first year the number of applications for small holdings was 5,382, and in the second year it amounted to 8,132. This year the applications have mounted up to no less than 9,330. I am glad to think that some small progress has been made. In the Report of the Board of Agriculture it is stated that applicants to the extent of 673 have now been placed upon the land by this Act, an increase of 400 upon the year before; so that during the year under review this number of small holdings have been provided out of over 9,000 applicants. Hon. Members can easily calculate how many years it is going to take to provide the present applicants for small holdings with that which they have a right to demand under the Act. This number of applicants does not at all express in figures the total demand in Scotland for small holdings, because the Commissioners have pointed out that the moment a scheme is a real and practical one the applicants come forward in very large numbers. They point out, therefore, that the figures must not be taken as expressing the demand in Scotland for small holdings. While they may be subject to some limitations in regard to suitability,
    286
    they must not be taken as representing, the demand in Scotland for small holdings. While there are over 9,000 applicants, the demand is much greater than is represented by the figures. The Board say:—
    "So many indications have Come to the Board's notice that they cannot regard the application on their lists as a true criterion of the full extent of the demands for small holdings throughout the country, particularly outside the Highland area."
    I will give hon. Members an example. In my own Constituency I have had applications, and they illustrate what occurs in every other constituency, and it shows the difficulty we Members have to contend with. Some 109 applications have been made from my Constituency, and there are now placed upon small holdings fourteen of the applicants. There is an intention to provide two more, so that out of 109 applicants fourteen only have been provided with small holdings and two more are to be provided. Sixteen, or not quite one in six, is, I think, in the highest degree unsatisfactory. That there should be only one in six of the existing applicants dealt with is very unsatisfactory, especially in view of the further applications that are likely to be made. To do the Board justice, they are hoping to provide for 823 more applicants under their new scheme, but owing to delays it is very improbable if anything like 823 will be provided in the following year. Even if that number were provided it would mean that we should have 1,400 out of the 9,000 applied for. That state of affairs discloses the fact that this Act, as far as its administration is concerned, is a failure as regards meeting the insistent demands of Scotland for small holdings.
    With regard to the Fund, I will say no more except that last year the Board drew attention to the fact that while the fund in hand was considerable still it was earmarked to a very great extent, and that they could not expect the full demands on the fund to come into the account in the earlier stages of the scheme; only at a later stage would these demands come fully into account. They report that their activities in regard to small holdings were and must be limited by the amount of money at their disposal. We have, therefore, every indication that every penny that we can accumulate or lay our hands upon for small holdings will be necessary if we are to supply the demand for small holdings in Scotland. Schemes have been discussed for a loan for this purpose as soon as the machinery is in proper order.

    287
    I think a fund very much larger than we can see any sight of to-day will be needed to supply the demand for small holdings which exist in Scotland. I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to another point. Last year the Board advanced certain sums for the purpose of improving the housing of small landholders. This is one of the most beneficent operations of the Board, and I think it will be commended by the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). They do not ask for public money. All they ask for is the convenience of loans at a fair rate of interest, so that no charge falls eventually upon the public funds. I hope the hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) will support us in this as against schemes where large sums of public money are granted and no returns are made at all. No more beneficent work could be carried on. When the Crofters Act was passed, £170,000 was expended in Skye in improvements of dwellings. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will support the extension of this beneficent work as far as possible.
    Any curtailment of the Grant to the Board will materially reduce the activities of the Board. The number of applicants this year has nearly doubled, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will realise the danger of stopping this very excellent work by cutting off the funds that are essential for its maintenance. There is a feature in regard to the cutting down of our estimate to which I must draw attention. It has been done entirely without the knowledge of the representatives of Scotland. We understand that the Secretary for Scotland has also protested. It does seem to me that we are getting into a strange condition of things when we are to be dealt with here as children who need not be consulted in regard to the interests of their constituents or of the country they represent. Already an illustration bas been given in which we have Welsh representatives telling us here that their rights through the Welsh Act have been tampered with by a Bill passed through the other House, in regard to which they were not consulted, and the first they heard of it was when the Bill was introduced. Now we have Scotland not consulted when its statutory rights are tampered with by the administration of a Department. I think that is a thing that we should resist, in practice as well as in principle. No Department ought to have the right to tamper with the statutory
    288
    rights of this House in regard to what is laid down by Statute. We are entitled to a sum of £200,000 by the Act. It is said that the precise language stipulates that a sum not exceeding £185,000 should be granted each year. I would remind hon. Members that in using the language "not exceeding" it really means in practice that we pay the amount stipulated. It was intended to secure for Scotland an annual payment of £200,000. Yesterday we passed a Clause providing for the salary of the new Minister of Munitions, and how was that Clause worded? This is what the Clause says:—
    "There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament to the Minister of Munitions an annual salary not exceeding £5,000."
    That is always the language used, and the intention is to pay that salary. No Treasury clerk ought to be allowed to exorcise the right to repeal the wording of an Act. The intention in the case of the Minister of Munitions is that a sum of £5,000 will be paid annually, and nothing less. I am told by my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) that there was a promise made to Scotland that this sum of £200,000 should be provided annually, and it was intended to be provided by that Act, and it is only quibbling to say that the language of the Act is "not exceeding."
    It is perfectly clear, looking into the circumstances of the War, that when the War comes to an end Ave shall have not a diminishing but an increasing demand for land settlement in Scotland. I think that it is very cruel, when Scotland has responded in such a way as she has done to the call of duty in sending out numbers, greater in proportion than any other portion of the United Kingdom, in defence of the liberties of the country, that while those men are away they should be deprived of their rights by a Treasury Department. I hope that that will be resented, and that it will not be permitted by the representatives of Scotland. It is very important that the machinery for the provision of small holdings should not only be kept in existence but should be kept actively in existence, so that when the demand comes it may be met and the people shall not be kept waiting for a long period unemployed and receiving State aid, but that they may be placed on the land at once. Anyone examining the report of the Board of Agriculture will realise that that Board has made a most excellent and most admirable start, and

    289
    has opened up activities in many directions. Anyone who knows what goes on in France, Denmark, Sweden, and many other parts of the world in the direction of agricultural development must feel that it is of the utmost importance to Scotland and the United Kingdom that agriculture in Scotland should be developed actively on the lines which have been followed so well by the Board of Agriculture. It would be nothing less than a calamity if those activities are to cease by reason of the deficiency of the small sum of £200,000, just about one-tenth of the daily expenditure of this War, for a purpose which is vital to our country, that is to help to place upon the soil of the country men who are ready to make use of it to the utmost of their power. I want to protest against what seems to be an outrage against Scotland, that we should be robbed in this way behind our backs, without our knowledge or consent. I hope that it will not be permitted that such advantage should be taken of us. It is true that the Administration under which this work has been taking place has disappeared and has been replaced by a new Administration. But the Secretary for Scotland, I understand, has made a protest against what is now proposed, and I would ask him now to make that protest effective.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire has raised this point which we have already discussed privately with the Scottish Secretary. Before I add a few arguments to those which he has put so succinctly, I would like to thank the Secretary for Scotland for getting us, what we have not had in recent years, an opportune occasion for discussing the Scottish Estimates. It is rather remarkable that we are discussing these on the eleventh allotted day, and in the middle of the week, before the other Members of this House have gone. It is unfortunate that this Debate is taking place in the absence of the English, Irish, and Welsh Members, because the point that is being emphasised at the moment is that Scotland has been deprived of money which all these other nationalities have secured; that is to say, that Scotland is the only country of the four in the United Kingdom that has been asked and may be compelled to exercise what is described as a war economy at its expense alone. I do not think that that is right. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland
    290
    will not press to have this Vote disposed of to-day. I am extremely keen on that point, and I hope that the Vote may be put down on some other occasion. As my right hon. Friend knows, Scottish Members have already approached him with regard to this Grant. We know from that interview with the Secretary for Scotland that he himself is as much against Scotland being deprived of its money as any other Scottish Member who sits in the House at the present moment, so that we are absolutely united on that point.
    When we saw my right hon. Friend, we agreed that we should see the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put those arguments before him. In the interval we have had the crisis, which has created the Coalition Government, and one of the alterations which are within the knowledge of every Member of the House is that we have a different Chancellor of the Exchequer whom we have not yet been able to see, to put our arguments before him, and before whom we are entitled to put our case before being deprived of the money to which we consider we are entitled. Therefore I hope that those of us who feel keenly on this subject will emphasise this point, that we do not desire this Vote to be disposed of before we have had that particular opportunity of emphasising our case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that this will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, because, though we may differ on many points, I think that he will agree with us on this side of the House that Scotland is entitled to her fair share, and that, until we have had an opportunity of stating our case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this matter should not be taken out of the control of the House. As I do not desire to repeat any of the arguments which have been so well put by my hon. Friend who opened the Debate, I will not discuss any other question with regard to the Land Court, but will refer to another subject relative to the Board of Agriculture which I think ought to be discussed. I refer to a question which is extremely serious at the moment, not only to Scotland, but to the whole United Kingdom—that is, the future meat and milk supply of the people of this country. This applies to the whole United Kingdom.
    Mr. COWAN: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing on the Scottish Estimates matters that apply to the whole United Kingdom?
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is all a relative matter. He certainly cannot travel all round the United Kingdom, but he may use this as an illustration.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not intend to deal with that point at all. What I said was that the case in Scotland was urgent, and that the result of what was happening in Scotland will be detrimental, not only to Scotland, but to the whole United Kingdom. That was the obvious meaning of the remark which I made, and I hope that it will now sink in. It is certain that there has been a large amount of slaughtering of cows which are pregnant, and the result of that has been that we are faced with two results. We are depleting the large herds of cattle in Scotland by the desire on the part of men who have reared cattle to take advantage of the high prices which now obtain in the meat market, and, on the other hand, we are harming for the future the raising of herds of the kind. My right hon. Friend (Sir John Dewar) shakes his head with regard to my remarks as to the slaughter of pregnant cows having a very detrimental effect upon the herds in Scotland. I have a quotation from the report of a veterinary surgeon in one of the largest of our Scottish cities, and if my right hon. Friend has not seen this before, which he may have done, I hope that he will take notice of the statements in this report. This veterinary surgeon, reporting on six days, says this:—
    "The number of cows found after slaughter to be previously in calf were recorded dining the week ended 29th January, 1915. In the six days no less than 129 cows were found to be pregnant. In some cases the calves were removed alive after the dams had been slaughtered, and it was not an uncommon occurrence for the cow to give birth in the surface pens of the slaughter-house to a healthy calf. While no statistics are available for comparison"—
    this authority says—
    "I have no hesitation in asserting that a much larger number of pregnant cows have been slaughtered this season."
    I would rather not give the name of the city at the moment. I have given the quotation. It is from a veterinary surgeon in one of the largest cities in Scotland. It is a very significant fact that in six days in January as many as 130 cows in calf slaughtered for the purpose of supplying meat to the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the total number slaughtered?"] I cannot at the moment say the total number. My right hon. Friend asks how many, but my right hon. Friend knows
    292
    that no statistics are kept of the number of the cows that are slaughtered in calf or of the weeks and months in which they are slaughtered. I want to suggest incidentally to the Scottish Secretary that here, at any rate, is one thing which the Scottish Board of Agriculture might do with great advantage to agriculture in Scotland—that is, have those statistics kept so that we can make a comparison from year to year as to whether the practice of killing cows in calf is increasing or decreasing. That is a practical suggestion which I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind.
    If I may be allowed to argue my case outside of Scotland, let us look at what is happening elsewhere. We know that the herds of cattle in the North of France have been driven off by the Germans, and that so many cattle have been destroyed in that country that France, which used to have a prejudice against foreign meat, is now competing for that foreign meat in the open markets of the world. Belgium has also been deprived of its herds of cattle and the Germans to-day are sending German cattle to browse in Belgian fields. There is a great amount of slaughter going on in Denmark and in Austria-Hungary, and it is quite obvious that all over Europe, on account of the conditions in which we find ourselves, there is a slaughter of cattle which is detrimental to the future interests of the meat supply of this country. It is also true that the supplies from abroad, from our own Colonies, from New Zealand, and from Australia, are not so available for this country if there is a demand from so many other European nations. If this slaughter is allowed to continue in Scotland by the officers of the Board of Agriculture, it is perfectly obvious that the shortage of meat will not stop with the stoppage of the War, and that when we reach peace the price of meat to consumers in Scotland will be considerably raised, first, on account of the fact that so many cows in calf are being slaughtered, and, secondly, that at the close of the War the demand from Scotland, which is 40 per cent. of the meat supply in Scotland, will be competed with by the demand from other nations of Europe. I want to know whether my right hon. Friend in the course of his reply on this Debate can give us any information with regard to what was done in regard to the slaughter of animals, and how it is proposed to deal with this question? Can my right hon. Friend tell

    293
    us during the period which is covered by the Board of Agriculture's Report what was done in Scotland in the way of putting a stop to the slaughter to which I have referred? Can he give us any report from the officers of the Board of Agriculture as to what has been done?
    The other point which I wish to put has reference to the milk supply. My right hon. Friend will agree, and I suppose everybody who knows agricultural matters will agree—I do not pretend to know a very great deal about them, but I have been able to get hold of these facts—that from the point of view of the supply of milk it is a disadvantage to kill cows under eight years of age. Some of the agricultural Members will correct me if I am wrong in that statement. This is what I understand the position to be: If you kill a cow under eight years of age it is a distinct loss to the milk supply of the country. The price of milk in Scotland has not risen, and I suggest that the recent increase of price obtained for meat is the reason why this is so. If the milk supply of the country is thereby affected, the result may be very detrimental from the public health point of view. My right hon. Friend knows the value of milk as a diet for infants and children, and if, by this slaughter, we are going to diminish in future the supply of milk required in our large cities, then we are going to be faced by another grave problem. I do not want to pile up arguments which have been so well put by my hon. Friend opposite. He knows my views on those points, and I think my right hon. Friend knows the views of all Scottish Members on this question. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree to the suggestion that I have made, namely, that until we have seen the new Chancellor of the Exchequer—we have not had an opportunity of seeing him yet—he will not press for this Vote to be taken to-day, and that we shall have an opportunity, therefore, of raising the whole question at a later time in the House of Commons. There are very many other interesting points in the Report of the Board for this year, which are extremely important to Scotsmen, but I do not wish to dwell upon them, but content myself with having called attention to those two matters.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I only intervene for a few minutes in the interest of economy. I have listened with great interest to the two speeches which have been made, and I do not for a moment
    294
    wish to contradict the statement made by the two hon. Members as to the object for which they desire the money, and as to whether it is a good object or not, I do not argue. But if every other part of the United Kingdom were to come down and say, "We think there are certain objects which are good and which will require money," difficult circumstances would arise.
    Mr. MOLTENO: They have got it already.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Very likely; the money has been voted for Scotland, but it has to be found, and I really do hope that the Committee will realise that at the present moment we are at war, and that however good any particular object may be, it is out of accord with all existing objects associated with the War at the present moment. Our chief object is to find the money and continue the War, and until the War is over I suggest that neither Scotchmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, nor Englishmen should ask for any grant of money whatever, except it be necessary to carry on the War.
    Sir JOHN DEWAR: I have very few observations to make and I dare say they will prove of a friendly character. I would, however, point out that public opinion in Scotland is not at all satisfied with what the Board of Agriculture are doing. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and to the action of the Treasury, I notice from the Report that after the expenditure last year of £80,000 there is apparently a capital balance in hand of £398,000, and though there may really be something to be said for the Treasury there is this to be stated in regard to Scotland, that if we do not get it this year care should be taken to preserve it for Scotland. Our capital expenditure on taking new holdings will be large in future, and if we had a guarantee that when this expenditure does arise that our claim to this money will be recognised and met, then in the meantime the Treasury may be allowed to delay payment.
    The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) made a great deal of the point of slaughtering cows in calf. The question of the slaughter of these cows, I believe, is no more serious to-day than at ordinary times. It is a serious thing to kill cows in calf, and also to kill young cows

    295
    which are not in calf. There are many herds of the best milch cows in the world which are brought to Edinburgh from the North of England and from Ireland, and those young cows after giving one year's milk are sold by the owner. This is a most wasteful method of carrying on this part of the business of the country, but I cannot very well see how you can prevent it. You cannot prevent a man who owns a cow making the very best of it for himself. It will, I hope, right itself. At present the price of store cattle is high, and I believe it would ultimately pay the milk sellers to see that cows are not killed in this way, so that the milk supply may be increased. The Board of Agriculture has certain duties to perform, and a very large proportion of the Grant was to be devoted entirely for the congested districts in the seven crofting counties. The sum of £35,000 a year was formerly granted to those counties, and, besides, there was handed over a capital sum of £86,000, and property which cost £252,000—far too much, I agree, but that was the amount, and it was actually handed over to the Board of Agriculture. This amounts to over £300,000 capital that ought to be spent exclusively in the crofting counties. But the crofting counties have not got anything like £35,000 a year out of that sum, and my point is that the crofting counties of Scotland are not getting a fair share of this Grant.
    There has been, of course, expenditure in the case of small holdings in those districts, but I submit that the sum does not come to £35,000, which they were to get. I think rather a bad bargain was made for the crofting counties when the Bill was passed. I want to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the condition of things in the Western Hebrides. In reply to a question to-day the right hon. Gentleman said that the subject was under consideration. He will do his best. I must impress upon him, however, the necessity of something being done very soon. The mail boat service of the Western Hebrides has been reduced from a daily service to something like two days a week, and the postal service, instead of being daily, is only two days a week. This is due to the fact that the contract for mails is in the hands practically of one firm, who say to the Post Office that trade has so much fallen off that they cannot afford to continue the service. The people of the islands
    296
    very seriously doubt this statement. I should very much like the Secretary for Scotland to take the question up, and see that a better service is given than is at present available. I know that the Post Office always says, when I raise this question, that it is not part of their duty to provide for a passenger service, or for a boat service. I dare say it is not, but it is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland as representing the Board of Agriculture.
    The CHAIRMAN: This question does not arise on the Vote now under discussion. The Vote has reference to money to be devoted to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and we must really dispose of that first.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No doubt, Sir, it is very desirable, indeed, to keep to strict order; but I would point out that this is a very important matter, and it is one in which the Board of Agriculture, in those particular districts, can, I believe,, give subsidies, if they like, for this particular purpose. Therefore, I submit that it would be in order to say a word or two about it.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the point really comes within the administrative powers of the Minister for Scotland, acting for the Board of Agriculture, then so far the hon. Member may proceed.
    Sir J. DEWAR: You will find, Sir, on page 20 of the Report, that there have been sums granted out of this Vote for this very purpose.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that fact. I cannot profess to be acquainted with all these matters, and if the hon. Member had commenced his observations by stating that fact I should have not have intervened.
    Mr. MORTON: On the point of Order. With regard to the question of Scottish communications, we have actually been advised that we should invite the Board of Agriculture to assist, and the people from the particular district affected have been told to apply.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that in so far as it relates to the administration of the Secretary for Scotland in his capacity as head of the Board of Agriculture it is in order, but not in so far as it relates to the Post Office.
    Sir J. DEWAR: It all comes out of Grants from the Congested Districts Board. I suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that the question is one which he ought to consider. People in the Western Hebrides have enlisted very largely, and from some of the islands practically every man is in the Navy or the Army. The people who remain feel the isolation at present very much, and the absence of information of every kind. I think it is a pity that at this crisis they should be deprived of two-thirds of their postal communication. The Secretary for Scotland stated to-day that he would give the matter sympathetic consideration, and I trust he will do so. There is one other interesting observation in this Report which I think a note should be made of, and that is as to the laudable efforts of the Board of Agriculture to improve the shooting and sporting on the Island of Barra. I see they have gone so far as to appoint a gamekeeper, and that they have introduced some grouse. I am very doubtful about the success of the introduction of the grouse, but I am in favour of the Board doing all it can to get as large a rental as possible out of the place. In Skye the Congested Districts Board developed the shooting rental with great profit and advantage to the crofters as well as to the shooting tenants. Let me refer also to the question of agricultural research. That is a very important matter and the Board have been doing something about it. I know of one experiment in which they have been trying to improve the breed of cattle in the Western Hebrides in order that they might mature more quickly than the Western Hebrides cattle and at the same time stand the severe climate of those parts. Apparently their efforts in regard to research have come to a stop. The Development Commissioners granted to a Committee in Edinburgh, consisting of members of the College of Agriculture and of the university, a thousand pounds for research, and the Board of Agriculture practically, I believe, promised another £500, and with those two Grants the Committee was prepared to engage the services of one of the best known scientists on this subject. The Board of Agriculture delayed making the Grant of £500 and the Committee has not been able to secure the services of the scientist. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to try to induce the Board to make this Grant, so that progress may be made in this direction. I do not know any subject which would
    298
    better repay the money spent upon it than intelligent and scientific research into these questions.
    With regard to forestry, one need not pretend that the people of Scotland are satisfied with what has been done by the Board. I agree with the statement that we should at present spend as little money as possible, but there has been a proposal before the Board for a long time with regard to the purchase of a demonstration area. For various reasons that has been delayed. I notice from this Report differences of opinion have cropped up as to where the administration area should be. One party wishes it in a particular place and another section of the Committee want it in a more accessible place. I am with the desire to have it in an accessible place. The Committee has been offered a large area on a long lease, but it is supposed to be inadvisable to take the area on those terms. Personally, I cannot understand the objection to the long lease. The lease may be made as long as you like. If you had a lease of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years the trees would be exhausted long before the period expired. There have been areas which were refused because there were no trees upon them. On the other hand, the Committee was offered an area on a long lease with grown timber, and if the term was made a hundred years the trees would be exhausted and the students would have the benefit of the experience. I cannot understand why a long lease should be less advantageous for this purpose than purchasing outright, so long as the lease is long enough. What we want to get is an area where experiments can be made in planting and also in the treatment of trees. You are offered in an accessible district two areas that carry out those purposes, and for the life of me I cannot understand why progress has not been made on the subject. While I do not want seriously to criticise at this stage the operations of the Board, I cannot say that on all the points I am anything like satisfied with what the Board have done, and particularly I think a little more activity might have been exercised in the Forestry Department.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sure no one wants on this occasion to meticulously criticise the Report, and there is a great deal which one might say on ordinary occasions which one does not want to say now. With regard to the question of the money Grant, it is no good arguing for a

    299
    single moment that that was not an absolute Grant, or that the sum in question is not an absolute sum. I myself remember very well when the then Master of Elibank, in one of his southern tours with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, succeeded in getting the right hon. Gentleman to double the Grant of £100,000, he asked me particularly to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having made such a generous contribution to agricultural interests in Scotland. It is clear that it was never intended to depart from the question of amount in the way in which under present circumstances the Treasury have done. I am bound to say I look with a certain amount of suspicion on any Department being able or having the right to interfere with a Grant which is embodied in an Act of Parliament. I do not think that is a precedent which we can allow to pass without protest, and I do strongly protest and make clear that I for my part, and I am sure hon. Members here who think with me, are perfectly determined to see that this shall not be a precedent in the future so far as Scotland is concerned. At the same time I agree with the hon. Baronet who has just spoken that this is not the time to press the Treasury to send money to Scotland which is perhaps unnecessary at the moment. I think there is a very strong case for their holding it up, I do not say altogether, and I do not say any more than postponing it. If you are going to be dishonest it would go a very long way, but if you are going to pay honest compensation the sum of £200,000 would not go a very long way, but we shall certainly need that money to be made up when times are better. I should not press the matter unduly now, but I do want to protest against it being supposed that this is to be regarded as a precedent for dealing with a question of this kind, and I shall content myself with having made that protest. With regard to the question of the slaughter of cattle, I do not know whether the Board of Agriculture has legally power to prevent the slaughter of in-calf cows.
    Mr. HOGGE: There is the Slaughter of Animals Act.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It may be that there has been an emergency Statute passed which gives the power, and if that is so it is certainly about time for the Board to deal with the matter and exercise those powers. So far as the question of forestry
    300
    is concerned, I agree with the hon. Baronet that it is time that the various opposing parties in this matter should settle their difference and do something. It is all very fine to say that in one case there is an area with a long lease and that in another you can buy an estate in a suitable neighbourhood with certain trees in various stages of age and condition. I do not know which is the better plan, but one plan or other ought to be settled upon, and the thing ought not to be hung up. The people are getting impatient about it, and personally I have had representations made to me on the subject and suggesting that something ought to be done to remedy the deadlock. With regard to the expenditure of money on small holdings, I am not at all sure that this is an economic time to do so, and that the suspension of that work for the moment is not desirable. The Board of Agriculture, in its Report dealing with this matter, say:—
    "In their Second Report the Board referred to the serious effect of the rise in the cost of building, upon the initial expense of providing dwelling-houses and steadings for which the small holders assume liability. Since the outbreak of war the price of labour and materials has further increased and the Board were considering whether it would be possible to take special steps to meet the emergency."
    5.0 P.M.
    There is also a reference to fencing. That is a very serious consideration. We know that the expense of building has gone up enormously, and, whatever may be the advantage of small holdings, and however large the number of applications may be at the moment, you really ought to take into consideration whether this is an economic time to establish them, and also to provide equipment at a sum very much more costly than usual. The men in those holdings would be burdened with the interest on the large expenditure which the Board would have to make on that equipment and fencing, and I do not think myself the Board ought to be encouraged to go too far in this matter until we get into more normal times. I must make one complaint. I made it very often before, and I want to keep it alive. My complaint is as to the manner in which the accounts are presented to us. Four years ago or more the late Lord Advocate agreed with me about the position of these accounts. They are so muddled, and in so ludricous a form that no man can make out what rent we are getting or anything else. The only thing you do see in regard to one of the estates is a steady accumulation of arrears of rent. It was promised, four

    301
    years ago, that these accounts should be presented in an intelligible form. The Board of Agriculture now has a very large staff. Its work is not perhaps quite so heavy as it was in the last year or so, but the cost of its administration is going up by leaps and bounds, and surely it could afford, out of its ample resources, the fee of a chartered accountant, to put the accounts in proper form. To bring in all the charges, including taxes, and apparently carry them on as if they were capital expenditure, and to credit on the other side the full repayment of capital and the payment of rent, is to leave the accounts in a position of hopeless muddle, and to render it impossible for anybody to ascertain the exact position of the estates.
    I wish to say a word upon the responsibility of the Board for the devolopment of industries in the Highland and Islands, with special reference to the kelp industry. A question was asked, some time ago, by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) in reference to the kelp industry in South Uist, and an answer was given which is hardly regarded by the people concerned as very satisfactory. The kelp industry in Scotland was at one time a very important one, especially in the Western Islands, but of late years it languished, and practically died out, owing to foreign competition and other causes—I believe largely owing to foreign competition. It has really survived to any great extent only in the Islands of Benbecula, South Uist, and Barra, all of which belong to Lady Cathcart. These islands are quite the largest kelp producing districts in Scotland. Lady Cathcart has all along taken great interest in this industry. It is her own industry. The question to which I referred, and the answer also, would lead one to believe that a royalty is charged for the crofter to gather on the sea shore the weed from which the kelp is made, and that that royalty goes to the estate. That is not the case at all. I was in the district, and as I happen to know Lady Cathcart I wrote and asked what the particulars were with regard to the industry. I received from her factor some very interesting letters, which I have in my hand. They are very voluminous, but very interesting.
    The letters all go to show that Lady Cathcart wished to do something to help the crofters there, who can hardly live on their holdings, and who are much more attached to their crofts than to anything
    302
    else, and are very difficult to move. I am not told that they are lazy, but the difficulty has been to get them to do the work necessary to make the industry a really large and profitable one. Lady Cathcart has the industry in her own hands. It has been run by her factor, and so far as it goes it is very profitable to those engaged in it—not to Lady Cathcart herself. She sets aside land for drying the kelp and all that kind of thing, and gives the crofters every possible interest she can in the work which they perform. She gives them the whole of the proceeds, which are carefully calculated, according to the work that each person does, and receives herself, out of a total income of £3,500, £104 for certain charges of one kind or another which she met, the whole of the remainder going to the crofters themselves and those who are interested in this particular industry. Some 880 or 900 tons are turned out in the year, but I am told that there is no reason why the output should not be doubled or trebled if the people could be persuaded to take up the matter more energetically. I know that the Board of Agriculture have taken some interest in this matter, and I am bringing it up now in order to make it perfectly clear what is the position of Lady Cathcart in regard to it. I understand that £20,000 worth of this kelp has been cast up on the shore of South Uist within the last few months, but nothing has been done in regard to it. We are getting into a very difficult position in regard to the supply of artificial manures, and therefore it is essential, if we are to make up for the loss of German importation upon which we have been depending in this matter as in so many others, to develop this industry as far as possible. It is necessary in order to help our farmers, who use an exceptionally large amount of potash on their land, and are dependent upon it for their crops. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland—I hope he will not object to my calling him my right hon. Friend now—to be kind enough to tell us what the Board of Agriculture have really done in the matter, whether they have been able to arrange for any further expenditure, and whether there is any prospect of their being able to help us in connection with our artificial manure industry by developing this industry as far as possible.
    In that connection I hope my right hon. Friend wall take the trouble to inquire as to the accuracy of the advice given in a

    303
    circular issued by the Board of Agriculture—Leaflet No. 28, dated April, 1915—in which the Board give a very interesting account of the kelp industry and the manner in which it ought to be conducted. I am informed that the advice given as to the manner in which the industry should be conducted is disastrous. In one case the people are told to spread out on sandbanks about 2 feet high and 9 inches broad the particular weed from which the kelp is made. I am told that it is practically fatal to put it on sand. Obviously if you put it on sand you get a good deal of the sand amongst the weed. It is equally obvious that if you burn the sand the sand will remain and add enormously to the weight of the product, to the cost of carriage, and so forth. A little later on the leaflet says that it is necessary to rake the weed with a hoe. Chemical manufacturers who buy this stuff say that it is disastrous to touch it with a hoe. I am informed that these two directions are of such importance that it is most desirable that the Board of Agriculture should inquire whether the circular ought not to be amended or modified. A better time will arise in the future to criticise certain of the accounts and other statements issued by the Board. In the meantime I only hope that the Department will find it possible to use a considerable portion of the surplus which it has to its credit, not only in developing these industries which are so material to the Western Islands and so necessary for our agriculture development, but also to improve the postal service, about which I have had so much correspondence. I think it is a real scandal that for the sake of a few thousand pounds these unfortunate people, who have sent out more recruits than any other district, should be for a whole week without the opportunity of hearing anything about them. The right hon. Gentleman has been successful in the past in getting money from the Treasury; I hope he will be equally successful in this case. I am sure the postal authorities themselves will have no objection to restoring the service if the Treasury can be moved in the matter.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: We are unanimous as to the necessity of making some protest against the amount which is to be given to the Board of Agriculture this year. Scottish Members are often taunted with not looking properly after Scottish business, and it is said to be owing to our
    304
    lack of push and go that we always have to take a back seat in these financial matters. I feel sure that the reduction which we in Scotland have to suffer this year in regard to the Board of Agriculture is not to be a precedent for the future. We are all agreed upon that. We have to forego the money this year because of the state of war in which we find ourselves; but in future years we shall receive the full amount which everyone agrees we are entitled to under the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) pleaded that this Vote should not be taken until we had had a chance of seeing the new Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland will remember that when the Scottish Liberal unofficial Members went to him we were endeavouring to arrange for a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the only reason why the meeting did not take place was that we thought it advisable not to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer until the Report of the Board of Agriculture had been issued. We should like very much to put our case before the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. While we are willing to make any sacrifice during the time of war, we are all agreed that it is not right that the whole sacrifice should fall upon Scotland, but that whatever reduction is made in regard to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland ought to be equally applicable, other things being equal, to England, Wales, and Ireland. I do not often find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. Dewar), but I do disagree entirely with him on the question of taking leaseholds for the purposes of afforestation. On page lxxiii. of the Report of the Board of Agriculture it is stated, in reference to the 5,000 acres offered in Perthshire—
    "This was carefully considered by the Advisory Committee on Forestry, who reported to the Board that there were both financial mid physical objections to the scheme, and they strongly urged the view, in which the Board concurred, that for the purpose of a demonstration area ownership is more advantageous to the State than any scheme of leasing."
    That seems clear. The Advisory Committee, I think, realised that the majority of Scotsmen prefer freehold to leasing. I remember, Mr. Whitley, a story of a man who went to arrange a ninety-nine years' lease. The Scot said to him, "Ninety-nine years, wouldn't you like to make it 100 at once?" Fortunately in Scotland we have never had a system of leasing similar to that in England. I do not think the

    305
    Scottish people would have stood it. When we have a leasing, it is generally a feu charter. I hope most sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman will not take this Vote this afternoon, but will give the Scottish Members a chance to see the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that we may urge that the lessened amount which we receive this year from the Board of Agriculture is not to be taken as a precedent for the future, and that whatever sacrifice we are called upon to make in Scotland shall be equally borne by Ireland, England, and Wales.
    Mr. HARRY HOPE: I desire to join in the protest against lessening the sum of money to which we are entitled for Scottish agriculture. We know, of course, that we live in exceptional times. Though we may not be able to get this year what we desire, I trust that this year will be made no precedent by the Treasury for another year's action. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland have, I think, the opportunity of doing real good service for Scottish agrivulture. The Department has not been started for many years. If they get this money, to which they are entitled, they will be able to prove, I think, that that money has been well spent, and it will be of much service in the country districts of Scotland. Agriculture, indeed, is being recognised as being of paramount importance at a time when our overseas supplies of meat and grain stuffs are liable to reduction. The point which was raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is undoubtedly one of consequence. This slaughter of in-calf cows and of young calves is important. It is not right that these pregnant cows should be so ruthlessly slaughtered.
    Certainly, cows of the shorthorn breed of cattle ought to be kept for breeding purposes. There are other breeds which are called beef breeds, but the same limits are applicable. Certainly, as regards shorthorns and some others of the beef breeds of cattle, and the slaughter of young calves, it ought, and could with profit, be stopped. I am not quite sure whether or not the Board of Agriculture has the power to take any steps in this matter. I rather think there was an emergency Bill passed that provides them with an opportunity for taking action. If they have the power, these two points are points which they at the present time might well take into consideration. There is one matter in which I think the Board may be of service. The exportation of
    306
    feeding stuffs and grain offals was stopped at a time when the English Board allowed those articles to go out of the country. Our Scottish Board did a service in Scotland in acting in advance of what the English Board did, and it is to be regretted that the English Board did not follow the example.
    There are many opportunities which the Board can take of helping agriculture at the present time. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs has raised the question of potash. We all know that potash is of the most intense of artificial manures in successful agriculture, and that our supplies in the past have come almost entirely from Germany. We would like to see the Board devoting its energy to see how potash can be increased, and how in coming years the supply of potash may be available, for I fear that much injury will be done to farming in Scotland if this matter is not attended to. There is one matter which is disappointing, and that is that the Board has not been able to get us any redress in the matter of the exportation of potatoes from Scotland to America. America still maintains its embargo upon Scottish potatoes. There is absolutely no justification for this from a disease point of view. Undoubtedly we have in gardens, and in some small plots, what is called the black-scab disease, but potatoes as grown in field culture in Scotland are entirely free from this disease. I only hope, therefore, that the energies of the Board and of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of agriculture will be devoted to trying to get this unfair embargo taken off our Scottish trade. We are suffering very severely from this embargo, and there is absolutely no need from the disease point of view for it. The trade absorbs a large amount of labour.
    As regards education, I think that the object of our colleges ought not to be so much to qualify young men to become professors and experts, so that then they may leave us and go to other countries and the Colonies. We do not want that in agricultural education. What we require in such education as will enable small holders, and other such-like people, to be more efficient and have a greater knowledge of the subject they are going to make their life's work, so that they may be able to raise a better class of stocks and devote more energy and skill to their business as animal farmers, so as really to bring profit to themselves and to their country. In order to achieve this purpose we want

    307
    short courses, say of two or three months, such as have been established in Ireland, where young men can go and learn, not perhaps everything as regards agriculture from a technical point of view, but something on the scientific side which would enable them to improve their agriculture from a practical point of view. I know well that some of these courses for similar people in Ireland have been quite beneficial and exceedingly helpful towards proficiency.
    We are going to have a serious shortage of labour in harvesting this year's crops. I think it is a matter of importance from a national point of view that anything that can be done should be done to enable the crops to be harvested in good order and at the proper time. In this connection the Labour Exchanges may do good work. I have no doubt they will be used. But I think if the Board of Agriculture would consult the county councils, and so get in touch with local requirements in every district, the Board would be able to place the requirements of the districts before the Labour Exchanges in a much better way than the individual farmer can do. You will not get individual farmers in large numbers to avail themselves of the Labour Exchanges; but if our Board of Agriculture would call in the assistance of the county councils, say, having got the knowledge of the requirements in each county and district, they might be able to get the necessary assistance from the Labour Exchanges, which would be of great assistance at a very critical time.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I feel that this is not a propitious time for a Debate upon Scottish Estimates. We do not want more money. We always need it. We always deserve it. We very seldom get it. I would not have intervened if it had not been for what I look upon as a most disastrous statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, because I should have liked to clear his mind and enlighten him upon what afforestation is. He could not himself have read the Report of the Board of Agriculture. He seemed to think there was a dispute among the Committee as to leasing or freehold. There is no such thing. The Advisory Committee was unanimous in recommending purchase. In that they were only following the advice and recommendations of the Royal Commission, and following the opinion of the Departmental
    308
    Committee. The Advisory Committee advised the purchase of an estate. Who turned it down? Why, that irresponsible body—that in a weak and unfortunate moment this House created—the Development Commission. That body is responsible to nobody. You cannot challenge their action. One or two of these gentlemen turned down the unanimous advice of the Advisory Committee to the Board of Agriculture, and even more, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland as well! They turned it down, forsooth, because they thought they would get land from the Duke of Athol for 150 years. If they had considered it for a moment they would have known that, though a man might take a lease of his land and house for ninety-nine years—he knows he will not live for the ninety-nine years, so that by the time the ninety-nine years is up the house is not worth very much—the life of a nation is practically unlimited.
    Particularly in regard to afforestation this question arises. You plant trees that mature after forty, fifty, sixty, or eighty years. When you are coming to the end of the eighty years, and towards the termination of the lease, nobody would be such a fool as to plant a tree to mature in eighty years, because when it had matured it would pass to the landlord. When you come within forty or fifty years of the termination of the lease the property is a dead letter to you. Let me say this: if they had got that estate which the Advisory Committee advised they would have got it practically for the same money, and then would have been able to place upon the land trees, buildings, etc., for £100,000. Yet the Development Commission suggested that the Treasury should advance £150,000 for this wretched lease. The whole trouble lies with this body of irresponsible persons, the Development Commissioners, and we will never be happy and right in this country until we get rid of that Board, and also the Road Board. When you charge them, nobody on that Bench can defend them; they are outside our purview altogether. We all did it with our eyes open; it was very unfortunate. I can quite understand Scottish Members and Scottish people being disappointed. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in his great Budget this is what he said about afforestation:
    "This brings me straight to the question of afforestation. There is a very general agreement that some steps should be taken in the direction, I will not say of

    309
    afforesting, but of re-afforesting the waste lands of this country. Here, again, we are far behind every other civilised country in the world. In Germany, for instance, out of a total area of 133,000,000 acres, 34,000,000, or nearly 26 per cent., are wooded; in France, out of 130,000,000 acres, 17 per cent.; and even n a small and densely populated country such as Belgium, 1,260,000 acres are wooded, or 17 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1909, col. 491, Vol. IV.]
    When we come to Great Britain it is a wretched 4 per cent. That was six years ago. Since then England has got a grant, Ireland two grants, and Scotland not a penny. That comes of the action of this Development Commission. My right hon. Friend has done all he can, and the Board of Agriculture have done all they can, but they have been blocked in this particular way. These are not the times, as I have said, for asking for money; but the object of the creation of the Board of Agriculture was to foster agriculture and forestry. It has not been their fault; but I hope at a more propitious time, when there will be money to spare from shells and other things, which blow away in one day what would give us three or four forests, we may be able to get some consideration and establish firmly by a freehold property—we care not where it is so long as it is suitable for the purpose—and encourage and develop that industry, which will make us independent to a large extent of other nations. Even Australia, New Zealand, and America are all alarmed at the wastage of timber. Australia and New Zealand have an annual Grant for afforestation, and even America is considering the very same subject at this moment. Let me finish by saying that if the advice of the Advisory Committee had been taken and that estate with the timber on it purchased in December, 1913, the rise in price and the value of the timber would have more than half paid for the whole purchase. Germany has proclaimed timber contraband and we have got to look forward to a time when we shall be able to grow a great deal more timber and be independent of other nations.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I should like to say a word on what may be called our annual day. Our enemies have been talking gaily of what they were going to do on "The Day," but I cannot impress too much on the Committee that this is "The Day" for Scotland. The discussion, so far, has brought one point strongly before the Committee—a point on which all Scottish Members are agreed—and that is that we should make every possible use of the
    310
    powers conferred by the Act of Parliament and give additional powers and money, if wanted, to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. Let me remind the Committee how much the West Highlands, which, as we all know, are in some ways the poorest part of His Majesty's Dominions, are interested in this question. There have been three pieces of legislation relating especially to the West Highlands of Scotland—first, the Crofters Act, then the Congested Districts Board Act, and, lastly, the Small Landholders Act. I would like to emphasise the point referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. Dewar) that the wants of the Highlands of Scotland are specially provided for by the Crofters Act and the Congested Districts Board Act, and as the funds voted by Act of Parliament for such purposes are now in the hands of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, it follows, ipso facto, that the Board of Agriculture at the present moment is responsible for spending on behalf of the Highlands of Scotland those sums specially voted by Parliament for the wants of the Highlands of Scotland. The argument has been made that at the present day, when money is so much wanted, you should not insist too much upon the objects for which money has been voted; but I beg to remind the Committee that the Crofter Commission and the Congested Districts Board have ceased to exist, and their annual Grants and the money they have accumulated have passed into the hands of the Board of Agriculture, and, therefore, it surely follows that the Board of Agriculture of to-day must carry out the objects for which those grants of public money in the first instance were made.
    I want to say one word as to the financial position of the Highlands of Scotland, which is the crux of the question. It is a fact that the rateable value of the Highlands of Scotland is not sufficient to pay for the daily demands of the Local Government Acts of the United Kingdom. We may pass here with a great deal of pride and delight Acts for sanitation, education and water supply, and subjects of that kind, which may go down perfectly well in a town in England or in the industrial part of Scotland. That is a very small part of Scotland, the bulk of Scotland being agricultural or on the borders of the sea, and the two industries which keep Scotland alive are connected with either the land or the sea. Having arrived at that point, I think everyone

    311
    here will agree with me that it is not at all surprising that in a great many of the Highland counties the rateable value of the country is insufficient to provide for the elementary machinery of local government, as you understand it in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think it has been the crux of the question for every Secretary for Scotland to know how he was to provide for that part of the United Kingdom in the North and West of Scotland, where you would not have sufficient income obtainable from the rateable value. It was to meet that that the Acts to which I have referred were passed, and I think the Committee will agree that, as the Board of Agriculture is in possession of sums of money which were granted for the purposes of those Acts, the Board of Agriculture is bound to carry out in all those parts of the country where assistance is wanted the provisions of those Acts, and to give the pecuniary assistance which was intended to be given by those Acts.
    I should like to call the attention of the Committee to a parallel case. What is being done to-day by the Board of Agriculture in Ireland? We all know that that is one of the most active and progressive Boards in the United Kingdom. Although it contains representatives of every opinion in Ireland—political, religious and otherwise—you never hear, I have been told by persons connected with the Board, any political or religious question, or outside question of any kind, brought up on that Board. They have representatives of every county, and they meet for agricultural purposes. They are doing a great work, and people who know what they are doing will tell you that, not only are they making a steady, continual and annual increase in the agricultural prosperity of Ireland—imports and exports—but they are doing it in such a way that, unless we are careful in England, Scotland, and Wales, we may awake to find that we are left behind. I should like to see in Scotland a Board of Agriculture something after the Irish plan. We all know what Scotland has done. We most sincerely ask the Committee today to give every good wish and every promise of assistance to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to enable it to promote in every way they can the agricultural advancement and prosperity of Scotland, and I would beg the Board to remember that, with the money which
    312
    they have acquired through the Crofters Act and the Congested Districts Board Act, they are responsible for no part of Scotland more than the Highlands. I hope we shall hear from my right hon. Friend that that will be made in future one of the great points of the policy of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and that we shall see a real expenditure in these extremely poor districts. Every part of Scotland now, owing to a redefinition of the words "congested districts," comes under the Acts, and all these powers for this important work the Board of Agriculture is able and ought to be able to carry out. I sincerely trust we shall have a promise to do so, and the Government may be assured that whenever any further powers or money are required they will have the assistance of the whole Members for Scotland.
    Mr. MORTON: I think the Scottish Members are right in strongly protesting against this attempt to take away the Grant for small holdings, which we understood was secured by Act of Parliament, and I cannot understand how that can be continued unless you repeal the Act. Probably the Secretary for Scotland will be able to explain that to us. We are making no attack on the right hon. Gentleman; on the contrary, we are inclined to help him to get only justice done to the Scottish people, and everyone knows—we have been told at any rate—that they have a large balance of some £400,000 at the Board of Agriculture. More than half of that expenditure is earmarked. With regard to the balance, we have no business to have a large one. The statement shows that the schemes for small holdings have left a balance, whereas it would have been much better if things had been in the other direction. We want more money in order to do justice to the Highland counties. We have been rather handicapped during the last ten months on account of the War, but undoubtedly the Scottish Members have acted loyally and staunchly towards the Government, and I trust the Scottish people will not be punished on account of their loyalty, but that we shall have justice done on all sides. I wish to say something about the Liberal Members of Parliament not being consulted in this matter. I think it would have been much wiser if we had had an opportunity of meeting together and consulting as to what we might think our proper claim—
    [ROYAL ASSENT.—Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and having returned,
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

    1. Ministry of Munitions Act, 1915.

    2. Frimley and Farnborough District Water Act, 1915.

    3. Blyth Harbour Act, 1915.

    4. Doncaster Corporation Act, 1915.

    5. Great Eastern Railway Act, 1915.

    6. Bury and District Joint Water Board Act, 1915.

    7. Salop County Council (Shirehall and Guildhall) Act, 1915.]

    Supply again considered in Committee.
    [Sir GEORGE YOUNGER in the Chair.]
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. MORTON (resuming): We do not want to make the land question a party affair in Scotland, although we may not be able to carry out the necessary reforms without doing so. My experience with regard to Sutherland is that we have got very little under the Act of 1911. Almost all the schemes we send up are thrown out, and nothing is done. They always urge that they have got no money to spend. That proves to demonstration that instead of taking away Grants from the Board of Agriculture, which were to be used for the purpose of small holdings, we ought to have further Grants to enable us properly to settle the land question in Scotland. It is an important question in many ways, especially in the Highland counties. We have heard something to-day about economy. There are a hundred ways in which the Estimates might be cut down and money saved which is extravagantly and uselessly spent. The Government ought not to begin with Scotland. We are naturally economical, and we are able to carry on a system of Government on much less expensive terms than either England or Ireland, or than any other part of the world. With regard to the question of finding land, which, of course, was the great object of the Act of 1911, I will read a few extracts from a letter which I have received from Sutherland, proving the difficulty under which they labour at the present moment, and the necessity of more money instead of less to carry out
    314
    the object of the Act of 1911. They say this:—
    "… From the congestion of our community, as fully explained already to you and to the Board of Agriculture, and also from the number of our men serving in the Army and Navy in their country's defence …"
    I might mention I am told that there is a higher percentage of recruits according to population from Sutherland than from any other county in Scotland.
    "Besides, we understood it to be the policy of the Liberal Party to give the land to the people,"—
    With regard to that word "give," they are quite willing to pay a small rent with security of tenure—
    "whereas this has not been done in this case …"
    This applies directly to the Board of Agriculture, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will try and help us with regard to these Boards.
    "We wish to know (1) why the Board of Agriculture made no inquiry into the merits of our application for the farms in question: (2) why they replied that it was 'necessary and advisable to refuse our application'; (3) whether the Board took any steps at all, and what these steps were, to consider our application, and the reason for their neglect; (4) whether they are aware that a widow, whose two only sons, 5th Seaforth Territorials, volunteered at the very beginning of the War for active service and are now in the trenches, has been evicted from the house she had on this farm (this certainly would not have been done if we had got the farm as an extension of our holding); (5) whether it is an encouragement to our men, absent on land and sea, to fight for their country when the only land available for them on their return, and which they confidently expected to share in, is disposed of in their absence; (6) is their absence from their homes taken advantage of now in 1915, as their forefathers' absence was a century ago in Sutherlandshire, to deprive them of what they felt they were justly entitled to?"
    I could read extracts of a similar sort from thousands of letters which I have received during the last two years. I am not blaming the Secretary for Scotland, although I do blame the Board for not giving us more attention. We all know that the real difficulty is the want of money, and that can only be met by giving us Grants and not taking them away. There is plenty of land. Sometimes we are told we cannot get land, but we know that in Sutherland we have over 380,000 acres earmarked by a Royal Commission as being fit and useful for an extension of crofts, for new crofts, and for small holdings. We know that the land is there right enough, if the Board of Agriculture would only get it for us at a fair rent. I quite agree that the authorities should do something with regard to afforestation. I am afraid that it would not be wise to deal with it on leasehold terms, because, as a matter of fact, when land is taken on leasehold you find that the moment it becomes valuable the landlord steps in

    315
    and takes it away. It will not do for the Treasury to say we do not want the money, because the Board of Agriculture will tell them, if they ask them, that they do want it and that they ought to have it.
    I quite agree that you should allow us to postpone this Vote to-day and take it up after we have seen the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. The postponement will not hurt anybody, because, if the Government have not got any more time to spare, it simply means that they will guillotine these matters, and so get the Vote how and when they please. It might be a wise and proper thing to allow us to have a chat with the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that we could put our views before him. We hope that he will not ignore the position of Scotland in this matter, nor the determination of the people of Scotland to get it settled as speedily as possible. I am anxious to benefit the people of Scotland, especially the crofters, and I am aware, if you would only deal with them as they wish with regard to the extension of their holdings, you would get rid of the difficulty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) with regard to cattle and sheep. The more land you give the crofters and small holders to work the greater supply you will get and the less in future will you have to depend upon foreign countries for the supply of meat. We know that for the purpose of creating a deer forest in Scotland they turned out 40,000 sheep. I give that as an example.
    It is not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise to give us a double allowance next year. He may promise faithfully enough, but he may not be there to fulfil his promise. It is very much like people saying they will pay you to-morrow. The day probably never comes. I say with a knowledge of the Estimates that there are undoubtedly hundreds of ways of reducing extravagant and unnecessary expenditure without taking anything away from the crofters of Scotland. If you want to practice economy, commence by cutting down the Estimates by millions, as you might very well do without any loss of efficiency to the government of this country, but do not take any money away from the crofters of Scotland. I have no doubt that the Scottish people will get over it if you do, but they will not think that they have been fairly treated, either financially or in any other way.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: I hope that it will not be taken amiss by them if I venture to offer my hearty congratulations to my two right hon. Friends who have come through the storm and stress of the last political crisis and still adorn the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness told us that there was some dissatisfaction in Scotland, where they were not altogether satisfied with the operations and the conduct of the Board of Agriculture. That is only true to a certain extent. The Scottish people are not satisfied, but I am sure that it is not with the Board of Agriculture they are dissatisfied; they are dissatisfied very largely with the Members of this House, and in particular with the Liberal party, for, after talking so much about land reform having done so very little. Like the hon. Member who has just spoken I have many complaints from my Constituents with regard to the action of the Board of Agriculture. But when one comes to verify the cases, it is found that it is not the Board of Agriculture that is to blame, but that the fault rests with this House and with the Liberal party for having forced such a Bill through the House, and for having tied the Board up in every possible way. We have, in fact, given the Board of Agriculture an Act of Parliament to deal with such as was never passed in any assembly of English-speaking people.
    I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. E. Wason) speak so forcibly upon the love of Scotsmen for freeholds. He said they did not want leaseholds. I wish he had remembered that when we were passing our Bill through the House of Commons. It is a matter of common knowledge that, with one exception, every crofter Member was exceedingly dissatisfied with the Bill as introduced by Lord Pentland (then Mr. Sinclair), and the overwhelming majority simply had not a word to say, except by way of protest. What the Board of Agriculture finds is this. That they are unable to obtain the extension which my hon. Friend desires, except at costly and ruinous rates, and now we have this position, that the Treasury are taking the money—that is to say, it is not paying the Grants which otherwise it would have paid had we been able to carry out this Act in an efficient manner. The Board of Agriculture has not been able to do that, but it is not the fault of the Board. It is our fault. When the Board have taken estates over, what has been its position.

    317
    My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) talked I am afraid to say how many pages of the OFFICIAL RRPORT over the injustices of the Lindean Arbitration case. That was a case where the owners of the land actually got far more than the freehold of the land. The valuation put on these estates show that it is absolutely impossible for the Board of Agriculture to go on with the work. When many of us tried to allow the Board to make other arrangements which they might have done, and which constituted the only possible means of salvation, some Members of the Liberal party used all the influence they could with the Secretary for Scotland to prevent that being allowed.
    We are now in this position. We have a Coalition Government. I feel satisfied myself that that Government will do very good work indeed for the country, and it is my devout hope also that this land question, as affecting Scotland, will also be settled outside the area of partisanship. Day by day we find that it is absolutely impossible to settle this great land question from a party point of view. We want to sink our wretched little differences, and pass such an Act as will bring Scottish people back to the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen spoke very forcibly about the desirability of acquiring freeholds for afforestry, and I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan had realised that when we wanted to apply that principle to the rest of Scotland, and had given us his support. Had he had time at his disposal my hon. Friend would, I am sure, have enlarged upon this point of not taking leaseholds. So far as I understand afforestry—and I have probably planted far more trees than any man in this House—you must have your forest going on continually. Once you get it fairly well started you can quite well begin cutting down at fifteen or twenty years, and then go on replanting. That shows, therefore, the absolute folly of taking leaseholds. Nothing will help small holdings so much, and give people employment at the same time, as this question of afforestry. In a forest area, and near it, you can have a large number of people employed.
    There is one other point I wish to touch upon which was very forcibly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). It is with regard to killing cattle. Since the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) and myself, with others, introduced a Bill to
    318
    give absolute power to prevent the destruction of immature cattle what has happened, and what is happening now? Large quantities of calves are being killed simply in order to increase the supply of milk. That is a wasteful and scandalous way of carrying on the business of this country. Although it was impossible to get our Bill through on account of prejudices which prevailed at that time, the position is now quite different, and I think under the Act which we have passed it is quite within the power of the Scottish Secretary to bring before the National Emergency Committee the desirability of taking power to prohibit absolutely the destruction not only of immature animals, but also the killing of lambs and calves. In the present state of affairs there is no doubt there will be a very great scarcity of food. The prices of store stock are very high, although I do not know that they are high in comparison with those of fat stock. The price of meat is going up every day by leaps and bounds, and it is exceedingly difficult for a person in a modest way of life to obtain good beef or mutton at reasonable prices. I think, if the Secretary for Scotland were to bring his influence to bear in that direction, he might do a very great deal to secure an additional food supply and possibly prevent much of the waste that is now going on.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The obvious feature in the Estimate now submitted to us, which must attract attention any way, and which must attract the chief share of attention in this discussion, is the disappearance of the Grant to the Board of Agriculture. The Treasury have discovered that the Board of Agriculture has at its disposal an unspent balance—not ear-marked, but a balance which is quite free and available for whatever further development the Board of Agriculture may desire—amounting to nearly £400,000, and, as the annual Grant is £200,000, it is quite apparent that the balance is sufficient to carry the Board of Agriculture over the year with which we are now concerned. I can see no reason whatever to quarrel with the action of the Treasury in this matter at a time like this, when there is urgent need of husbanding our resources. When there is such urgent need for expenditure in other more important and more vital directions, I do not see how we can claim to have this annual Grant given to us in Scotland, while we have lying at the bank an unexpended and non-earmarked balance of

    319
    about £400,000. Although we cordially approve of and consent to the action of the Treasury in this matter, so far as this year is concerned, we must look with some concern to the Department itself and ask how it comes about that it has this enormous unexpended free balance lying at its disposal.
    The Scottish Smallholders Act has been in operation about four years, and, for the purposes of that Act, there was given to the Board an annual sum of about £200,000. This sum was given for the development of agriculture in Scotland, and for all pursuits cognate to agriculture. It was not given to one limited department of agriculture. It was not given merely for the creation of a certain number of small holdings. It was given for all the purposes of agriculture, and that is quite specifically laid down in the Act. The general duty of the Board is to promote the interests of agriculture, afforestry, and other rural industries in Scotland. That was the specific duty which was laid down in the Clause which says it shall be the duty of the Board to promote, aid and develop instruction in agriculture, afforestry, and other rural industries. Whenever we have appealed to the Board of Agriculture or to its representative in this House since the passing of this Act for the expenditure of money out of this Grant on purposes laid down in the Act, we have always been told that it is impossible to grant any money except for small holdings—that the main purpose of the Act was the creation of small holdings, and that the other purposes specified in the Act must be allowed to go by the board. Does the Secretary for Scotland wish to interrupt me on that point?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to interrupt me. I think, therefore, I may take it he assents to the statement. If he does not, I will quote from reports which he himself has published. In the first annual report, he said that the work of the past year had disclosed a demand for land settlement—that is, the creation of small holdings—far in excess of the present resources of the fund. We saw that balance accumulating, and on various occasions I have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman for some expenditure on the work of afforestation, which is a specific purpose laid
    320
    down in the Act and for which this money was granted. I have made appeals for money to be expended on that, and I have always been told, in reply, that the money was urgently required for the creation of small holdings and that, until that demand had been met, no money could be granted for afforestation. The right hon. Gentleman not only made that statement in the House, but he also made it outside. There is another body which has some interest in the work of afforestation, and that is the Development Commission. At an early stage the Development Commissioners were asked for a Grant for the purpose of developing afforestation in Scotland. They naturally thought, and as I hold took the view very properly, that afforestation was one of the purposes laid down in this Act—one of the purposes for which the Grant of £200,000 has been allocated—and they held further that the head of the Department had no right to go to the Development Commissioners until he had made some beginning and had shown some willingness, out of the money placed at his disposal for that purpose, to proceed with the work of starting and encouraging the development of afforestation in Scotland. That was the line the Development Commissioners took. What was the right hon. Gentleman's reply? He made the same reply that he made in this House. He said, "This money is urgently required for the work of small holdings. It is not sufficient for that purpose; therefore we cannot fulfil the duty laid upon us by Parliament with regard to the development of afforestation." As a result of his representations the Development Commissioners accepted his view, and there will be found, I think it was in the Third Report of the Development Commissioners, a paragraph as follows:—
    "As a matter of general principle the Development Commissioners were of opinion that the demands of Scottish agriculture and forestry should be met from the Scottish Fund as far as possible before recourse was had to the Development Fund, but recognising that the primary object of the Scottish Fund is the encouragement of small holdings, they have agreed that expenditure for that purpose may properly be regarded as having priority over the other purposes to which the fund can be applied."
    The Secretary for Scotland has continually represented in this House that the money that he had available was totally insufficient for the purpose of proceeding with the development of small holdings, and the impression which was created in this House, both by his words here and by the language of the various Reports issued by his Department, was that this balance which he was accumulating year

    321
    after year—lying, I suppose, in the bank on deposit receipt—was not a free balance and was not a balance which could be expended by the Board of Agriculture in any way that it desired, but was a balance earmarked not merely for small holdings in general, but for small holding schemes which had already been initiated. If I take the Second Annual Report, I find a reference there to this very aspect of the question. That Report referred to the large balance which was then accumulating in respect to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund. The Report says:—
    "The greater portion of the expenditure involved in a scheme undertaken by the Board will not mature until the year following the inauguration of the scheme, and a large balance will necessarily remain on the fund during the first two or three years of the Board's work, although a very considerable proportion of it will be earmarked to works in progress."
    By those words, and by the general attitude of the Secretary for Scotland during the last two or three years, we have been led to believe that this large balance was, for the most part, earmarked for expenditure which had already been initiated, but which had not matured in connection with works already in progress. If that had been true the Treasury would certainly not have been justified in stopping our Grant this year. To have stopped this Grant this year in such circumstances would have been to put a stop to all fresh development in Scotland. We could only have gone on completing works of development already undertaken. It now appears, on the representation of the Secretary for Scotland himself, that that impression, created by his own remarks and by the Reports which he issued, that this balance was an earmarked balance is not correct, but that it is a free balance, that it is now at the disposal of the Board for expenditure on all the ordinary purposes of the Act, and that he can draw upon it for initiating new expenditure and new schemes. That being so, the action of the Treasury is certainly justified. No Department has a right to accumulate free balances in this way. If Scotland has lost the greater part of this £200,000 a year it is entirely due to the failure of the right hon. Gentleman during the last few years to expend the money for the purposes for which it was granted. I see that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a very amusing matter. I can assure him that he will not find it an amusing matter in Scotland. He is in the position, and will be regarded in Scotland as being in the position of the unprofitable servant who buried his talent in a napkin, and
    322
    who, if it had not been for the circumstances of the time, would have been cast out into the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Our preoccupation at the present time is necessarily not with the development of afforestation in Scotland. Our preoccpation is with the great life and death struggle which the nation has undertaken. The right hon. Gentleman owes his position of being a Member of a Coalition Cabinet to that fact, and not to his being a worthy servant of the interests of Scotland, or to his having served the interests of Scotland well in the administrative work connected with the great Act which was passed for the development of Scottish industries and improving agriculture in Scotland.
    References have already been made by hon. Friends of mine to the lamentable position in which we now stand in regard to afforestation in Scotland. I know that nothing can be done, under the present circumstances, to secure the development which is necessary in the purely local and national interests of Scotland at the present time in regard to afforestation, but there are various interests connected with the War and conditions arising out of the War at which we ought to look, and to which the attention of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be turned. Afforestation in Scotland is desirable for two reasons; first, because it is the only means known to me whereby real agricultural development can be secured in a vast area of Scotland, amounting to something between one-fourth or one-fifth of the total area of the country. Afforestation is an important matter in England and in Ireland, but it is relatively small in those countries compared with the area. It may be said that in Scotland there is one-fourth or one-fifth of the total area of the country which can be used for the purposes of afforestation to more advantage and profit than it is now being used—I refer to land which is now waste land or used for poor agriculture. If afforestation were carried out properly we could have upon that land something like ten times the present population. Afforestation is important for the second reason that the widespread development of small holdings, which the right hon. Gentleman has so much at heart, cannot be secured without a corresponding development in regard to afforestation. Over vast areas in Scotland small holdings are not economic unless the small holder has some auxiliary

    323
    industry. That is at present provided by fishing along the coasts, but in the interior there is no widespread auxiliary industry. Afforestation would provide that auxiliary industry, and would rear whole colonies of small holders, as it has done in other countries where it has been adopted. Afforestation means the repopulation and recolonisation of many of the counties of Scotland.
    I agree that we cannot get that work done during the War because we cannot spare the funds to do it, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at the part which a useful prevision could play with regard to the settlement of the difficult problem which will arise at the end of the War. We will have thousands and thousands of soldiers returning to this country. We will have one of the greatest labour problems that has ever been presented to this country—a labour problem far greater than that which was presented by unemployment at the beginning of the War. Mark another feature about these men who will return! Many of them are town dwellers and have been reared in towns, but during the years—I am afraid it must be years—during the months and years of their devoted service they will have been living an outdoor life and will have acquired other habits and instincts, and in many cases will not want to return to the crowded places, but will desire an open-air life, if they can get it with comfort and a fair living. They will desire to settle on the land, and if there is an opportunity for their absorption in the work of afforestation at the end of the War, then the Department which is responsible for the work of afforestation ought to see that it has some means of expanding at that time and absorbing that labour. We sometimes hear loose talk about afforestation being a solution for the ordinary chronic unemployment question. I have no belief in that. Afforestation is a skilled industry; it cannot be supported by the absorption of the casually unemployed, but it presents a career, a life, an industry, to the men who embark upon it. Is the Department for Agriculture in Scotland taking any steps to see, not that it has created great forests during the War, but that it is creating the machinery which may then be called in to carry on the work of afforestation and to absorb a great deal of that surplus labour which will then be thrown upon our hands? Is it creating the
    324
    skilled staff—the skeleton? If it has created a skilled staff and has a number of men trained in the work of afforestation, understanding how it can be carried on—and it cannot be carried on casually by any men suddenly called in for the purpose—then that machine will be of the greatest value to the country during the crisis which will arise at the end of the War. I earnestly press upon the right hon. Gentleman, and such of his colleagues as are present, the necessity for doing something in that direction. I would urge upon him the appointment of a Departmental or other Committee to consider what are the best means of utilising the resources at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of absorbing that labour which will be available, we hope, at a very early time.
    Mr. COWAN: I hope the Secretary for Scotland may see his way to accept the very reasonable suggestion made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) of postponing the taking of this Vote in order that we may have an opportunity of laying our views before the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not altogether agree with one or two of my hon. Friends who have suggested that this sum might reasonably be withheld in the circumstances of the present War, because, after all, the sum which it is proposed to withdraw amounts only to £177,547—less than a tenth of the amount which we are daily spending upon the War. We all realise that the War is our first charge, and our first duty is to contribute everything we possibly can to the successful conduct and conclusion of the War. At the same time Scotland has been largely depopulated, owing to circumstances which are fresh in all our memories, and the establishment of small holdings in the rural constituencies of Scotland is a very pressing matter and must long remain so. I think if the idle balance of nearly £400,000 could be utilised, as I think it might, temporarily for the purposes of the War, the case for withholding the additional £177,000 would be less strong, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend, as the head of the Board of Agriculture, that the balance might be employed temporarily by investing in War Stock. If that £400,000 were invested in War Loan I think Scotland would be making a very reasonable contribution towards the expenses of the War from that specific source, and that we might be allowed to receive our £177,547 without being regarded as having done anything

    325
    to hamper the resources of the Government in carrying on this tremendous conflict. I am in entire agreement with everything that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) has said and with much that my hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has said, and with a great deal which has been said by other Members, including the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger). I accept everything said on those benches in a true coalition spirit, and to-day, at any rate, we have all been able to display that spirit and there has been no acerbity of any kind whatever, but I do not think, speaking at this late stage of the Debate, much remains to be said, and I confine myself to pressing the particular suggestion that we should be allowed to receive this sum of £177,000, and that my right hon. Friend should use his great influence with the new Chancellor of the Exchequer to induce him to allow us to have this money, and that we on our part should acquiesce in the suggestion that the balance at present in the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture should provide temporarily for the purposes of the War by investment in War Stock.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): We have had a number of speeches which have raised questions of considerable business importance—of increased importance in our present circumstances—all of which call for notice, and in regard to which I am glad to be able to assure the Committee that the Board of Agriculture has had them under its most serious consideration. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Harry Hope), whose experience in agriculture is well known to the House, have raised the question of the slaughter of cattle. That has been engaging my consideration for some time past. We have had a certain amount of evidence brought before us as to the killing of cows in calf, which is certainly most unfortunate at present. One of the difficulties in the way of the English Board of Agriculture, as well as the Scottish Board, has been that there are no statistics, and account has not been kept of what has happened in that way during past years. But statistics are now being collected, and I hope within a few days to have them tabulated, to consider the information for Scotland and to place it before the President of the English Board of Agriculture. The two Boards have been in consultation on the subject, and I think, when we have the information,
    326
    there is no reason to doubt that we shall be in agreement as to action on the subject. I shall certainly bear in mind the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. H. Hope), with which I am in entire agreement.
    My hon. Friend (Sir J. Dewar) raised one or two points of very great interest. He has an idea that there is an enormous sum of money belonging to the crofting counties, in which he is interested. I regret to say I could not follow him in his calculation. He seemed to think there was a sum of £300,000. I do not know how he arrived at it, but I can assure him, as I have assured him before, that he has no reason to fear that the crofting counties of Scotland will not get their full share of the money which is spent by the Board of Agriculture. They have always had their full share, and they will doubtless continue to receive it in the future. It is in these very counties that the demand for small holdings is at present the largest.
    My hon. Friend also raised a question of some importance on which I do not think I am in entire agreement with him. I am most entirely in agreement with him as to his object. I have received many representations from the Western Isles about the diminution of postal and shipping facilities. The two things go together. Undoubtedly it must be a great inconvenience to the people in these islands that they are not able to receive letters with the usual frequency, and it must also interfere with business. But when he suggests that we ought to use the money of the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of providing postal facilities, I must entirely differ from my hon. Friend. I am sure the Scottish Members generally would not support me if I proposed to use the money in that way, and I should like to point out a fact which I do not think is within his knowledge, or which he has probably known and forgotten, as to the history of the past which shows that there is no claim upon us to spend the money in that way, but there is a reasonable demand upon the Post Office to give proper facilities for the Western Isles. Some years ago—about 1891—a sum of money was given to the Scottish Office for the purpose of improving the service in the West of Scotland and in Shetland; but in 1898 the policy of the Government was deliberately changed. Up to that time we had a sum of about £10,000 a year, and what we did with it was to give it to the Post Office

    327
    for the purpose of improving the postal facilities to the Western Islands and the Northern Islands. But really that was a very cumbrous proceeding, and the Government decided in 1898 that the money should not take that course in future. But this sum appears now upon the Post Office Vote. Under these circumstances I am very sorry to hear my hon. Friend supporting the view that the Post Office is entitled to wash its hands of the responsibility and to place it on the Agricultural Fund for Scotland. I thought that was a very heretical opinion.
    Sir J. DEWAR: I meant the fund which was handed over from the Congested Districts Board to the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not admit that capital sum of £300,000. I do not at all follow how my hon. Friend arrives at it.
    Sir J. DEWAR: There is £250,000 worth of property and £86,000 in cash.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: But the property is there.
    Sir J. DEWAR: Bringing in revenue.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will not answer that contentious question. It is not bringing in revenue which will enable us to support a sufficient postal service to the Western Isles. I will commit myself as far as that. I put it to my hon. Friend that we are not justified in taking that responsibility. They have already had Scottish money for the purpose, and I think I shall certainly have the support of Scottish Members in that view. I doubt very much if I have any legal right to spend this money. I am not able to find anything which gives me a legal right to spend money intended for agriculture in relieving the funds of the Post Office. Surely it is a well-established principle that every service in the Post Office cannot be profitable, and that services must be maintained which are not profitable in the general interest. I am certainly not going to be a party to any departure from that well recognised principle.
    7.0 P.M.
    My hon. Friend also expressed the opinion that a lease for a forestry demonstration area would be satisfactory. I do not propose to enter into that question at any length, because I think his point of view has been disposed of already. Surely it is perfectly obvious that when you are dealing with a crop which requires many
    328
    long years to mature, the last years of any lease, however long, must be of diminishing value. Surely that is obvious. As representing agriculture in Scotland, I entirely accepted the advice of the Advisory Committee on Forestry, and they expressed the opinion that the only satisfactory way of having an administration area for forestry was to have a freehold area and not a leasehold. My hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire raised another point. He spoke on a subject which has been very much in our minds, namely, the question of the shortage of agricultural labour. I refer to that point for a very practical purpose. A few days ago I had a conference with representatives of the various educational institutes in Scotland, which represent the teachers. I had heard from a number of teachers that they were very anxious to serve the State in some way during the holidays, which, of course, would coincide with the period of harvest, or could be made to coincide with that period. One of them wrote that the difficulty was that the farmers would not employ people like teachers, because they said they were of a class they could not order about. I ventured to make a suggestion that as many of the teachers are the sons of farmers, and numbers of them have come from small farms in Scotland and are not ignorant or without skill in agricultural labour, that the practical thing for them to do was to make an arrangement with the farmers of their acquaintance. As the hon. Member pointed out, it is a very difficult thing to do it through any central organisation. Farmers are not in the habit of going to Labour Exchanges. I do not think you could get them to go to Labour Exchanges very readily. I do not think they would come to the Scottish Office. However, I think a fair amount of good could be done, and it would be something worth doing, if the teachers would get into touch with the farmers whom they know in the various neighbourhoods of Scotland. We might get valuable assistance for the ingathering of the harvest in that way.
    The hon. Member now in the Chair (Sir G. Younger) raised the question of the kelp industry, in regard to which I entirely agree with him.
    An HON. MEMBER: He cannot interrupt you.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He will not wish to do, because I shall represent his

    329
    views with such absolute fairness and accuracy. The Board of Agriculture has been for some months past doing all it can to encourage the kelp industry. There was an inquiry by Dr. Scott, of St. Andrews, made some time ago, into the question of the kelp industry, in connection with an inquiry into other home industries, and as soon as the War broke out an inquiry was made into this matter by the Board of Agriculture, who have had a conference with a number of authorities interested. They have been in conference with the county councils of Argyll, Inverness, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, and have discussed with them the possibility of increasing the production of kelp. They did more than that. They made Grants to the Scottish Organisation Society for experiments, which were carried out in Caithness. They also appointed a certain number of instructors, who were sent to the Western Islands and the Northern Islands to try to increase the production. I was interested to hear what the hon. Baronet said in regard to the estate he referred to. We have tried to encourage the production of kelp. On one estate we offered a Grant of £500 for the erection of a retort and sheds, but I am sorry to say that in that case we were not able to come to an agreement on terms. The terms on that estate were different from the terms that the Board of Agriculture has approved, and we have not been able to do anything on that particular estate. With regard to the leaflet, I will certainly consider the point raised by my hon. Friend. I cannot pretend to be such an expert in kelp production as to say whether the particular methods in that leaflet are perfect. I will, however, ask the Board what their authority was in putting forward those recommendations.
    The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott) was in a more combative mood than my other colleagues. He differed from them in one respect; he alone was willing to give away the money, and he wanted to give it away with both hands fervently. Not only did he want to give away the £175,000, but he wanted to give away the balance which we have in hand.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I must interrupt my right hon. Friend on this point, because I think his statement amounts to a very complete and wholesale misrepresentation. The point I made was this: he has accumulated out of the funds which were given to him to spend for certain purposes laid down in the Act, a balance
    330
    of £400,000. That is practically a free balance, not earmarked, but available for expenditure in the working of the Act, and in view of that circumstance I said I could not resist the action of the Treasury in saying, "You have this balance to spend, and we cannot grant you the ordinary Grant this year."
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend does not help himself, because in the first place the facts upon which he bases his statement are quite inaccurate.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: That is a matter of argument.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am in the recollection of my hon. Friends, and they will recollect that I told them that part of that money was earmarked. The argument of my hon. Friend shows a perfectly hopeless misunderstanding of the way in which small holdings must be dealt with. You cannot start and say, "We will make so many small holdings between the beginning and the end of a year, and we will spend so much money on them. Next year we will make so many more and spend so much more money on them." You are going on with a continuing process. You are laying yourselves open to liabilities constantly. Some of that money will have come due at once; some will not come due for months; and some will not come due for a year or two. The whole argument of my hon. Friend is un sound. Because we happen to have that money, it does not at all prove—
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend must really allow me to proceed.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman wishes to misrepresent me.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If I am misrepresenting the hon. Member I will give way.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what He said to the deputation at the Scottish Office. As a matter of fact he told us that out of this balance of £400,000 only from £130,000 to £150,000 was earmarked.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member corrects himself. His statement was that it was all free balance; now he says it was from £130,000 to £150,000.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What are the correct figures?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Between £120,000 and £130,000 was earmarked then. Since then further money has been earmarked. It is a continuing process. We are always working at it. Every week I am approving schemes; every week the Board of Agriculture are taking up new schemes. It is not a thing you can deal with and finish all your obligations at the end of a financial year. What is the grievance of my hon. Friend? It is that I will not spend money on forestry. He said that if I went to Scotland I should be scouted because I have not spent the money on forestry. I am prepared to go to any meeting in Scotland and defend myself on that point, and I shall get the verdict, and not my hon. Friend. I did not take up the position, as stated by my hon. Friend, that all other purposes except small holdings must go by the board. I have never made such a foolish statement as that. We are spending very considerable sums of money on agricultural education, agricultural research, the improvement of breeding in a great variety of ways, and the encouragement of better culture of small holdings. I never made any such wild statement as that all the money must go to small holdings. What I said was a perfectly definite thing. I said if you want to spend a very large sum of money running into six figures in capital expenditure on a forestry area, I cannot afford to take the money away from small holdings and other purposes of agriculture. That is what I said; that is what I have said consistently: that and nothing more. Surely that is right. If the Development Commission can find money for forestry in England and Ireland, why should not we ask for it in Scotland? If I had to raise that question in Scotland between my hon. Friend and myself, I should not have any difficulty in obtaining the judgment of my Constituents and my fellow countrymen. The hon. Member found fault with me that I had pressed the Development Commission to give us this capital sum for forestry. Really he gave the answer himself. I convinced the Development Commission that I need this money for other purposes, and that, if it was fair to give money to England and Ireland, they should give us this capital sum for a development area.
    Mr. WATT: Did you succeed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member knows perfectly well what happened. A proposal was brought forward for the purchase of a freehold forest site, but, for reasons which it is not for me to discuss, the Development Commissioners said they did not like that scheme and that they would rather put forward another scheme. They were prepared to spend a considerable sum of money—about £150,000. So that really the fault which the hon. Member for Bridgeton accuses me of is no fault at all, because I actually could have got the money, but it was on a leasehold scheme, which was thought unsatisfactory. Still the principle of getting the money from the Development Commissioners is admitted, and I am prepared to answer for that fault anywhere.
    I now come to the last point of this Debate, and that is the question of the Grant. It would be better that I should say as little as possible on that subject. I am quite prepared, however, to accept the suggestions of my hon. Friends. I think it is only fair that they should have an opportunity of going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and putting their views before him, and I agree with the point made by the present Deputy-Chairman (Sir G. Younger) that it was not a legal question so much, but it was a question which affected the future, and that it is absolutely necessary that the Board of Agriculture and myself, as representing it here, or whoever it may be that occupies this position, should know exactly where they stand about the Grants for future years. Under the circumstances, I think the request is an eminently reasonable one and one that I am bound to fall in with. I shall therefore conclude by making an appropriate Motion. There is only one other thing I want to say. I think we must deal quite fairly with the Treasury, I do not think the hon. Member for Dumfries was justified in saying that harsher measures have been meted out to Scotland than to England. The contrary is the case. I am afraid that that is not an argument we shall be able to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because as a matter of fact the Exchequer is not going to give any money for small holdings in England this year, whereas in Scotland we have our balances and can proceed with our work. I am not saying—I must guard myself—that the case of England and the case of Scotland are at all analogous. The difference is enormous, and though it may be that we have not a legal

    333
    claim because the words are "any sum not exceeding £185,000," and though we may not be able to make out any statutory right, still I think that what was put by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) was a very strong argument. It was a sort of Parliamentary understanding that we were to get this money, and possibly we may be able to arrange the matter with the Treasury. I think that I am betraying no secret when I say that I ventured to suggest that this Grant should be made in the ordinary way and that the money should be lent back to the Treasury. In the circumstances the question of interest is a matter of no importance. That would, of course, help to safeguard the position and keep our rights intact. Therefore, in the circumstances, I venture to propose that the consideration of this Vote should be postponed.
    Mr. COWAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the £400,000 that has been accumulated from the annual Grants under the Small Holdings Act is at present invested, or is it invested at all or lying in bank, and, if it is not invested, could it not be invested in War Loan or Treasury Bills?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot without notice say how it is invested at the moment. Of course it has accumulated, because when you start a business like this you cannot at once apply all the Grant, and the expenditure under the fund is very small at first, but grows gradually. I will take that point into consideration. I am advised that the proper course is to withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is one small matter as to which I would like to hear a word. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I proposed that this Grant, or the greater part of it, should be expended on the development of forestry.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir G. Younger): The hon. Member is on very dangerous ground. If he objects the Vote cannot be withdrawn.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand that the making of a short statement will place an obstacle in the way of the adoption of the procedure which has been suggested.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly. On the point of Order, if the hon. Member makes any objection it will have that effect.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I was not going to make any objection to the course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does not do so there can be no discussion. The question is whether he agrees or does not agree.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,030, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays." [NOTE.—£8,000 has been voted on account.]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. MORTON: I understand that I am in my right in speaking on the Fishery Vote. You put the Question, but it does not come into effect until you put the negative.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that I did not notice that the hon. Member had risen, but it is too late now.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,609,905, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland." [NOTE.—£1,000,000 has been voted on account.]

    NATIONAL GALLERIES, SCOTLAND.—CLASS IV.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,278, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and the Museum of Antiquities." [NOTE.—£2,600 has been voted on account.]

    GENERAL BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,935, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Board of Control for Scotland." [NOTE.—£12,000 has been voted on account.]

    REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,211, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., in Scotland." [NOTE.—£3,500 has been voted on account.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,630, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland." [NOTE.—£10,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I wish to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend in view of another matter which I was going to raise to-day which is interesting to Scottish Members in reference to the rating of sewers. I have been with the Treasury this afternoon while this Debate was going on, and it is not convenient, for reasons which I need not state at the moment, to raise this question on the Adjournment. But I have been assured by the Treasury that if an arrangement cannot be made with the Treasury it may be necessary to raise it on the Local Government Board Vote. Seeing that my right hon. Friend has withdrawn the Vote for the Board of Agriculture as a matter of convenience, perhaps he would withdraw this Vote also. None of us want to discuss this to-night, and we will not want to discuss it again if an arrangement is made, but we desire to keep the opportunity open.
    Mr. McKINNON WOODindicated assent.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Will there be an opportunity of discussing this when—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is not entitled to intervene now.

    SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,421, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899."—[NOTE.—£7,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. RAWLINSON: In reference to the previous Vote, what I want to know is, am I right in thinking that before this question of the rating in Scotland of the sewers is decided the House shall have an opportunity of discussing it, so that it shall not be done merely as a matter of arrangement with the Treasury, without any opportunity being given to the House to discuss it?
    Mr. WATT: In reference to the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that it has been doubled as the result of a private arrangement, and, if that be so, we must all congratulate him, as he deserves it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I must explain for the benefit of my hon. Friend opposite that why I asked that this matter should be kept open was that I was going to raise the question whether sewers in Scotland should be assessed to Income Tax while sewers in England are not. I am assured by the Treasury that it may be necessary to raise it on the question of rating, and, if so, it can only be raised on the Local Government Board Vote, and I desire that the opportunity should be kept open.
    Mr. WATTrose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed this to proceed so far, but it is entirely out of order.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I can raise it on the Secretary's salary.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no intention of subjecting sewers in Scotland to more rating than the law permits.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.—Class III.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £52,476, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."—[NOTE.—£35,000 has been voted on account.]

    SCOTTISH LAND COURT.—Class III.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,084, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Scottish Land Court."—[NOTE.—£4,000 has been voted on account.]

    REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH.—Class III.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,811, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."—[NOTE.—£18,000 has been voted on account.]

    PRISONS, SCOTLAND.—Class III.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,135, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics, Defectives, and Inmates of the State Inebriate Reformatory, and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."—[NOTE.—£54,000 has been voted on account.]
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. MORTON: As we have not had a proper opportunity of discussing the Scottish Fisheries Board Vote, will the Secretary for Scotland, considering the circumstances and the importance of the Fishery industry in the North of Scotland undertake to give us an opportunity of discussing that Vote on the Report stage? I may say that I rose to speak upon it before the negative was put. I think we ought to be allowed to discuss such an important question as the fishery industry of Scotland.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I am not in a position to make any promise in regard to business to be taken.
    Mr. MORTON: You can ask.
    Mr. HOGGE: This is a question of general interest among Scottish Members, as my right hon. Friend knows, and I hope he will allow an opportunity for its discussion. We had intended to discuss besides the Board of Agriculture the question of the fishery industry, and, possibly, education. The Fishery Board Vote was put from the Table very quickly, and I am quite certain that my hon. Friend opposite, and other Members, were prepared to speak upon it. As my right hon. Friend is aware, it is a matter of very great importance to those engaged in the fishery industry of Scotland, and perhaps the Secretary for Scotland may see his way to allow his fellow Members and colleagues in this House, on the Report stage of the Vote, an opportunity to discuss the Fishery Board Vote. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will try to see whether that can be done.
    Mr. WATT: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend, and I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will do something

    339
    to enable the Fishery Board Vote to be discussed. Several hon. Members have waited for three hours to debate the Vote, but it was put so quickly from the Chair that the opportunity was lost. I trust the Secretary for Scotland will continue that courtesy which he has shown all day, and will endeavour to secure an opportunity for Scottish Members to discuss the fishery industry of Scotland.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It is obvious that this Session is quite different from other Sessions and that there will be plenty of time for discussion. We adjourn early in the evenings, and I must say that there will be plenty of opportunity for such a discussion.
    Mr. COWAN: As representing the greatest herring fishery port in Scotland. I feel very strongly that we ought not to be deprived of an opportunity of debating the effect of the War on this particular and important industry. What occurred I confess I do not understand. My hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) says he rose before the question was put in the negative, but he was ruled out of order. I do not think a technical ground like that ought to deprive us, especially in view of the fact that we have abundance of time at our disposal in the present circumstances, of an opportunity for discussing the Fishery Board Vote.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes before Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN'S.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN'S.
  BRITISH NAVAL FORCES (COURTSMARTIAL).
  BRITISH NAVAL FORCES (COURTSMARTIAL).
  COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES.
  COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES.
  RECRUITS FOR REGULAR ARMY.
  RECRUITS FOR REGULAR ARMY.
  SHERWOOD FORESTERS' BRIGADE (CHARGE FOR BILLETING).
  SHERWOOD FORESTERS' BRIGADE (CHARGE FOR BILLETING).
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE.
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE.
  SOLDIER'S ARREARS.
  SOLDIER'S ARREARS.
  MILITARY SERVICE AGE.
  MILITARY SERVICE AGE.
  COTTON IMPORTS (SCANDINAVIA AND NETHERLANDS).
  COTTON IMPORTS (SCANDINAVIA AND NETHERLANDS).
  COTTON IMPORTS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  COTTON IMPORTS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  RAW COTTON (EXPORTS).
  RAW COTTON (EXPORTS).
  PARCELS FOR TROOPS.
  PARCELS FOR TROOPS.
  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN VESSELS IN ARGENTINE PORTS.
  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN VESSELS IN ARGENTINE PORTS.
  Post Office Savings Banks.
  Post Office Savings Banks.
  Baths and Washhouses (Loss to Ratepayers).
  Baths and Washhouses (Loss to Ratepayers).
  Child Prisoners.
  Child Prisoners.
  Supply of Bibles.
  Supply of Bibles.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  AMMANFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Viscount Allendale).
CONWAY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  SEA FISHERIES (CARDIGAN BAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    SEA FISHERIES (POOLE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Earl of Selborne).
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Islington).
STREATLEY AND GORING BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  (No, 1 ORDER.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CORNWALL, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
(CORNWALL ORDER.)

BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
DEWSBURY CORPORATION BILL.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Doncaster (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry),

E. Clarendon,

L. Digby,

L. Ribblesdale (Chairman),

L. Colchester

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday the 21st instant at half-past Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1909—Rules made by the Secretary for Scotland—

1. As to the appointment of a Visiting Committee to the Police Cells Prison at Lochgilphead;

2. Deelaring, Police Cells at Dunoon, Inverary, and Lochgilphead, in the County of Argyll, to be legal prisons for the detention of prisoners for a period not exceeding five days before, or during, or after trial:

Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Brighton and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting a certain class of shops within the Borough:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, this Bill which I propose to ask your Lordships to read a second time and to pass through all its stages this afternoon is the first outcome of the situation that has sprung from the reconstitution of the Government on a national basis. It is common knowledge that very grave anxiety has arisen during the past few months concerning the supply of munitions to our Armies fighting in the field. It is also a matter of common knowledge that this is a. question not of local but of supreme and national importance, affecting not merely the conduct of the military operations from day to day but the destinies and, indeed, the ultimate issues of the war itself. It is a question, further, that concerns the fortunes not merely of our own forces in the field but of the Armies of our Allies, for whom we have been making and at this moment are making provision in respect of munitions on a scale of which this country is scarcely aware.
The expenditure of ammunition in this war has been on a scale that has transcended both all previous experience and all reasonable anticipation. It is not too much to say that neither the magnitude of the, Armies in the field, nor the military or strategical genius of their leaders, nor the supreme heroism of the troops themselves will avail to secure the ends which we have in view or to drive the enemy to the final and ruinous defeat which we anticipate unless they are supplemented and rendered. effective by a supply of munitions on a scale not equal but superior to those of the enemy—,a scale which alone, as far as we can see, can bring about the victory, which we all desire. Such a task as this appeared to those who were engaged in the work of reconstituting the Government to be beyond the resources of the War Department, already terribly overworked and occupied with the daily strain of raising and equipping forces so much greater than any which this country has ever previously put into the field. It seemed to them to require the undivided energies of a separate Department, presided over by a Minister of great; resource, of unbounded personal energy and driving power, and of exceptional influence with
26
the industrial organisations throughout the country. Accordingly it has been proposed to create a special Department for this purpose alone and for the duration of the war, or rather, as your. Lordships will see, for a period of not more than twelve months after the termination of the war.
The nucleus of this new Department will he provided by officials drawn from the War Office and from other Departments, whom it is proposed to reabsorb when the work of the Munitions Department is over and it has ceased to exist. But, in addition to them, the Minister at the head of the Department intends to associate with himself a number of expert authorities and business men in close touch with the various factories that turn out munitions and also in touch with the general industrial organisations of the country. It is not possible—and I do not think it would be desirable—at this stage to attempt to define in any minute or meticulous degree the exact powers or functions which will be enjoyed by the new Minister. They will be determined and added to from time to time in the light of experience by Orders in Council, and no doubt the Minister himself will show no reluctance to taking Parliament into his confidence upon the matter.
As regards the definition of "munitions," I would call your Lordships' attention to Clause 7 of the Bill, in which there was introduced yesterday by way of amendment in another place a very wide definition of the phrase. That clause runs as follows—
In this Act the expression "munitions of war" and the expression "munitions" mean anything required to be provided for war purposes, and include arms, ammunition, warlike stores or material, and anything required for equipment or transport purposes or for or in connection with the production of munitions.
In other words, this Department will be charged not only with the production of high explosives and shells and rifles and guns by the ordinary methods, but also with the co-ordination of all other industries, public and private, throughout the country in so far as they are capable of being utilised for the manufacture of the implements of war.
As your Lordships know, under the powers which have already been taken by the Government the entire workshops of the country are at the disposal of the Government; and it will be for the Minister at the head of this Department, with the knowledge

27
and influence at his disposal, to direct their activities into this particular channel. There cannot, I think, be a shadow of a doubt—indeed the investigations that have been made in the Department already convince us—that there are in this country vast reserves of industrial strength, an enormous amount of machinery, and, one may almost use the phrase, entire armies of labour, skilled and unskilled, waiting to be used and anxious to be used for this particular purpose; and there is every reason to believe, without being unduly sanguine, that when the new Department has got under way there will, before any long time has elapsed, be a steady and progressively increasing flow of those munitions which are the first condition of success on the batty fields of the Continent.
I hardly think that your Lordships will require me to enter into any more detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill, which are really very simple and which explain themselves. I may sum up by saying that the objects of this Bill are, first, to fill an admitted gap in our industrial organisation; secondly, to create an effective Department for this purpose and for the term of the war; thirdly, to give the Minister who has been made the head of this Department wide and necessary powers; and, lastly, to enable him to set to work with the least possible delay. With these objects I am sure all your Lordships will be in sympathy, and without further ado I will ask leave to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Earl with great interest and satisfaction. His statement as to the great anxiety of the country about this question of munitions is absolutely true. Some time past I had begun to think that the grave position in which we are placed did not seem to be realised by those in authority. From information which has reached us, notwithstanding the efforts of the Censor, we know perfectly well that our operations in this tremendous campaign—a campaign such as the world has never previously seen—have been very much impeded for the want of munitions of war. It is not my intention to attempt to say where the fault lies. I have no doubt there will be opportunities hereafter for doing that.
28
But when we realise the large powers possessed by this country in the shape of machinery and capable and skilled men to produce munitions of war, it does seem astonishing that in this campaign we have not had a sufficient supply. The only conclusion to which I can come is that our great powers in this direction have not been properly organised. I am extremely pleased, therefore, to find that one of the first acts of the new Government is the creation of such an organisation as will remove this difficulty with regard to munitions of war. When it is considered that the want of these munitions means the lives of many of the gallant fellows who are fighting for this country at the Front, surely there is reason for the grave anxiety which has been felt by all who know the difficulties with which we have to contend.
I quite realise that it was impossible for the head of the War Department to attend to the whole of this vast work. When he considers the way in which our Army has been increased in so short a time, I think every reasonable person will agree that the Secretary of State for War had far more upon his shoulders than one man is capable of bearing. I am glad, therefore, that the work is to be divided, and that the supply of munitions is to be put into the hands of a capable and energetic man, who I feel sure will be able to secure the great supplies that are needed. I recognise that we must have confidence in the Government in this matter, and I should be the last person in the present situation to refuse them the most drastic powers if the Government considered them necessary. I would have gone even farther than this Bill goes. I should like to have seen a Bill giving power to deal with men as well as with munitions. We are told that there are plenty of men forthcoming for our Army, and that the latest demand for an additional 300,000 will be met without any difficulty. All praise and honour to those who come forward voluntarily ! But we must recognise the fact that the Government have had to increase the age limit from thirty-five to forty. When yon consider the large number of young unmarried men who are shirking their responsibility, I think some means ought to be taken of compelling them to recognise the duty they owe to the State. In Northumberland and Durham, the counties with which I am more closely acquainted, the

29
majority of those who have come forward are married men, in connection with whom greater burdens are thrown upon the State than would be the case with single men. It will, of course, be a serious matter financially if the bulk of the men who are unfortunately killed at the Front leave a large number of dependants to be supported by the State. Therefore I feel that the young unmarried amen who have not joined time Colours ought to be compelled to fulfil their duty to the country.
There are a great many young men who are prepared to go if they are fetched. They think the present system an unfair one. They seem to feel that they have no right to go unless their neighbour goes, and I am confident that if some method of compulsion were adopted it would have the approval of the bulk of the people of this country. I am certain that every man who has joined the Colours would approve of some method of compulsion in the case of these young men who are not inclined to come forward, and I hope that the Government, upon whom rests the responsibility, will adopt some method to compel these men to serve. All our Allies have a system of conscription; we are the only country which has not. I am delighted that we have secured such large forces on the voluntary principle. But does any one who seriously contemplates our present position believe, that we are going to get through our difficulties without some form of compulsion? Personally I do not think so. This is not going to be a short war; it will last for some considerable time yet, and it is the duty of the Government to take this question of compulsory service into consideration. The country is waiting for a lead. This is not a time for shirking; it is a time for firmness. It is the duty of the Government to tell the country what is wanted, and if they did so I am sure they would have the support of the country, who would be only too glad to see effective methods adopted which would bring this terrible war to an end.
It is said that there is an objection to interfering with the liberty of the subject. The liberty of the subject ! Was there ever a war waged which was more for the liberty of the subject? It is ridiculous and absurd to raise the objection that compulsion would interfere with the liberty of the subject. What are we fighting for? We are fighting for the freedom of all nations, the liberty of all peoples. Surely
30
if ever there was a just war when every man ought to be compelled to do his duty to the State, this is that war. Consider what we are up against. Was there ever a military organisation which was more a national organisation than that of Germany and Austria? Every man, woman, and child there seems to recognise responsibility to the State; and if you think we are going to win without taking measures to combat such a force as that you are mistaken. I believe that there is not a single person in Germany who is not thoroughly inflated with the idea that they are going to win this war, and who is not prepared to make every sacrifice, both in regard to property and life, to bring it to a successful issue. Surely we should not be behindhand when we are fighting for such great principles.
The control of this war is practically in the hands of the Government. I trust that they will recognise their responsibility and go forward without hesitation, taking such powers as they believe are necessary to bring this war to a successful issue. Unless they do that, the blame of am-failure will be upon their shoulders and not upon the shoulders of the nation. I hope that nothing will he left undone, and if the Government are firm and do not hestitate to take any steps which they believe to be necessary they will, I am sure, have the loyal support of the people of this country.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I need hardly state that I do not rise to say a word in opposition to this Bill. Indeed, I venture to congratulate my noble friend that on the first occasion on which he has addressed this House as a Minister he has done so on so congenial a topic, for I recollect that it was during his period of office as Governor-General of India that for the first time a serious effort was made to make India self-supporting in the matter of munitions, and a long step was taken in that direction. Nobody knows better than my noble friend that this Bill is welcomed on this side of the House, because he is aware that for many months past some of us have done our best to secure the consideration of this very appointment. The noble Lord who has just sat down thinks that we are somewhat late in being asked to assent to it. We may be late, but we are not too late. Great work will be done, and we all welcome what is really the first great step that has

31
been taken to organise the nation for the prosecution of the war. Previous steps have been in the direction of calling upon people for voluntary effort, but for national organisation this is, I think we may say, the first definite forward step which has been made, and it is of good omen for the new National Government and one which we hope to see bearing fruit in other directions.
But I have not risen to voice that which I should think is in the mind of every one of your Lordships, but to ask the attention of my noble friend to one particular point in the Bill. He called the attention of the House to the limitation of time in Clause 6—I refer to the determining of this appointment and of all that follows it within twelve months after the end of the war. I dare say it is a salutary provision. It is right that we should look to as complete an economy at the end of the war as we can, and to the cessation of all unnecessary appointments. But, on the other hand, I invite the Government to consider for a moment what the past history has been of the work of providing munitions for the two Services, and to leave the door open—not by any change in the Bill, but in their own minds—for a reconsideration of the whole topic before they finally part with the Ministry which they are now creating.
Your Lordships are aware that Woolwich and the provision of warlike stores has been under the War Office for an indefinite number of years. I should myself have been glad if the title to be conferred on the Minister of Munitions had been the old and historic title of Master-General of Ordnance. But that has not been seen right. There are many noble Lords present who have been connected with the Services who can remember that up to a quarter of a century ago the War Office had such supreme control over the provision of warlike stores that the Navy gave the whole of their orders through the Secretary of State for War; and there was constant friction, because it was naturally felt that, however undesirable it was for two public Departments to be competing in the same market, the tendency of any Department must be to press on its own orders, and the Navy were at a continual difficulty as to the provision of big guns and the requisite ammunition. The second Government of Lord Salisbury's dealt drastically at the moment with that position. They gave to the Admiralty
32
power to make their own bargains with the trade, but they left the War Office with the supreme control of Woolwich. I doubt whether the past history of that control has been altogether satisfactory. There was partly the difficulty that it had to be under Parliamentary control. Part of the work of the Financial Secretary was to take up the control of the whole of these factories. The Financial Secretary was constantly changed on promotion, and consequently the better the man the less chance there was of his having a prolonged career there. It is a difficult business to learn.
I doubt whether in recent years it has been satisfactory for another reason. The tendency of all administrators at the War Office is to buy stores in whatever is at the moment the cheapest market. The cheapest market in time of peace is always Woolwich. If you put the whole of your orders into Woolwich you leave the trade to starve, and you have no trade to depend upon on the outbreak of war. The proper course—it was laid down by many distinguished authorities at different times and by Commissions—is that you should divide your orders, keep a very large reserve of power in Woolwich, and pay the extra money necessary to the trade. But that has not always been done. The tendency of every administrator at the War Office must be, when be is hard pressed with regard to men, to get his material as cheaply as possible; and there is a great deal to be said for keeping in some form, not necessarily in the form of a Cabinet Minister, possibly not even a Parliamentary Minister, what is really a trading concern. In fact I am not at all sure whether some eminent soldier, an Artillerist or Engineer, who has had experience—and there are many—in these factories, would not be able to conduct the whole business with greater knowledge and experience and with more satisfactory results than if the course contemplated in Clause 6 of the Bill is taken, under which all the powers and duties revert to the Department or authority from which they were transferred. I have ventured to make these observations because this is a national question of a very high order. I am quite sure that if the difficulties of it had been appreciated in the earlier months of the war these steps would have been taken long ago, and I should deprecate our reverting too suddenly to the old state of things. If

33
my noble friend is able to do so, I hope he will give the House an assurance that before the step is irrevocably taken the Government, if they remain in office as we hope they will, will consider on its merits the whole question of the supply of munitions.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill said that it gave the Minister of Munitions ample power to requisition all the works in the country. I do not myself quite understand, and I do not know whether anybody else does, Clause 2 of the Bill, which gives the Minister of Munitions "such administrative powers and duties as may be conferred on him by His Majesty in Council." The noble Lord who immediately followed the noble Earl delivered a speech in favour of conscription for military purposes, into which I do not propose to enter. But what I would like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is this—Does this Bill give the Government of the day power not only to requisition works but to requisition men to fill them? If it does not, I think it is a pity. But T can imagine many reasons why the Government should not have taken suck powers. In times like these we all know that we must try, whatever we do, to keep the country as nearly unanimous as we can and to advance, when we advance, all together. That is all important; and I can fancy the Government saying to themselves, with that in their minds, "If we put into this Bill a clause by which we can requisition all the labour of the country if we want it, it will be unpopular." Well, would it be unpopular? I venture to say that it depends entirely upon the point of view from which you approach this question. I can imagine its being deservedly unpopular, but on the other hand I can imagine its being acclaimed on every platform—it depends upon what you are going to do.
In putting forward my own views I wish entirely to dissociate myself from the attacks that we have heard and read against the great organised working classes of this country. Those attacks are mostly written by newspaper men who know nothing, and by club idlers who have hardly ever done any work in their lives. I happen to live near a dockyard town and I will tell your Lordships what is going on there. Every now and then there comes into that dockyard for repair a ship which the Admiralty want out again with the shortest possible delay. Do you know what the men there
34
are doing? Hundreds of men, probably more, have been going into the dockyard on a Monday morning and coining oat on the following Wednesday night., eating how they could during that time and sleeping an hour or two on the ground as and when opportunity offered. That is how the dockyard men are working. And in the dockyard of which I am speaking they are doing more than that. They compete, in a sporting spirit, with other dockyards as to which can run the ships out fastest. If you are going to men like that and to give them the impression that you intend putting compulsion on labour, your proposals are certain to be condemned and to be condemned with justice.
There is another way in which labour is being most unfairly attacked. We constantly see it stated that at certain works most important work is being done, but that the men will not all put in overtime. Consider what overtime is. The ordinary time represents as a. rule the work which an ordinary man can do and retain his health and keep on working. But if you went to the men in any works and said, "Here is something most important on which human life depends; we must have these things shells or whatever it is—within so many y days or so many hours," I do not believe you would ever appeal in vain to any great mass of men in this country. You must remember, however, that you are dealing not with machinery but with human frames. There are few of us who at some time or other have not worked for two or three days much harder than we should. But we know perfectly well that if the human frame is strained unduly for any lengthened period the result in the long run is that the human frame will do less work in the twelve months than if no extra work had been undertaken. I believe that these are not the right lines on which the extra work of the nation is to be done.
In my opinion the extra work of the nation has to be done by bringing in more men. I do not see that it is any more undemocratic to requisition a man's labour than it is to requisition horses, cattle, sheep, hay, straw, vehicles, and everything else which you have properly requisitioned since the beginning of the war. I began by saying that if you are going to give the impression that it is working men only whom you are going to force, you will never carry a proposal of that kind. But

35
I believe you will find it necessary to requisition labour by force before you are through with this war. You will have to send men to work whether they like it or not, and there is only one way in which to do it—you will have to begin at the top. I am not for a moment going to decry what the well-to-do classes of society have done in the way of service since this war began. I know myself, from hearing the talk in villages, that in many villages working men are saving that since they have seen the way in which the landowners' sons have served their country they are taking a different view of the position of landowners than they took before. The upper classes, as a whole, have come wonderfully well out of this great trial and call upon their patriotism; but there are idlers still among us. Everybody here knows that the great bulk of men like ourselves, either with our own work or with unpaid public work or with both, are as a rule fully occupied. But even among members of this House I venture to say that on an inquisition you could find some men who had never done a day's work for themselves or for anybody else since the day they were born. If you are going to have compulsory labour, you will have to begin, as I say, at the top.
Most of the sons of the well-to-do classes are serving, the nation, but I know quite well that even among the sons of members of your Lordships' House there are a few who are not facing the dangers of war, but are hanging about the London theatres and music-halls as they did before. While that continues you may save yourselves the trouble of going to the working men and talking to them of conscription and of compulsory service. I heard only a day or two ago that within the last fortnight a member of this House who has held high office under the King gave a dance. That does not seem to me very good taste, but perhaps I am old-fashioned. The dance, I am told, was well attended; there were lots of young men there who have never served their country and never mean to. Those are the young men whom you have to get in before you talk of the working men.
I am saving this because I believe that before the war is over you will have to call upon all the citizens of this country to do their duty in one shape or another. You may ask what would be the good of
36
the young men to whom I have referred if you got them into works; they are unskilled. But to utilise to the full the labours of the skilled mechanic, you require unskilled labour to wait upon him. I would send these young men to do that work. If the Government approach this problem from that point of view and aim not at the compulsion of the working men but at the compulsion of every class in the country, I venture to say that that is a kind of popular service which you could advocate and obtain applause for on any platform from one end of the land to the other. I am not one of those who take a roseate view as to the course of the war. I am quite sure that victory is not yet won or begun, and before it is obtained all will have to do their share, and you can only get all to do their share—make up your mind on this at once, whether you like it or not—by beginning at the top.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not wish to take up much of your Lordships' time, for I have very little of my own. I returned from the Front on Saturday, and I go back there to-morrow. But there are one or two things that I wish to say. First of all, I think I am justified in saying that we out at the Front want to know when we are going to find a backing at home. The speech to which we have just listened is one such as I do not think many of us have read in the newspapers for some considerable time, but it makes clearer the different points of view between the man in the front trenches and the man at home. The noble Lord talked about men working continuously from Monday to Wednesday night. I know of a Brigade which was in the trenches for thirty-two consecutive days, and during a great pant of that time was being shelled. Your Lordships will be able to judge what the nervous strain was upon those men. I am stating nothing which every German Staff officer does not know when I say that, speaking broadly, the French hold their trenches by a few rifles and with the support of their wonderful 75 millimetre gun, while we hold our trenches principally by rifle fire. The French system is expensive in ammunition; ours is expensive in life. That is a thing which, as far as I know, has never been said in this country since the war began. When is it going to be said on public platforms that every day wasted in our factories means so many more lives lost at the Front? Every man

37
who does not occupy his time to the very fullest advantage in this country is responsible for the loss of those lives.
It appears to us—I think I may use the word "us"—that we are working in a vicious circle. We are told that we have as many men as we can equip. On the other hand, a great deal more equipment might be turned out if the working men realised the necessity. I am not going into the question of compulsion at any length, but it does appear to us that men who refuse to work should be made to fight. The man who refuses to do his duty in the workshop should be sent to the Front, whether he likes it or not. It would make a great difference in the point of view of every working man in the country to realise what it means to be in the trenches with support not as great as he would like from Artillery. If that were done, not only would there be an enormously increased output of equipment and munitions but the supply of recruits would also be largely increased. Having got as much equipment as you needed you would he able to have more men; and. without more equipment, more munitions, and more men you are not going to bring this war to a satisfactory conclusion quickly. A long-drawn-out war means not only an expensive war in bullion; it means an expensive war in lives.
It is no good our talking about this matter for another seven months. Early in November we ought to have realised what we required in the way of ammunition. We are now beginning to take action to supply that ammunition. How long will it be before we are—I will not say adequately, because we are adequately supplied now—but how long will it be before we have that amount of ammunition which is necessary to enable us to do all that we require at the Front? That depends principally upon the Government of this country, and it; is my firm conviction that if the Government and public men generally spoke more of the Whole truth and less half-truth there would be much less difficulty with the working men both in regard to recruits and munitions of war. It is obvious that a large amount of information must be kept secret. Every officer and man at the Front knows how important it is to get identification of enemy units and to find out whether they have moved their forces one way or the other, and every German is trying to
38
get that information about our units. Therefore such information must be kept from the enemy, and it is impossible, as a rule, to refer specifically to the action of particular battalions or of particular individuals in a battalion, at any rate until some weeks have passed. There are, however, exceptions. When a battalion has been in action and has lost a good many men and you know that the Germans must have realised that the unit had been present, there can be no harm in the public being told what that unit has done. But where you have reason to believe that the Germans do nor know that a unit is in a particular place, it is the duty of every individual to hide that fact and leave the enemy in doubt. But the amount of secrecy thrown over the movements of our troops in the field has had considerable effect upon people at home
People here are now beginning to realise the necessity for high explosive shells. Have they begun to realise the necessity for gas? Gas has been used by the Germans, and used extensively—I know it only too well. The Germans have broken, I believe, every law of civilised warfare in using it. I think they have been extraordinarily foolish. Hitherto they have had the greatest luck in having a north-east wind continuously for some time, but the wind is prevalently west and the enemy are east of us; and as they have chosen that wicked method of warfare and have turned themselves into outlaws they must be treated as outlaws and vermin and stamped out. As they have chosen to use gas it is now "up to us" to provide gas for the use and protection of our men in the trenches. A considerable amount of nonsense has been talked, and it has been said that it would be wrong for us to use gas. Let those who take this view go into the front line trenches and see what they think about it when a wall of gas comes down upon them. They would then realise what it is to feel that those at home will not provide similar means to attack the enemy.
There are no politics in the Army and there never have been, but I cannot say that there is at present a great feeling of respect for men in public life at home on either side, and for this reason—that there has been a great deal of talk and very little action. War is a time of action, and this country will be judged not by what it says but by what it does, and public men will also be judged by the same standard.

39
War has a curious way of wiping out unrealities and bringing us opposite to facts. I hope that our public men will realise that facts are the things that count and not words, and that action is necessary to get men for the Army and the requisite amount of munitions of war.
LORD STALBRIDGE: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in addressing you for the first time, but I have been out at the Front for seven months and am going back to-morrow, and I should not like to let this opportunity pass without telling your Lordships how gladly we at the Front will welcome this new appointment of Minister of Munitions. At the Front we do not think much about when the war will end. Our thought, is, When will the people of England wake up and give us the guns and ammunition that we require? Frankly I do not believe we can ever bring this war to a satisfactory conclusion unless we have conscription or some means of organising the nation under military discipline. The Minister of Munitions will have a very difficult task in organising the men in the workshops unless he can have them under some discipline and say that they have to work so many hours a day. We do not want them to work overtime. If they would only work eight hours a day they would be able to turn out enough ammunition to keep us going. I have never heard any estimate of the amount of ammunition required, and I do not think it is fair to ask the working men to turn out this ammunition unless they are given some idea of what is needed. I am not giving anything away to the Germans when I say that our guns at the Front are capable of firing over a million rounds in twenty-four hours. Mr. Lloyd George, in his speech at Manchester, asked Manchester to provide 250,000 shells a month. I do not say that we could provide a million rounds every day or that a million rounds is a criterion of the amount required every day, but a million rounds a day would be 30,000,000 a month, and I think that would be much nearer the mark than the 250,000 of which Mr. Lloyd George spoke. I hope the Minister of Munitions will recognise the necessity of encouraging our inventors and scientific men. Modern warfare has taken such an unexpected phase that we cannot afford to neglect any contrivance or invention, however small, which will help to kill the enemy or save
40
the lives of our men. Hitherto it has been very difficult to get the War Office to examine or take up any new invention; but now that the Germans have sunk to the adoption of these barbarous and illegitimate means of warfare a very large field has been thrown open to our inventors and scientific men by which we shall hoist them with their own petard.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I only rise to make a small suggestion connected with the working of this Bill. There are at the present moment in this country a considerable number of soldiers and sailors who have been returned as medically unfit for further service either at home or abroad. I understand that the hulk of those men are now living in barracks and occupying quarters which should be occupied by the new Armies. Some barrack rooms scheduled to accommodate twenty-five men have, I am told, more than fifty men sleeping in them at night. I know the difficulties attending the discharging of these men. The preparation of the necessary documents and the arrangements for pensions must take time. But what I suggest is this, that where these men have a prospect of definite employment they should at once be granted their discharge. That would enable them immediately to go to their work, whether on the land or in a factory or workshop. I quite admit that this is open to the charge that the men would be drawing Army pay and civilian wages at the same time, but they are drawing Army pay now and doing nothing for the country, whereas they might be able to help in the manufacture of munitions or in agriculture. Were my suggestion adopted it would be to the advantage of the country in increasing the supply of labour, and it would not cost the Treasury an extra shilling.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to the discussion, I desire to ask whether opportunity will be taken of this appointment of Minister of Munitions to relieve the Government of certain restrictions which they have allowed to be imposed upon themselves by which they have been prevented from taking advantage of offers of large supplies of ammunition from certain quarters. I know, on information which is undoubtedly reliable, that the Government have had an offer of a large quantity of shells from Canada, and that they have refused to take advantage of it because they have

41
some arrangement that compels all munitions coming from the American Continent, including North America, to pass through the agency of Messrs. Morgan, of New York. I am not speaking on a matter of which I am not quite sure. A protest as regards this situation has been made in writing to the Prime Minister. These Canadians very properly say, "We are British subjects; we have from two to five million shells to offer to the Government, but, we object to being compelled to pass them over through the Morgan house." It is desirable to know whether this embargo against British subjects is likely to be withdrawn as part and parcel of this new appointment.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Lords, after the warning given by Lord Stanhope in his manly and courageous speech against words and in favour of action, I feel a little diffident in standing here even for a few moments to say anything further to your Lordships on this Bill. But one or two points have; been raised in the course of the debate, with which we on this side have every reason to be satisfied, on winch your Lordships will perhaps, expect me to say something in the nature of a reply. A good deal of the discussion as I think is, usual with our debates, travelled rather far away from the immediate subject-matter of the Bill. We heard a good many observations, some of them of a very vigorous and even impassioned nature, upon conscription, compulsory service, the control of labour, and so on, and although in some of those observations I detected faint echoes of by-gone speeches made by myself, yet I feel that for the moment it would be not only unnecessary but unwise for me to travel into those rather perilous fields. I am more concerned to deal with the direct questions put to me arising out of the Bill itself.
Lord Stanhope—whom we are very glad to welcome here in the short. interval between his two periods of service, and to whom along with the noble Lord who sits beside him I hope I may be allowed to express our earnest wishes for their good fortune in the field—asked how long it would be before ammunition would be received on a scale which would satisfy the Army in the field and the expectations of the country. The new Department is hardly yet organised, and the noble Earl will not expect me to give anything in the
42
nature of a definite reply. Bad he been here three weeks ago he would have heard the Secretary of State for War make the statement, with the foundation for which I am quite familiar, that munitions are coming in at a greatly enhanced rate of rapidity, and I imagine that, when the new organisation is in working order the Minister for the Department; Mr. Lloyd George, will not be at all slow to communicate to Parliament the expectations which the Department Krill be justified in forming.
Upon another point the noble Earl's absence at the Front lots caused lam to be somewhat unfamiliar with what has been said in this House. He spoke about the question of gas, and seemed to be under the impression that some scruples deterred His Majesty's Government from the use of weapons like that against those who have employed them against us. I can assure him at once that that is not the case. There are many noble Lords present who will remember the statement made from this Bench by the Secretary of State for War three weeks ago in which he said, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they held themselves at perfect liberty and proposed to use these instruments of warfare, however cruel and diabolical they may be, against those who have initiated them against us. The question is one of time end of opportunity. We have not been devoting our resources, scientific and other, during the last seven or eight months, as the Germans have done, to the task of inventing those instruments, but it is within the knowledge of many here that active steps are now being taken in that direction, and I hope that the noble Earl when he returns to the Front may one day find the agency which he has seen work such devastation upon his friends turned against the enemy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, for whose support of the Bill. I warmly thank him, raised a very important point as to the possible continuation after the term provided for in this Bill, if not of the whole of this Department, at any rate of a portion of the organisation which it is proposed to set up. It would be premature for me to say anything definite upon that point now, lint views of that kind coming from the noble Viscount, who speaks with such authority on the question, will not be forgotten, and there will be many opportunities during the continuance of the war, which is not likely to be short, in which

43
he will be able to press the point again upon us.
A question was raised by Lord Stalbridge about the organisation of the scientific abilities of the country. He seemed to be of opinion that sufficient use was not being made of the great skill and ability upon which in those respects we can rely in, this country. I think that is hardly the case. There is a department in connection with the War Office—whether or not it will be transferred to the department of the new Ministry of Munitions I am not sure, but I think it will be—presided over by Lord Moulton, an authority in these matters high not merely in the estimation of this country but in that of the whole world. Lord Moulton, with a number of colleagues, has been devoting himself to the study of this question for the past eight months, with results which in many cases have been very helpful; and the noble Lord may rely upon this, that there will be not the slightest hesitation in appealing to and making use of all the scientific ability which this country can provide.
The noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord St. Davids) asked a number of questions to which I will endeavour to reply. He inquired whether this Bill gave powers to requisition the services of men employed in the factories and workshops, and I think he went on to imply that such power does not at present exist. In the latter respect he is not quite fully informed, because under the Regulations which have been issued in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Acts some such power does exist and has been taken advantage of. For instance, under those Acts the power has been taken not only to deal with business premises and plant, but to compel the occupier of the premises and his employees to obey the directions of the Admiralty or the Army Council as to the use of the factory, workshop, or plant.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I read a report of a debate in another place in which it was stated that there would be no requisition of labour by the Government until they had special legislation on the subject. But I may have read a summary which did not accurately put the case.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Lord is quite right. No powers are taken in this Bill to requisition labour in any form. I was merely acquainting the noble Lord that such powers, in a
44
limited degree, are already in existence. If the Government come to a decision that further powers are necessary, they will be asked for from Parliament in a separate Bill. There was also a point raised by Lord St. Audries which I will bring to the notice of the Department. Lord Devonport raised the question of supplies of ammunition from Canada, and asked whether we were precluded from taking advantage of those opportunities by the engagement which he quoted as having been entered into with the firm of Messrs. Morgan, of New York. I know there was such an agreement. Whether or not it is in operation at the present time I am not certain. But I recognise the great importance of the matter and will inquire into it and communicate with the noble Lord. I am sure we shall all entirely endorse the words of Lord Stanhope that the time for speech is over and the time for action has come. It is because we hold that view that the new Ministry of Munitions has been formed, and that its first act is to present this Bill to both Houses of Parliament.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with) Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following seven Bills received the Royal Assent—

Ministry of Munitions.

Frimley and Farnborough District Water.

Bluth Harbour.

Doncaster Corporation.

Great Eastern Railway.

Bury and District Joint Water Board.

Salop County Council.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that, except for Judicial business, the House do adjourn until Tuesday next, June 15.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.