Sitting of 10 June 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Bill to be read a second time upon Monday next.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time upon Monday next.
Brighton and Hove Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
London Electric Railway Companies' Facilities Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords],
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Report for the year 1914, on the Victoria and Albeit Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copies presented of Reports for 1914 on the Science Museum and on the Geological Survey and Museum of Practical Geology [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
Copy presented of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1915, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of The Civil List Act, 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 256.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 842 (Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate, Report for 1912–14) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

County Palatine of Chester,

Borough of Whitehaven,

Urban district of Rushden,

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1915–16 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Sum required to be voted for Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 258.]
PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
Order [9th June] that the Paper relative to Rule declaring Police Cells at Dunoon, etc., to be Legal Prisons for the detention of Prisoners for a period not exceeding five days before or during or after Trial be printed, read, and discharged.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    EPIDEMICS (PREVENTION).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any international, precautionary, or preventive measures are being taken, or instructions issued, against the danger of plague, cholera, or other rapidly spreading disease arising from the War; and, if not, whether the most competent medical advice on the subject will be obtained and made public at the earliest possible date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Discussions are in progress between French and British experts as to
    344
    the measures to be taken for the prevention of epidemics, and the civil population will receive ample warning and advice should any danger arise.

    CONSULAR OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether all persons holding the rank of Consul-General and Consul shall in future be British-born subjects, and foreign-born Consular officials shall in future be restricted in number as far as possible, and strictly confined to unpaid officers of the rank of Vice-Consul and Consular Agent?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Foreign-born Consular officers are already restricted in number as far as possible. The other suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend requires careful consideration and will be borne in mind.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether Consuls-General and Consuls will be limited to British-born subjects?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should not like to make any statement on the point at the present time, but the question is being considered and the suggestion will be carefully borne in mind?
    Mr. WING: Might not some use be made of a large class in the country, the commercial travellers, who are acquainted with the handling of business, as there is a general feeling among a large number of people that more use of commercial men could be made than is at present availed of for these public positions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a question, but only giving his own opinion.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the official list of Consular officers permitted to trade of 1st July, 1914, Mr. L. Bachmann is described as of German nationality; and, if so, will he say on what date he became a naturalised British subject of French origin, as officially stated?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: In a list printed for departmental use Mr. Bachmann's nationality was erroneously stated to be German. He is of French origin and is now a naturalised British subject. The date of his certificate of British nationality is 25th February, 1904.

  MEAT PRICES.

    ARGENTINE TRADE (TONNAGE FOR HOME SUPPLY).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total meat-carrying capacity of British-owned steamers engaged under normal conditions in the Argentine frozen meat trade; how much of this tonnage has been acquired for the storage of frozen meat by our Allies in France and for our troops else where; whether a large proportion of the remaining tonnage is under charter to the American Beef Trust; and whether the Government will see that sufficient tonnage is reserved for purposes of home supply should the necessity arise?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Captain Pretyman): It would not be in accordance with the national interests to state what is the total meat-carrying capacity of British owned steamers engaged under normal conditions in the Argentine frozen meat trade, or what proportion of these vessels is engaged in the conveyance of meat for the Allied Forces. As my hon. Friend is aware, under the Order in Council of 29th April, 1915, all the insulated spaces in British vessels normally trading between the Argentine Republic or the Republic of Uruguay and the United Kingdom have been requisitioned for the use of His Majesty, except the vessels of one company, which are subject to long-term contracts with the meat companies of the River Plate for the conveyance of meat to the United Kingdom. Thus I am able to assure my hon. Friend that, either under requisition or under charter, the whole of the available tonnage is being utilised to the fullest advantage, and that the measures which have been taken will effectively prevent the diversion of vessels from the trade between the River Plate and the United Kingdom or France.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the advisability of utilising German ships laid up in the harbours of this country?
    Captain PRETYMAN: That has been considered, but I should like notice of the question. It is being done, I know, in some cases.

    IMPORTATION OF LIVE CATTLE.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the present price of frozen meat in Argentina;
    346
    whether he can state the price which the American Beef Trust have charged our French Allies on the Continent for recent supplies of frozen meat; and, in view of the prices now being charged by frozen meat importers in this country, he can see his way to permit the importation of live cattle from abroad for slaughter at the wharf, so as to protect from too early slaughter immature animals in the British Isles?
    Captain PRETYMAN: In order to secure economy it has been agreed by the French Government that the British Government should purchase on behalf of both Governments. Prices are, therefore, on the same basis for both, but I do not think that it is in the national interest that I should publish them. I have no official knowledge of the prices paid by the French Government for their supplies under contracts made before this agreement was entered into. With regard to the last part of this question I understand that the matter is engaging the attention of my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    SHORTAGE (CALVES).
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it is the policy of the Board to discourage the killing of young stock; and whether, in order to preserve an adequate supply of store cattle for the coming winter, the killing of calves and eating of veal are being discouraged?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottingham in reply to a somewhat similar question.

    ECONOMY IN CONSUMPTION.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the notice issued by the Board of Trade drawing attention to the importance of restricting the consumption of meat with a view to economising the national supplies and avoiding an excessive increase in price, he will consider the desirability of immediately taking steps to put an end to the wastage of meat and bread at all the military camps all over the country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): All possible steps have been taken already to prevent wastage of food at military camps and barracks. Instructors in catering have been appointed and schools for the training of cooks established in each command. From the 22nd of last month the scale of rations was modified in order to make further provision for varying the soldier's dietary. Under this arrangement the ration issuable in kind was reduced and cash allowance correspondingly increased—the bread ration being reduced by a ¼ lb. With this modified ration and generally improved messing system wastage of the soldier's food should in future be reduced to the minimum.

    WAR WORK SCHEME (REGISTRATION OF WOMEN).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked how many women have now been registered under the war work scheme of the Government; and how many of these have had work allotted to them?
    Captain PRETYMAN: The total number of women who have signified their willingness to be placed on the War Service Register up to the 4th June was 78,946. The total number of those whose services it has been possible hitherto to make use of is 1,816. It should, however, be borne in mind:—

    (1) That numbers of the applicants on the War Service Register placed their names also on the ordinary Labour Exchange registers.

    (2) That in filling vacancies the supply of suitable labour on the ordinary register is first exhausted before the resources of the War Service Register are drawn upon.

    In this connection it may be noted that the placings from the ordinary Labour Exchange registers for the four weeks ended 14th May of this year amounted to 26,159, as compared with 18,757 for the corresponding month of last year—an increase of 39 per cent. I should also like to point out that the main object with which the special War Register was compiled was to ascertain what reserve labour would be available if required to meet emergencies which might arise in the future, rather than to recruit labour for existing vacancies generally. Special steps are, however, about to be taken with a view bringing to the notice of
    348
    employers the large reserves of women's labour which have been discovered, and the possibility of obtaining therefrom substitutes for men whom they may able to release for service with the Colours.
    Sir W. BYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that forms a sufficient explanation why exceptionally qualified women who were invited to register, and have registered for many, many weeks, have been unable to obtain any employment?
    Captain PRETYMAN: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the last part of my answer, he will see that the attention of employers is to be drawn to that fact as early as possible.

    COASTGUARD SERVICE (INCREASE OF PAY).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the men of the coastguard service were debarred from the increase of pay granted to the Navy in 1912; and if, having regard to the increase in the cost of living which has since taken place, the pay of these men will be augmented?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I recently stated, this question has received close attention from time to time, but it has been decided that, taking all the conditions of service into consideration, no general alteration in the pay of the coastguard was justified.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the cost of food has increased more than 50 per cent., and that these coatsguardsmen's wives and families have nothing provided for them but the barest necessaries of life?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The cost of food has increased, but I should doubt very much the accuracy of the latter part of the hon. Baronet's statement. Compared with the men in the Fleet, the work of these men is not over arduous, and they get an allowance of 1s. 4d. a day.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Why are they not deserving of the same consideration as other classes in the Service?
    Mr. SPEAKER: You cannot argue at Question Time.

    MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked when the contracts with the six medical men who are receiving £5,000 a year from the Admiralty expire; and whether, having regard to the fact that equally eminent doctors are serving with the Army at the front for the ordinary pay of Royal Army Medical Corps officers, he will determine the Admiralty contracts at the earliest possible moment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is receiving consideration. I hope a statement may be made shortly.

  RECRUITING.

    NAVY REQUIREMENTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether he is yet in a position to make any statement in regard to the requirements of the Royal Navy as regards recruiting, particularly in regard to the number of men the Navy now needs?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Ample provision has been made in the current Estimates, and the hon. Member may rest assured that no difficulty has been experienced, and none is expected, in meeting the large requirements due to the expansion of the Fleet.

    MARRIED MEN.
    Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the fact that ten out of twelve of the men in this country aged thirty-nine to forty are married, and that most of them have children; and if he will, in view of the undesirability of accentuating social difficulties and of creating enormous liabilities for the State, consider the restoration of thirty-eight as the maximum age for recruits?
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked whether the Cabinet authorised and approved Lord Kitchener's appeal to enlist married men of forty years of age with families, and whether the Government will take steps to discourage for the time being the enlistment of married men, seeing that the Government have obtained and are obtaining more men than they can arm and equip; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails among many of the troops owing to their having been for many months without rifles or equipment;
    350
    and whether the Government will now consider the desirability of registering only the names of young men willing to enlist till such time as the necessary equipment can be provided for their use?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The extension of the age limit was intended to widen, and has had the effect of widening, the field for recruiting, and to give to eligible men, hitherto debarred, an opportunity to serve their country. It is not in the public interest to indicate the extent of the provision which has been made for arming and equipping the new troops. Any delay or arrears there may have been in this matter are being made good, and all who offer are wanted.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is that a reply to my question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are many miners withdrawn from their work in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire nine months ago who have not yet got rifles?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said it is not desirable to go into details. Whatever arrears there are are now being made up.

    POSTERS.
    Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the official recruiting advertisement headed, "To the Young Women of London," which begins with the words, "Is your best boy in khaki?" and to another advertisement which, without regard to the circumstances of women, some of whom are widows with an only son, asks them to tell their male relations to "Go"; and if he will at once institute a strict supervision of these advertisements by some person of taste and discretion who will have regard to the kind of language and appeal which ought to be permitted to appear in such official announcements?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has been called by my hon. Friend's question to the poster mentioned. The psychology of the public, particularly in reference to the efficacy of advertisements, is a peculiar and recondite study, and those whose experience is widest will agree that unusual methods sometimes have to be adopted,

    351
    but even those who have no such experience will know that appeals for recruits must necessarily be addressed to meet the most varied tastes.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is consonant with the dignity of the greatest Empire in the world that this kind of advertisement should be placarded opposite the War Office and on public buildings throughout the country?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have said, appeals had to be made to all kinds of tastes, and that would account for this particular poster.

    "NO CONSCRIPTION FELLOWSHIP."
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the prosecutions in Ireland for alleged interference with recruiting, if he will say what action has been taken, or will be taken, with reference to the "No Conscription Fellowship," founded in this country and described by itself as an organisation of men likely to be called upon to undertake military service in the event of conscription who will refuse, from conscientious motives, to bear arms?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter is under consideration.

  SINKING OF STEAMSHIP "LUSITANIA."

    BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRY.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what progress has been made with the Inquiry into the destruction of the "Lusitania" and the death of over 1,500 non-combatants on board; and when may the House expect to receive the official Report in regard thereto?
    Captain PRETYMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Good progress has been made with the preliminary work in connection with the Inquiry, which will open on Tuesday next. I cannot say when the Wreck Commissioner will make his Report. The date naturally depends upon the time occupied in conducting the Inquiry and in the preparation of the Report.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the growing feeling that the Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the "Lusitania"
    352
    should be postponed until after the War as the coroner's jury has already delivered its verdict, and the further information to be elicited by the proposed Inquiry must, owing to the War, be of a private nature and taken in camera, and if the Prime Minister can see his way to have the Inquiry postponed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the decision that there should be an investigation into the circumstances of the loss of the "Lusitania," and that the facts should be placed on record has met with general approval, and I see no reason why the Inquiry, which has been fixed to open on Tuesday next, should be postponed or abandoned. The fact that it may be necessary to take in camera certain evidence which it is not desirable in the public interest to publish, does not affect the utility of the Inquiry—which could hardly be satisfactorily held if postponed until the end of the War.
    Mr. FELL: Is it not the case that the Admiralty has all the information at its disposal which can be brought out at the Inquiry, and that to bring it out publicly or with closed doors would prejudice naval operations and could in no circumstances be beneficial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must adhere to the answer I have already given. I have carefully considered it.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (DECORATION).
    Mr. STEWARTasked whether officers of the Royal Naval Reserve who join the Service as midshipmen have to serve twenty-one years before receiving the Royal Naval Reserve decoration, whereas officers joining as sub-lieutenants receive the decoration after fifteen years' service; and whether he can see his way to give the decoration to all Royal Naval Reserve officers after serving fifteen years, by allowing the years of service as midshipman to count equally with six years as a sub-lieutenant?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Officers of the Royal Naval Reserve are eligible for the decoration provided that, inter alia, they have fifteen years' commissioned service on the active list of the Royal Naval Reserve. Time served as midshipman does not count towards the fifteen years, and I am unable to recommend the alteration suggested.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether he can now give details of the scheme of separation allowances for the wives and families of warrant officers and Royal Marine gunners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The allowance will be at the following rates, subject to a minimum allotment of 20s. a week in the case of wives:—

    Wife

    8s. a week.

    First child

    4s. a week.

    Second child

    3s. a week.

    Third child

    2s. a week.

    Fourth and subsequent children

    1s. a week.

    Motherless children

    5s. a week.

    Allowances to dependants will be governed by the same conditions generally as existing dependants' allowances. Payment will date from the 15th April in the case of wives who are now in receipt of allotments of at least 20s. a week, and forms of application will be sent to them immediately without any action being required on their part. Where the qualifying allotment is not now in force but is declared without delay, payment will also be made from the 15th April; otherwise it will be made only from the date on which the allotment becomes operative. In each case a form of application will be issued as soon as the allotment declaration is received at the Admiralty. In the case of dependants, application must be made for the allowance by the warrant officer on a form obtainable on board ship, but where the warrant officer is serving abroad application may be made by the dependant on a form obtainable at any post office.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the fact that the allowances are made according to rank, should not the wives' allowances in these cases be 10s. and not 8s.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. We have taken all relevant matters into consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, in view of the fact that grants have been made to sub-lieutenants, assistant paymasters, and lieutenants in the Royal Navy, and that certain conces
    354
    sions have been made to the parents or guardians of midshipmen, he can see his way to make an increase of 1s a day to the pay of commissioned warrant officers, warrant officers, and lieutenants promoted from warrant officers, seeing that up to the present time no grant has been made to these officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret I am unable to see my way to recommend the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member. I would remind him that the recent grant of separation allowance in the case of warrant officers is, in itself, a very considerable concession.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the fact that the allowance is 8s. and not 10s., does not the right hon. Gentleman think that 1s. a day would be a very proper increase to make?
    Dr MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman knows that this 8s. is a new allowance, and he must not compare it with the 10s. not previously existing.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked whether George Frederick Plowright (M. 5979) entered the Navy on 20th May, 1913, served successively in the "Impregnable," "Talbot," and "Vivid," was discharged on 6th January, 1915, through mental breakdown caused by the strain of active service, and has received the sum of £2 3s. 11d. in full compensation; whether he is still incapacitated; whether he would have received a suitable pension had he been invalided out of the Army; and why there should be this difference in practice between the two Services?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Plowright was invalided for neurasthenia, which the medical reports state to be not attributable to the Service. On the assumption that this report is correct, the sum paid to him is the full amount allowable, under the Regulations, in respect of his service, which amounted to 1 year 232 days only. The suggestion now made that his disability was directly due to the Service is quite new, and inquiry will be made. If this statement can be substantiated, he will be granted compensation in accordance with the scale laid down by the Select Committee of this House. There is practically no difference in principle in the treatment given to men whether invalided from the Navy or the Army.
    Mr. INGLEBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the fixed scale of pensions in the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The scale was very little for a long time. It will be more as from the 1st of March, upon the recommendations of the Select Committee, when we receive the Treasury sanction. The total disablement allowance is 25s. a week, with a small addition for rank and badges, and 2s. 6d. per child; 10s. 6d. for the loss of an eye or a limb; and for the rest, such a sum as together with that which the men would be capable of earning would bring the total up to 25s., plus small additions for rank and badges and possible allowances to children not to exceed 2s. 6d. each where granted.
    Colonel BURNasked whether he has received a petition from the employés of the Works Department at Dartmouth asking for an increase in wages owing to the increased cost of living, and that they might participate in the war bonus; why such petition was refused, having regard to the fact that civil employés at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, received a bonus on the 26th May, dated back to the 28th March last; and why the particular employés in the Works Department have been treated differently to other Government servants?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A petition to participate in the war bonus was received from Works Department employés at Dartmouth. The pay of these men is governed by the rates paid to similar labour in the district, and consequently they are not considered entitled to the war bonus. As regards the application for an increase of wages owing to the increased cost of living, if the local rates of wages are modified due consideration will be given to such modification in considering the wages of the men employed in the Works Department.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is necessary for a private in a Territorial battalion, serving in the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, to sign personally the form A.F.O. 1838 before the case of his mother's allowance as a dependant can be considered?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Claims for such allowances depend upon the soldier's willingness to allot and should be made by
    356
    him. If a man has left this country before making a claim for his mother, an application from her will be considered if made before 30th June; but payment cannot be made without reference to him.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Could not a temporary arrangement be made where evidence can be produced, for instance, by letter, that a soldier is willing to make the contribution?
    Mr. FORSTER: We do everything we can to meet the case.

    DENATIONALISATION CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain persons in this country, formerly German subjects, hold certificates of denationalisation which they had obtained before the War owing to their desire to sever their connection with Germany; will he state how persons holding such certificates are regarded; and whether they free the holders from liability to internment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am aware that certificates of the nature indicated by my hon. Friend are possessed by many persons, but such a certificate cannot be regarded (especially in the case of persons who have not been naturalised here) as in itself conclusive proof that the holder is not to be regarded in English law as an alien enemy.
    Mr. KING: Does this allow them to have a better chance of leaving the country for America, as I understand several of them desire to do?
    Sir J. SIMON: Every case is considered on its merits.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain friendly and neutral aliens in this country having lost their positions or means of livelihood owing to the War, have applied for permission to remove themselves and their families to the United States or other countries in which they have good prospects but have yet been refused permission to go; and whether he will reconsider this policy, which is resulting in persons who are willing to leave these shores continuing to be an economic burden to the community?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think there must be some misunderstanding. Aliens of friendly and neutral nationality do not require and therefore have not been refused permission from me to leave this country for the United States of America or other non-European countries.

    FACTORY ACTS (MESSRS. GREENWOOD AND BATLEY, LIMITED).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a case where a young woman at Leeds was kept at work for over twenty-four hours, and when proceedings were taken under the Factory Acts the stipendiary magistrate dismissed the case; and whether any attempts are being made to prevent the working of men, women, and children for such periods as are obviously detrimental to health?
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which Messrs. Greenwood and Batley, Limited, a firm of Leeds engineers, engaged in the manufacture of cartridges and other munitions of war, were summoned for allowing girls to work slightly longer hours than are permissible under the Factory Acts; whether, at the first hearing, the Leeds stipendiary dismissed the case as being one of a trifling character; whether the case was brought on a second time under the instructions of the then Home Secretary; whether he is aware that it appeared on the hearing that the amount of overtime worked was trifling in amount and was necessitated by a breakdown of machinery in one department, and that unless such overtime had been worked all the other departments would have for the time being been brought to a standstill, to the great public detriment, and that the magistrate eventually dismissed the summons under the Probation Act; and whether the Home Office will in future take account of the special circumstances of each case and will abstain from directing prosecutions of this character unless a serious question is involved?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): It is fully recognised that there are cases in which substantial relaxation of the regulations, enforced in time of peace, is called for in time of war, especially when Government work is being done.
    358
    Exemption orders relaxing rules as to hours and other matters are granted on application in all proper cases, and thousands of such exemptions have been given. The hon. and learned Member for York has, however, been very seriously misinformed as to the facts of this particular case. It was not one of slight overtime, as suggested in the question. Women and young persons had been worked through the whole of Friday and Friday night up to mid-day on Saturday—a period of thirty hours on end, and were brought in again, also illegally, on Sunday and worked from six in the morning to five in the evening. Such hours not only inflict great hardship on the workers, but as my predecessor pointed out, in reply to a question on this case on the 27th April, they diminish the efficiency of the workers, and so far from assisting are detrimental to the national interests. The proceedings were taken only after the fullest inquiry and consideration, and after consultation with the War Office, who concurred in the prosecution.
    Mr. KING: Will the hon. Member bring these facts to the notice of the new Minister of Munitions, so that provision may be taken that no such evils will recur?
    Mr. BRACE: It is a matter for the Home Office, and we will look after it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask if the summons was eventually dismissed?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes, Sir; we cannot help it if the magistrates make a mistake.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to statements made in the Central Criminal Court on the 12th May, in the trial of one Edmund Sauer, that there were many hotels in London which still employed German waiters, and the Recorder's remarks that it seemed a very alarming thing that a foreign waiters' club should be allowed to exist in Wardour Street in the heart of London; and what steps he has taken in order to dissolve the institution?
    Sir J. SIMON: I saw a newspaper report of the remarks made by the Recorder at this trial, and have consulted the Commissioner of Police in the matter. He informs

    359
    me that the club in question is the London branch of the Union Ganymede, an International Association of Hotel and Restaurant Employés, that the secretary is a natural born British subject, and that the club is well conducted and has been of great assistance to the police since the outbreak of war.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary how many alien enemies have been interned and how many repatriated, in pursuance of the policy announced in this House on 13th May?
    Mr. MORTONasked whether any steps are being taken and, if so, what steps, for the internment of alien enemies of military age, either naturalised or un-naturalised, many of whom are still at large and trading in the City of London and elsewhere?
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked what progress has been made with the segregation and internment of alien enemies and the repatriation of those above military age; and how many alien enemies are still at large in the Metropolis and in the prohibited coastal areas?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Prime Minister announced that, as soon as the naval and military authorities provided the necessary accommodation, alien enemies who are adult males of military age would be interned, subject to exemption in special cases being recommended by advisory bodies of a judicial character which it was proposed to set up. Men over military age, and also women and children were, in suitable cases, to be repatriated. Immediate steps were taken for internment as rapidly as the accommodation provided by the military authorities permits, and this process is continuing. Repatriation is being carried forward concurrently. Down to the 5th June last, 3,339 additional males have been interned, and 2,274 additional persons have been repatriated, making a total of 5,613. Since then the total has risen to over 6,000, but I cannot give a precise figure later than 5th June. The additional number interned completely fills all the accommodation the military authorities have yet been able to provide, but I am informed by the War Office that this accommodation is being increased with all possible dispatch from week to week.
    The figures for alien enemies of military age in the Metropolitan area are, in round
    360
    figures, as follows: Germans, 9,000; Austro-Hungarians, 4,000. All enemy aliens resident in the City have been interned. In one case an Austrian has been for special cause released. Others trading in the City, but resident elsewhere in the Metropolitan area, are included in the figures for the Metropolitan area. I stated on 3rd June the appointment and the composition of the Advisory Body. It has already held a number of sittings, and is now at work. A separate Advisory Body has been appointed for Scotland. I am informed that the Advisory Body has already considered 1,309 applications for exemption: exemption has been granted in 159 of these cases, and has been definitely declined in 657 cases. In the remaining cases they have called for further information. No alien enemies of any age or either sex are permitted to be at large in any prohibited area save in exceptional cases decided upon after consultation with the military authorities. These exceptions amount in the coastal areas referred to to 592 men, 2,134 women. As regards suspected persons who are not alien enemies, the House is aware that existing powers did not wholly cover such cases, and I stated yesterday that an Order in Council to cover such cases was being obtained. Under this Order in Council it will be possible, subject to proper safeguards and where the defence of the realm requires it, to deal with this class of case.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Might I ask whether those figures do not indicate that it would take about seven months to complete the internment of the number of aliens we know of, and whether the Home Office could not take steps on their own account, without the War Office, to get some adequate means of internment?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the figures indicate that; it depends upon the rapidity with which additional accommodaton can be provided, and I have every hope that it will be provided at an increasingly rapid rate.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether the proceedings of the Advisory Body are open either to the Press or to the public or to the friends of the alien enemies themselves?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question.
    Colonel WALKERasked the Home Secretary whether he will communicate

    361
    with the Secretary of State for War with the object of taking over the encampment for 40,000 troops which has been erected in Kummel Park, Abergele, near Rhyl, North Wales, so that immediate accommodation can be found for the aliens still at large?
    Sir J. SIMON: I will draw my Noble Friend's attention to this suggestion.
    SIR A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he has given permission for six German alien enemies, prisoners who have been interned, to be released for the purpose of working at Thorne Colliery; whether any cash guarantee has been given to the Government by the colliery company employing these Germans as a guarantee of their fidelity to this country; and whether Lord Kitchener sanctioned these men being so employed?
    Sir J. SIMON: I know nothing of this. If the hon. Baronet will give me privately the names of the men to whom he refers, I will make inquiry.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are interned as alien enemies young men of friendly disposition towards the cause of the Allies, that some of these speak imperfect or no German, have non-German names, and are ready to enlist in the British Army; and whether advantage will be taken of such cases, after due inquiry and possibly guarantees from respectable persons, to increase the number of fighting men?
    Mr. TENNANT: The rule is that aliens are not allowed to enlist in the British Army. This rule applies to all aliens—even those of the Allied nations. The enlistment of alien enemies is therefore not to be comtemplated, and there is nothing, I am glad to say, in the military situation which makes resort to such a questionable expedient worthy of an even momentary consideration.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Continental countries have followed the practice which is suggested in my question?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of enlisting alien enemies?
    Mr. KING: Yes.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (HAYMAKING AND HARVESTING).
    Colonel WALKERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the shortage of labour for agricultural purposes in certain districts, he will communicate with county councils of districts where German prisoners are interned with the object of making arrangements for employment of prisoners for hay-making and other harvest help?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter has been the subject of communication between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture, who are dealing with the question in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the County Farm Labour Committees.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYES).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Hotel and Restaurant Employés' Union Ganymede Friendly Society is an approved society under the National Insurance Act; whether this society consists of about 4,000 foreign waiters; whether it is worked as a branch of an institution at Leipsig; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take in connection with the matter?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The society in question was approved under the National Insurance Act in 1912, and is still an approved society. Waiters of any nationality who are resident in the United Kingdom are eligible for membership. The membership, according to the latest return, was 1810, of whom 374 were British subjects or were entitled to be treated as British subjects for the purposes of the National Insurance Acts. I am informed that the institution in Leipzig referred to by the hon. Member has no control over the society, which is under the complete control of its members in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member will be aware that under the Insurance Acts no Exchequer contributions are payable in respect of members of approved societies who are not entitled to be treated as British subjects.

    EXPORTS OF COAL (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the average delay between the recommendations of the

    363
    Coal Exports Committee dealing with Scottish exports of coal that licences should be granted and the actual granting of these licences by the War Trade Department; and whether it will be possible to reduce the time that lapses between these two transactions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): As a rule the licences are issued within twenty-four hours. I have not received any complaints of delay.

    WOMEN AND LAW WORK.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, with a view to making available the country's intellectual as well as material resources, and at the same time opening a new, suitable, and long-needed sphere of activity for capable women, he has considered the advisability of taking steps to open the two branches of the legal profession to women on duly qualifying; whether he will at an early date take action with this object; and (2) whether, in view of the enactment in Denmark of a new constitutional law giving the parliamentary franchise to women on the same terms as to men and the greater need for such a law in this country at the present time, he will have the introduction of legislation on this subject at an early date considered by the Coalition Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These are both highly controversial questions which cannot be dealt with at the present time.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many women serving the country in the manner stated in the first question are now available?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I do not know. Such a question would require several days' notice.

    PEACE ADVOCACY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it is with his sanction the advocacy of peace is being treated as an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act; and, seeing that the majority of Englishwomen desire the termination of the present waste of human life and that they have no votes in the election of Members of this House, whether he will consent to receive a deputation from them
    364
    and to give an early opportunity for debating the subject in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I am aware, the advocacy of peace has not been and cannot be treated as an offence under the Act. I believe that the desire that the War may lead to an honourable and lasting peace is shared by all classes without distinction of sex. I do not, therefore, see any sufficient reason for adopting the concluding suggestion in the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking a vote of the women on this subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member can suggest a means of doing that I will consider it.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS IN CAMERA).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated at Dundee, on the 5th June, that if there is to be criticism on the conduct of the War this should be made in Parliament and that it was a right of Parliament to sit with closed doors, he will say whether, seeing this declaration by his colleague is contrary to his refusal of facilities to Parliament to sit behind closed doors, the right hon. Member for Dundee expressed the views of the Government; and, if so, will he now give an early day to the House for this purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised, I do not think that any occasion has arisen for the adoption of this suggestion.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to take it that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy was without the authority of the Prime Minister; and may I ask whether, in view of what has just been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is not desirable to raise questions in the House, does he desire that the House of Commons should take no part in discussions about the War which he does not wish the House to take behind closed doors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend is in the habit of making speeches without consulting anyone as to what he is going to say. That, I think, is a very good practice, and I hope it will be continued. What he said was hypothetical:

    365
    that a state of things might arise in which it might be desirable for this House to meet with closed doors. But I do not think that that occasion has yet arisen.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the speech in which the Chancellor definitely stated that if there was to be criticism it ought to be behind closed doors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend did not say that.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Mansfield has himself supplied the strongest argument against the adoption of this course by saying there is a party in this House who are the friends of the Germans?
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Chancellor of the Duchy stated at Dundee on 5th June that the country was now on the high road to have 3,000,000 men in the service of the Crown as volunteers, he will say why, when the Government persistently refused to give this information to Parliament, the information was given to the constituents of the right hon. Member for Dundee; whether he authorised the Member for Dundee to make this declaration; whether he will now give the House the actual number of men enlisted since the War; and whether he will give an assurance that in no case will the number of men authorised by Parliament be exceeded without first obtaining further authority from Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend gave any information to his constituents on this point which was not before the public. The number of men which Parliament has authorised to be maintained for the Army and Navy is 3,250,000. This number will not be exceeded without the authority of Parliament.

    BRITISH GOLD (EXPORT).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if gold, in the shape of sovereigns and half-sovereigns, is being sent to France each week for the pay of our Army there; if the recipients receive in exchange the rate ruling in the market or only the sum of 25 francs for a sovereign; and if some more economical plan of paying the troops there will be devised?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The French Government have been good enough to make an arrangement with His Majesty's Government under which French currency is provided for the payment of the troops in France in exchange for sums credited to the French Government in London, and consequently it is not necessary to send gold.
    Mr. FELL: Then the money which is circulated in the North of France must have been taken abroad by soldiers or their friends?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should assume so, but I have no information on that point.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether it is not the case that these sovereigns are being used to a very large extent in exchange for pay warrants?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I am informed that the soldiers are paid in francs and not in sovereigns.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the exchange at the rate of twenty-five francs only?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it is at the rate of twenty-five francs.

    MUNITIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of factorial not previously manufacturing munitions of war which have been or are in process of being converted to that use in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively, with a comparison of the cost of adaptation in the two countries; whether offers have been made on either side with reference to similar adaptation of any of the factories in Ireland thrown idle in consequence of the War; and whether the desire to recruit among the unemployed was the reason for leaving the workers unemployed by not taking over the factories?
    Mr. FORSTER: The information asked for in the first two parts of the hon. Member's question is not readily available, and I regret that in the present pressure of work the time cannot be spared for its compilation. I may observe that in the case of Ireland a Belfast committee has been in communication with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Munitions. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the commencement of the War certain factories in Ireland have had to close down, on account of their men having gone to the Continent?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WORK FOR WOMEN).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state how many men of military age are employed in Woolwich Arsenal upon work which might quite well be done by women?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are at present employed in the Arsenal, including all departments, approximately 15,000 persons of military age. I do not know how many of these would be passed as fit for active military service. Most of them are employed on work in which they cannot be replaced by women. Most of the remainder could only be replaced, whether by women or by other men, after the latter had had a certain amount of training and experience and the change could only be carried out slowly and at the risk of dislocation of the work.

    ARMY CASUALTIES (MENTAL STRAIN).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether cases, which in civilian life are uncertifiable, are being treated as incipiently insane by being placed not under general physicians but under medical officers whose practice as regards experience in nervous disturbance has been limited to their practice in asylums for the insane; if so, whether such uncertifiable patients as have been subjected to lunacy control have no right, while still in the Army, which is comparable to the right possessed by civilians of appeal to a magistrate; and what steps he proposes to take to give soldiers rights equal to those possessed by all civilians?
    Mr. TENNANT: Uncertifiable cases of nervous disturbance are being treated in the neurological sections of general hospitals, and in addition in two institutions which have been taken over from the Board of Control as military hospitals. In the former they are under the care of selected general physicians and neurologists,
    368
    in the latter under physicians whose previous experience has been largely that obtained in practice in mental institutions. In all such hospitals the patients have exactly the same rights as a soldier undergoing treatment in a purely military hospital—such as the Herbert Hospital at Woolwich—which existed as such in times of peace.
    Mr. RENDALL: May I take it now that the soldiers are placed under the control of lunacy doctors, and while under such control have not the right of appeal which ordinary civilians have to a magistrate?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that is a fair deduction to make from my answer.
    Mr. RENDALL: But is not this the arrangement, that the doctors under whom soldiers are placed when they break down mentally, although they are lunacy doctors and have at some time been connected with lunacy establishments, have a right to certify and that the soldiers have been put under these doctors without any power of appeal?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the statement of my hon. Friend goes a little beyond the information I have given him. It is a fact that these doctors have had previous lunacy experience, but they do not necessarily exercise and are not necessarily vested with the same powers as those with which they are vested during peace time over civilians. In these military cases, as I have said, the patient has the same right as a soldier undergoing treatment in a purely military hospital.
    Mr. RENDALL: Are greater powers not now exercised without there being any right of appeal?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Colonel YATE: May we take that as an assurance that soldiers who break down mentally, temporarily, are not placed in lunatic asylums?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the House that strict orders have been given that cases of this kind are not to be treated as incurable, until it is absolutely certain that they are incurable. Every chance is given for the man to be cured.
    Colonel YATE: In the meantime they are not to be placed in an asylum?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, that is right.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any mental case is certified while under military control?
    Mr. TENNANT: Mental cases are not certified until it is necessary to discharge them from the Service.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the names of the clearing houses to which soldiers of the rank and file when disabled by nerve strain are sent on arrival from the front, and the names of the military hospitals specially adapted for the treatment of un-certifiable cases of mental strain; how many of these border-line cases are at present in each one of these institutions, indicating at the same time for what purpose the institution was used previous to being commandeered; and in how many instances these uncertifiable cases have been put in charge of medical officers now gazetted officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps who, up to the time when the institutions were commandeered, belonged to the asylum service and who still retain that status in addition to their military status?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am obtaining this information.
    Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked whether soldiers invalided from the front, or who have temporarily lost their mental balance, are to be maintained out of Imperial funds?
    Mr. TENNANT: Soldiers who have temporarily lost their mental balance while with the Armies in the field are at present being retained in the Army under treatment, at public expense.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is it a fact that many soldiers have been put in lunatic asylums in this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think I gave the figure to my hon. Friend last week. It is about seventeen.
    Mr. RENDALL: There have been some?
    Mr. TENNANT: By mistake.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will that mistake be rectified?
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the men still go on the local rates after they are declared incurable?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think they go on the local rates, but I am not quite sure.

    INOCULATION (RECRUITS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the liability of all Army recruits to inoculation with the virus of infectious disease is withheld from the public in Ireland at the present time; whether inoculation is enforced as part of military discipline on men not previously made aware of that liability; from what diseases the virus is taken; whether from human beings or from beasts; and against what diseases the inoculation is supposed to be effective?
    Mr. TENNANT: A soldier agrees to vaccination as part of the contract he enters into on enlistment. There is no difference between soldiers enlisted in Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom in this respect. I have frequently explained that inoculation against enteric is not compulsory. This is, of course, the case in Ireland equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. As regards the scientific and technical side of the hon. Member's question, I am informed that vaccine lymph is obtained from vesicles of cowpox in calves and that the vaccine used in inoculation against enteric fever is made from the organism of enteric fever grown on an artificial medium and then killed by means of heat.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    TRANSFERS.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether members of the Territorial Force, who by signing Army Form E 624 A undertake liability to be transferred to other corps or units, will be liable to forfeit membership or substantive rank in their original corps or unit in the event of such transfer being made?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the case of Territorial soldiers, the question of retransfer will be dealt with in the spirit of the second proviso in Clause 1 of the Army Transfers Act, 1915, which allows regular soldiers to be retransferred after the conclusion of the present War, if they so desire, to the corps in which they were serving at the time of their transfer. As far as possible a soldier transferred under Army Form E 624 A will be entitled to take on retransfer the rank which he originally held.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Is it not the case that when an officer is transferred, say, to the King's African Rifles, or a non-commissioned officer to the Territorial Force Permanent Staff, they remain seconded from their regiment? Would it not be possible, therefore, in view of the strong sentimental attachment which exists among men in the Territorial Force to their regiment, to reconcile men to this new form by pursuing the same course, so that they may be certain of re-absorption at the end of the War, without losing any seniority?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a very technical question. I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is the intention of the War Office to transfer men back again to the unit from which they were originally transferred.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Without loss of seniority?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, without loss of seniority. That is the intention, and it is hoped it may be possible to carry out that intention.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and second men, instead of definitely transferring them, in view of the fact that they are going, not of their own free will, but to meet public convenience?
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall have to consider that.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. W. GUINNESSasked whether any decision has yet been reached as to the proposed improvement in the position of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force) as compared with that of Royal Army Medical Corps officers of the Regular and New Armies?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for West Renfrewshire last Monday, of which I will send him a copy. I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject very soon.

    PUBLIC SCHOOL BATTALIONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when
    372
    it was decided to make recruiting general for the Public School battalions; whether in some regiments the commanding officer promised the original members of his battalion to obtain commissions for them if they so desired; that this promise has not in all cases been fulfilled, and in other cases only fulfilled on condition that the applicants first procured recruits to take their place in the battalion; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?
    Mr. TENNANT: The action referred to in the first part of the question was taken at the end of April. I am not aware of any promises which may have been made by the officers commanding these units, nor of the extent to which, if made, they have or have not been fulfilled. I do not think the practice of requiring a soldier to obtain recruits as a condition of a recommendation for commission being given is desirable, and it has been stopped where it has been known to exist.

    RATIONS ALLOWANCES (WAR OFFICE).
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any final decision has been arrived at upon the matter of rations allowances recently withdrawn from officers serving at the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.

    SMALL ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD LOCK.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an advance of wages has recently been conceded to the clerks employed at the Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock; if so, why the claims for the same consideration made by the writers has been overlooked; and whether he will inquire into the matter with as little delay as possible, with a view to rectify this grievance?
    Mr. FORSTER: No advance has as yet been given to any person employed on clerical duty in the superintendent's office at Enfield, but the claim of the writers is under consideration.

    EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED OFFICERS.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of officers employed at the War Office who are receiving retired pay in addition to the usual pay of the appointment in which they are employed?
    Mr. FORSTER: The number of officers referred to is eighty-seven.
    Mr. PARTINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain why these officers receive their retired pay in addition to the pay of their appointment?
    Mr. FORSTER: As soon as I saw my hon. Friend's question I made a point of looking into it, because I wanted to know myself. I find that the arrangement was made with the concurrence of the Treasury after the South African War. We have already settled that, when a suitable opportunity arises, the whole thing will be reconsidered in the light of our experience in the present War. I think I should tell the House quite frankly that we shall not be in a position to do that for some little time. I very much doubt whether we shall be able to do it before the War is over.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why, if a man has earned his pension, he should be deprived of it if the State further requires his services?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is no reason whatever why he should be deprived of the pension which he has earned. The whole thing is very complicated, and, as I say, the question will be reconsidered as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman do away with that complication by giving a definite order that once a man gets a pension he shall not be deprived of it?
    Mr. FORSTER: He has not been deprived of it. That is why the question is asked.

    LIVES LOST (MERCHANT SHIPS).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked what is the total number of lives lost at sea on British merchant ships since January, 1912; and whether any new Regulations have been issued since the loss of the "Titanic"
    374
    with regard to the type of lifeboats to be carried on board?
    Captain PRETYMAN: The total number of lives lost at sea and in rivers and harbours from sea-going steam or sailing merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom, by wrecks and shipping casualties of all kinds, between the 1st January, 1912, and the 31st December, 1914, was 4,078. Of this number, 2,509 lost their lives in the steamships "Titanic" and "Empress of Ireland." In January, 1913, the Board made new Rules as to lifeboats and other life-saving appliances, which were amended in certain respects in May, 1914, in order to give effect to the provisions of the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea. I am sending a copy of these Rules, which are now in force, to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has effect been given to the recommendation of the Mersey Commission?
    Captain PRETYMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.

    LIFEBOATS (ROYAL NAVY).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked what are the types of lifeboat used on His Majesty's ships of war, and of what material they are composed; whether any changes in the types have been made in the last ten years; what is the number of lives lost on His Majesty's ships since the beginning of the War; and how many were saved by lifeboats carried by the ships?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The boats commonly used for life saving are the cutters and whalers, although all the boats carried—steam, motor and pulling boats—would be so used in case of emergency. These are all constructed of wood. I ought to add that in addition to the boats, special life-rafts, floats and buoys are provided which are capable between them of supporting large numbers of men in the water. Further, each man in the Navy is supplied, or is being supplied, with a life-saving appliance, either belt or waistcoat. The total number of officers and men who have lost their lives since the commencement of the War owing to the sinking of His Majesty's ships in which they were serving, including dockyard employés and mercantile ratings, is 6,409. These figures do not include the "Bulwark" and "Princess Irene." Figures are not available in regard to the last

    375
    part of my hon. Friend's question, but the number is certainly considerable in respect of the type of boats I have mentioned.

    HAY AND CORN HARVEST.
    Sir EDWARD COATESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the shortage of agricultural labour in certain parts of the country, he will consider the possibility of permitting soldiers now training in or near such parts of the country to assist the farmers in getting in the hay and corn harvest, such soldiers being selected by the military authorities from amongst those who are willing to undertake such employment and being paid by the farmers employing them the current rate of wages in the district?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter is under immediate consideration.

    ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that men employed at the Maryle-bone branch of the Army Clothing Department are only paid at the rate of 6d. an hour, that no overtime rate is paid, that the working hours are sixty-three per week, and when Sunday is included, as it generally is, the hours are very long, that the lavatory accommodation, considering the number of men employed, is very scanty; and whether he will consider the advisability of bringing the wages more into keeping with the Fair Wages Clause, establishing an overtime rate, especially for Sunday work, and make inquiry into the general conditions prevailing, which are causing a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the men?
    Mr. FORSTER: Except as regards the lavatory accommodation my information does not agree with that of the hon. Member. The lavatory accommodation is being extended. The obligation to observe the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution is fully admitted by the Department.

    CUSTODIS COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has this morning had a sight of a letter dated 20th
    376
    January, 1915, written by the Custodis Company, Limited, stating that this company was an English limited company with British capital and British directors only; whether he has any information that the representative of this company has stated when seeking orders from British firms that not a penny of German capital was invested in this company, nor was any German connected in any way with the same; whether in view of his statement on Tuesday last that the majority of shares in this company were held by Germans, will he, in view of the false statements made by this company, prohibit them from carrying on any further business in this country either with Government Departments, municipal authorities or trading companies?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have seen the letter from the Custodis Company, Limited, which is referred to, and I am informed that a representative of the company has stated that no German capital is invested in the company and that no German is connected with it in any way. The statement which I made last Tuesday with regard to German shareholding referred to the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, Limited, and not to the Custodis Company, Limited. I have no information that any shares of Custodis, Limited, are held by German subjects, and I believe that the two directors of that company are British subjects, one of whom is of German origin and was naturalised in the year 1897.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this is the same company trading under another name?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am not aware that it is the same company. The shareholding in the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, Limited, was largely in German hands. The shareholding of Custodis, Limited, is in English hands.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The company to which the hon. Member for Nottingham referred was Custodis, Limited. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the company which had a contract in Nottinghamshire to which the hon. Member was referring?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no knowledge of the contracts which were held. I think the question asked was with regard to the Alphons Custodis Company. Custodis, Limited, is a different concern.

    Marquess of Conyngham's Estate (Fishing Rights).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that all the tenants on the estate of the Marquess of Conyngham who completed their purchase with him direct secured for themselves all game and fishing rights on the river Owenea which flows through the estate; whether he is aware that, while negotiations were proceeding between the landlord and the remaining tenants, similar rights on the same river being the only point in difference between them, the Congested Districts Board intervened on behalf of the landlord by purchasing the remainder of the estate with its appurtenant rights in trust for the tenants; will he state the entire sum paid by the Board for the property, for the rights on the river, and for the rights on the estuary, respectively, and any bonus paid in addition; whether those tenants have been appointed managing trustees of the fishing or have themselves appointed others for that duty; whether they are willing, if conceded their own rights, to co-operate with the Board in fishing and preserving the fish generally; whether he is aware that the disorder resulting from the present attitude of the Board is, by facilitating poachers, destructive of the property of the tenants and of the Board; and whether the Board will reconsider the matter with a view to such an amicable settlement as those tenants would have obtained from the landlord if the Board had not intervened?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am informed that none of the tenants of the Marquess of Conyngham purchased fishing rights on the Owenea river, and that none of those in the Glenties or Owenea watershed bought their holdings by direct sale. Negotiations did take place between landlord and tenants in the Glenties and Downstrands sections of the estate, but the efforts were abortive for reasons of which I am unaware, and the Congested Districts Board, who were subsequently approached by representatives of both parties, agreed to negotiate for the purchase of these sections. The purchase price of the property is £62,496, Three per Cent. Stock, with a bonus the amount of which has not yet been determined by the Land Commission, but will be calculated in accordance with the First Schedule of the Irish Land Act, 1909. The price for the Owenea Fishery is additional
    378
    and amounts to £2,276, which sum has not been apportioned as between the estuary and the river. The Board are now in possession of the fishery, which is managed by them and their officials after a scheme to vest it in local trustees on behalf of the riparian tenants was frustrated by some of the latter. I cannot agree with the suggestion contained in the penultimate part of the question, and at the same time I understand that the Board, who are preserving the river to the best of their ability, are quite willing to discuss any reasonable proposal which the riparian tenants may put forward for the transfer of the fishery to them.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the riparian owners will, after purchase, have the same fishing rights that they had before?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not quite know what were the fishing rights they had before, but as I understand it, they might have taken some rights to which they were not entitled, but I understand the Congested Districts Board are most anxious that all the fishing rights of this river should be vested in the riparian owners and worked according to some scheme to be agreed upon.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the riparian tenants either be put on the board of trustees or allowed to appoint men on that board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Of course, if the Board is a joint operation, they will have their share in its formation.

    Dundalk Urban Council (Fees of Poor-Rate Collector).
    Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the members of the Dundalk Urban Council have been threatened with a surcharge of £63, the fees due to Mr. Hughes, poor-rate collector, and for the payment of which he got a judgment of the High Court of Justice in Ireland; whether Mr. Hughes was appointed under the old rules governing collection of rates; whether, when the new order was issued in 1906, Mr. Hughes was exempted from its operation and the collection each year was satisfactory; and will he say on what grounds they now wish to enforce the order which they waived in 1906?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The members of the Dunkalk Urban Council have been surcharged a sum of £63 by the auditor,

    379
    which surcharge has been upheld by the Local Government Board. This sum represents poundage in connection with the collection of Mr. Hughes, poor rate collector in the urban district, who issued a civil bill against the council, which the latter body did not oppose but allowed to go by default, although they had from time to time been warned by the Board that Mr. Hughes was not entitled to any poundage fees in the event of his failing to lodge the full amount of his warrant each half-year. As the council did not appear against the civil bill, the judge gave the necessary decree for the amount claimed, £63. Mr. Hughes was appointed poor rate collector towards the end of 1899, and in 1905 was granted the usual exemptions from the Public Bodies Order, 1904. His collection, far from being satisfactory, as stated in the question, has for a number of years been most unsatisfactory, and eventually in May, 1911, the Board withdrew the exemptions which had been granted to him. This is not an isolated instance of exemptions being withdrawn in the case of poor rate collectors, as for some years past the Board found that in the interests of the ratepayers these exemptions should not be allowed to continue, and where the collections were unsatisfactory the Board withdrew them forthwith.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked whether, in view of the difficulty during the period of the War of procuring a sufficient sum of money from the Treasury to finance in whole pending schemes for the building of labourers' cottages in Ireland, the portion of the schemes dealing with applicants whose present houses have been condemned as insanitary and unfit for human habitation will be proceded with?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply is in the affirmative; but it will be necessary for the rural district council in each case to satisfy fully the Local Government Board that the occupants of such dwellings cannot be otherwise provided for before this portion of the scheme can be authorised to be proceeded with.

    Boards of Guardians (Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, if any and, if so, what regulations are issued by his Board for the guidance of clerks to
    380
    boards of guardians as to the fitness of their using their official position to influence political opinion; whether the attention of the Board has been directed to statements made by the clerk to the Old-castle Board of Guardians; and whether they were uttered in contravention of the rules laid down?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is nothing in Article 45 of the Local Government Board's General Regulation, which prescribes the duties of the clerk, which deals with this matter; but in cases which have arisen from time to time the Board have stated that they consider that Poor Law officials should refrain from interfering in election contests beyond exercising their statutory right to vote. I am not aware of the statements to which the hon. Member draws attention.

    Office of Works (Wages of House of Commons Staff).
    Mr. COWANasked the First Commissioner of Works how many attendants on the staff of this House in his department receive wages amounting to not more than £2 per week; whether he proposes, in view of the recent considerable increase in the cost of living, that those members of the staff should be paid a bonus during the continuance of the War; and, if so, whether he can indicate the scale upon which such bonuses are to be paid?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The number of men is forty-six. In answer to the second and third questions, I can only refer to the replies given on the 4th and 18th ultimo to similar questions by the hon. Members for Blackburn and Deptford.

    Boarded-out Children (Increase of Allowance).
    Mr. TURTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the increased cost of living, boarding-out committees experience difficulty in finding and recommending satisfactory or suitable homes for boys at the low rate sanctioned by the Local Government Board, namely, 5s. a week; and whether he would be prepared to grant discretion to boards of guardians to increase this allowance where they are satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the child, especially in the cases of boys between the ages of eight and nine years old?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am not aware that boarding-out committees generally have experienced difficulty in finding suitable homes for the reasons suggested by my hon. Friend. A temporary increase in the weekly allowance for boarded-out children has been sanctioned in several instances, and I am willing to give a similar sanction in any case in which the guardians consider it necessary on account of the increased cost of living.

    School Accommodation, Llandygwdd.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will see that no steps are taken to sanction the provision of a new school in the parish of Llandygwdd until a local inquiry has been held, and that such local inquiry be deferred till after the War, so that persons who are now absent on service may be able to be present and to give evidence at such inquiry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The matter referred to in the hon. Member's question is at present under the consideration of the Board. The question as to whether a public inquiry is necessary is always one that is present to the mind of the Board before they arrive at a decision in regard to a new school, and I cannot yet say whether a public inquiry will be necessary in this case.

    Housing Accommodation, Wrexham.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what action the Board has taken, or intends to take, in connection with the neglect of the Wrexham town council to carry out the recommendations of the Board, based upon an inquiry held in 1913, to build at least thirty houses suitable for the working classes; whether he is aware that in the report of the Wrexham medical officer of health for 1914 it is stated that at that time there was not a single house vacant at a week's rental of 6s. or less; and whether, in view of the scarcity of working-class accommodation in Wrexham, pressure will be brought to bear on the local authority to take steps to meet the admitted need?
    Mr. LONG: The Local Government Board have been in communication with the town council of Wrexham in regard
    382
    to the provision of houses for the working classes, and the council have made application for sanction to a loan for the erection of thirty houses. A local inquiry in regard to the matter is to be held on, the 17th instant.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Will the Prime Minister state what business he proposes to take next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  On Tuesday we shall move a further Vote of Credit.
  On Wednesday we shall take the Report of the Vote of Credit, when the Minister of Munitions will make his statement.
  On Thursday we shall take Supply—Home Office Vote—and, time permitting, the Reports of outstanding Votes.

SUPPLY.— [TWELETH ALLOTTED DAY.]

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

  BOARD OF TRADE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £178,549, 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 Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."—[NOTE.—£200,000 has been voted on account.]
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad that the Government have seen their way to give us such an opportune moment for the consideration of this important Vote. The Board of Trade is in peace time a most important administrative Department; in time of war it is doubly important, and second only to the administration of the fighting Services. I think there is a good deal of disappointment outside this House that the President of the Board has not used with greater success the great powers with which he is equipped for dealing with the prices of necessary foods. The House is, of course, familiar with the fact that there has been a substantial rise since the period previous to the War, and that the value of the sovereign to-day, roughly, is
  392
  about fourteen shillings. The workers outside recognise that fact very materially. It is a reality to them. They are aware that any number of explanations and excuses are put forward on behalf of the Government as to why it is so, but they do not choose to inquire too closely into these explanations. They have the outstanding fact that so far as they are concerned their wages have been reduced to the extent of 6s. in the £. I wish to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the feeling which exists in regard to that matter and to ask him whether he cannot do something, and do it quickly, more than he has already done, in order that we may have a more reasonable state of things. The figures which have been published authoritatively have not been disputed. To remind the House of their extent I would like to read an official statement I have had this morning from one of the experts in the provision trade. In June, 1914, tea was 9d.; in June, 1915, 1s. Flour per sack, June, 1914, 24s. 6d. to 27s.; now 48s. to 53s. Butter, 115s. per cwt. last year; 145s. to-day. Irish butter, 110s. per cwt. last year; now 135s. Cheese (Canadian), 60s. per cwt. last year; 98s. per cwt. now. Bacon (Danish or Irish), 70s. last year; 95s. this year. Beef (Scotch), 7d. last year; 11d. this year. Beef (Argentine), 5½d. last year; 9½d. this year. Sugar, 16s. per cwt. last year; 28s. per cwt. now.
  These are very striking facts, and the unfortunate aspect of them is that it is the very poorest people who have to suffer in the greatest degree. Many excuses have been given, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there has been going on a great deal of gambling in the food of the people. There has been speculation for a rise in price and no adequate steps have been taken to stop it. There is the notorious case of the profits made by Spillers and Baker, of Cardiff, whose profit went up from £89,000 the year before the War, to £367,665. That is a remarkable profit to make, and it is a profit made practically entirely owing to the War. It is a curious comment on the view that these people take of the righteousness of making money out of the country's distress, that they actually engaged to pay for columns in nearly all the London papers in order to show how it was done. The chairman was careful to explain that most of it was made by stock and speculations for the future, and, as one of my hon. Friends says, by depressing the small

  393
  trader. It ought not to be possible in time of war for any firm to so speculate in the food of the people as to make such an enormous profit. If they do make it we should see to it that they pay their proper share of the expenses of the country. The Government have very wisely taken steps to stop this speculation in other branches of business. For the financial interests of the City they made it a rule and a necessity that people could not deal in stocks and script which they did not possess, and the result has been to check gambling to a very large extent. I wish we could do the same thing in regard to other important necessities of life. I wish they would do so, for instance, in regard to flour and other necessities of the War, such as copper, and make it that no one should sell them unless they possess them. I believe that would cut prices down to a very considerable extent. There is a notable case of a firm in Park Lane that made £31,000 out of a single cargo of wheat from the Argentine. I think it is monstrous that such a thing can take place and it ought to be attended to by the Government We want to know what the Government are going to do in order to reduce the cost of living. The cost of carriage is an important consideration. Previous to the War you could bring a ton of wheat over here for, I believe, 12s. 6d., but in February last the cost was something like 60s. or 70s. per ton. I think some explanation ought to be asked for from those concerned in regard to that matter. Take the question of sugar. I am one of those who did not agree with the action of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to that. I know it was stated that the steps which had been taken in regard to it were for the public interests, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any truth in the statement that 220,000 tons of sugar were in bonded warehouses at the beginning of the War, and that that amount of sugar was sold at a profit of £15 per ton to the Government, realising something in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some assurance that something could be done in regard to a matter of that sort.
  Another question which affects the increased cost of living is the price of coal. The right hon. Gentleman very wisely appointed a Committee to deal with this matter, and though I think he appointed
  394
  it much too late, certainly they have produced a very interesting report. In effect their report is that the coal proprietors and merchants are entitled to an increased profit of 3s. a ton, as the result of the War, but they are getting from 9s. to 11s. per ton increased profit. The question arises, who is getting this increased profit, and cannot something be done in the interest of the consumer? My own view is that this question of coal should have been dealt with in a much more drastic and effective fashion at the beginning of the War. I think we ought to have stopped the export of coal right away, except to our Allies abroad and those who are in sympathy with us. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) mentioned yesterday that the price of coal to the Italian Government was 17s. before the War, and that at present it is as high as 33s. or 34s. I think some explanation is required of this extraordinary increase in price. It is not the miners who are getting the money. All the increase they have got would never amount to anything like the increased price that is placed upon the coal. I certainly support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mansfield that the old contracts should be taken previous to the War and that they ought to be given a legitimate profit on those contracts and that that ought to fix the price of coal. There is considerable feeling in the country that the Government have had too much regard for vested interests in this matter and that they ought to take this question up much more radically than has been done. I would not go so far as to say that they should take the whole control, but certainly I think we ought to go a considerable way in that direction.
  I have a word to say in regard to another branch of the right hon. Gentleman's administration—that is, the Labour Exchanges; but before I come to them I should like to call his attention to a question which is closely related to the price of living in this country—I mean the export of products to neutral countries. I have often in this House drawn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the manner in which tea and cocoa are allowed to go to neutral countries, their destination finally being Germany. I was prepared, the last time I mentioned this in the House, to show an actual invoice which placed that question entirely beyond doubt—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself recognised that it was

  395
  4.0 P.M.
  so, and he stopped the exports for a time. A friend of mine who has been in hospital in Berlin for seven months since the War told me the other day that for a considerable time they were not allowed to get any tea at all. They could not get a cup of tea for over a month, but after that time there was tea for practically every meal they required, and when he asked for an explanation of that they said, "We are getting lots of tea from Holland. It is British firms that are supplying it, and the result is there is no scarcity of tea." I do not say that the whole, but a very considerable quantity of the tea and cocoa that has gone to neutral countries finds its way to the ranks of the enemy. There is also the question of potatoes, which at this moment are being allowed to go to Norway. The price of potatoes here is governed largely by the demand that is made from other countries. I have a letter from a Consul in Norway in which, writing to the Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade, he says:—
  "The Germans are probably fretting all the potatoes they can in Norway. The more potatoes come in the more are set free for distilling spirit."
  So there, I think, is a nasty topic which requires the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The question of the export of cotton is also one that demands his attention. I do not know whether the House noticed yesterday the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman to an hon. Member on the other side. The figures are very startling. They prove what some of us have been saying all along, that the Germans have been getting cotton practically with our approval, and have been using that cotton for making ammunition, and although we are ten months late I think that it is not too late yet for the right hon. Gentleman to put a veto on the matter. The President yesterday gave returns for Sweden, Norway and Denmark for March and April last year and this year. I will give some figures for April, 1914, and April, 1915, in centals of 100 lbs. To Sweden the export of cotton in 1914 was 2,411; in April, 1915, it was 30,289. To Norway in April last year the amount was 756; this year for April it was 26,472. For Denmark last year we did not send any at all; this year it was 18,540. Netherlands last year was 4,204; this year it was 108,189. These figures are, I think, an absolute proof of the fact that Germany
  396
  has been getting the advantage of our export of cotton to neutral countries. Has the right hon. Gentleman any other explanation? I should be delighted to hear how he can explain this growing demand in these countries, which is so much in excess of anything that existed before the War. I am certain that he is just as anxious as any of us to see that we do not assist the enemy in that way. But there is a great deal of suspicion outside that we have been a great deal too lenient in this particular matter, and I should be glad to have an assurance of more prompt and vigorous action in regard to our exports to neutral countries.
  Coming to the question of Labour Exchanges, it is probably within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that a London newspaper—the "Daily Express:" a paper whose opinions I detest, but whose enterprise in this matter I must commend—made an effort to assist the Government to get a sufficient amount of labour for ammunition factories. It used its columns for that purpose, and I think it succeeded in a very few weeks in getting something like 8,000 or 10,000 men for work in factories. The right hon. Gentleman then comes down to issue a notice under the Defence of the Realm Act that this must be stopped. His explanation is that it has had the result of taking away men who are already working in factories. I am sure that that is not so, and that those are men who have not been working in factories, but are desirous of working in factories. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to have too much red tape in a matter of this kind. I have said from the start that the Press of this country has never been utilised as it ought to have been with regard to this War. It has never been mobilised. It has never hardly been asked for its co-operation. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman approached the leading newspapers of this country on this single question of labour, and asked them to assist in getting the particular kind of labour which the Government desire to use in ammunition factories, the Government could be assured of hundreds of thousands more than they have ever been able to obtain through the Labour Exchanges, because, undoubtedly, there is a feeling that the Labour Exchanges have not quite risen to the occasion as they might have done during the progress of the War. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman does he adhere to the statement made yesterday, that the consequence of the enterprise of this paper was that men

  397
  have been taken away from factories where ammunition is being made? It is an important question, not in reference to this particular newspaper, but on the general question whether advantage should be taken of the facilities offered by newspapers who are anxious to assist the Government by placing their space freely at their disposal. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that the Department were perfectly satisfied with the advertisement which they put in with regard to labour. From the newspaper point of view, I suppose it is better to take the advertisements and take the money. But in these days of economy I should have thought it better to take advantage of the generous offer, which is certainly much more useful for the purpose in view, because editorials on this point would appeal more to the public than would advertisements.
  There is one general point as to which I would like some explanation. Why was the London tram strike allowed to go on as long as it did? The opinion outside is that it was a scandal to allow the strike to go on so long. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman has the power to go out and insist on the strike being settled; but I say that there is no public evidence of the fact that the Board of Trade was as much alive as it ought to have been to the necessity of the strike being settled at the earliest possible moment. It was not a strike with which there was much public sympathy. I do not think that there was any at all. But I think that if the right hon. Gentleman had taken more prompt measures with regard to it—had he himself invited the labour men who had power with tramway men to confer with him, and pointed out the necessities of patriotism at that particular moment—I think that something might have been done to prevent the scandal of a fortnight's strike and the great inconvenience which resulted. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was in communication with the parties, and I have very little doubt that, with the other matters pressing upon him, he gave as much attention to this matter as he could. But I think that it would be in the interest of this Department, as well as of the public, if he were to state exactly what the Board of Trade did in regard to this matter, and why the strike was allowed to go on as long as it was. This is important, not only with regard to that strike, but with regard to the other labour troubles that are in the offing. We are
  398
  threatened with the strike of hundreds of thousands of men in the cotton industry, and also among the miners of South Wales. What I would suggest is that we should not wait until these strikes take place—that we should have more foresight in the matter, and approach the parties before the actual outbreak of hostilities—because such strikes at this moment practically upset the whole industrial machinery. I come back now to the question with which I started—that is, that this unrest in the labour movement is caused largely by the increased cost of living. It is better to remove the cause than to try to settle the difficulty afterwards. I trust that in these various matters the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory reply.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I do not rise, like the previous speaker, to attack the President of the Board of Trade. I have every sympathy for him, because I think that he has been used as a scapegoat for the faults of others. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has accused the President as being responsible for the present prices of food. I think that he might have directed those attacks in connection with the price of wheat and flour to the Board of Agriculture. Possibly the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney), sitting behind the President of the Board of Trade, might be able to answer an attack of that nature. Then, in reference to sugar, the President of the Board of Trade is in no way responsible for that. Questions on that point ought to be addressed to the former Home Secretary, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then, again, if it is said that the shipping companies are responsible for the high prices of food, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the report of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and to the reports of a few other shipping companies, which will show that instead of making profits they have been making losses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am stating facts which can be proved easily, and it shows very bad taste on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to question these facts. Doubtless many tramp shipowners have been making huge profits, but I am speaking of the lines, some of which have incurred very serious losses.
  The prices of food in this country are now coming down rapidly. The price of wheat has been reduced, and the price of flour is going down. Speaking some

  399
  time ago in the House on the question of food, I ventured to prophesy that the price of food-stuffs would come down. I think that I have been proved to be a true prophet and that they will come down still lower. On the general question of the Board of Trade it is interesting to inquire into the composition of the Board for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. It consists, I think, of the President, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Permanent Secretary, the Archbishop of Canterbury, every Gentleman sitting on that Front Bench, the Privy Councillors—therefore I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is responsible for these matters which he has been criticising—Mr. Speaker, who is also responsible, and such Privy Councillors as are holders of office in Ireland, and are Privy Councillors in England, and ten other gentlemen whose names I have been unable to obtain. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me who they are. Of course we know perfectly well that the composition of this Board is very anachronistic and archaic, and if any of these Gentlemen, including the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is a Member of the Board of Trade, had been receiving salaries I should have moved a reduction of the Vote by the amount of their salaries. But I have no intention of moving the reduction of the President's salary, because he has already reduced his salary by the domestic pooling arrangement into which Ministers have been pleased to enter. Personally, I do not approve of that doctrine of equality, nor do I approve of the trade-union method of only paying one rate of wages, no matter how efficient the man may be. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade has felt called upon of his own volition to reduce his own salary, and I offer him my sympathy.
  No man is perfect, not even the President of the Board of Trade, and certainly no Government Department is faultless. But speaking with some experience of Government Departments, I would say that the Board of Trade is the one with which least fault is to be found. The President does not possess the brilliant pyrotechnic characteristics of one or two of his colleagues, but he is a level-headed man of business with a clear vision; and in connection with questions which have arisen in this House in connection with the supply of meat, all I have to say is that I must compliment the right hon. Gentleman on
  400
  his astuteness in doing what he did in this connection. Otherwise the Lord only knows what the price of meat would have been. The right hon. Gentleman, doubtless due to a capital business training, is very astute indeed. Recognising the position, he at once requisitioned the whole of the ships, with one exception, which were capable of carrying frozen and chilled meat to this country. That at once put the suppliers of meat at a disadvantage, because of their having no means of transport from the Argentine. The freezing works in that country are largely in the hands of an American meat combine, and it is very creditable to the right hon. Gentleman that he has been able to deal as successfully as he has with the acute American managers of that traffic. I should be interested to learn what terms the right hon. Gentleman made with the meat companies. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me his attention—I should be glad to know what terms and arrangements he made with those very smart American managers. I know that in dealing with our shipping industry he made a very hard bargain indeed. He paid a rate of freight for the carriage of meat which was appreciably lower than that which shipowners could obtain for grain in the open market. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his successful bargain with the shipowners, and I think he will admit that the shipowners, certainly some of them, met him in a perfectly generous spirit. They did not dispute the rates he offered, but accepted them. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently frank to admit that.
  But when it comes to the question of dealing with these gentlemen supplying the nation with meat, you have there a different proposition. This combine largely consists of American companies, so far as the Argentine is concerned, and they are reaching out their tentacles to Australia. Probably the right hon. Gentleman may feel inclined to take the Committee into his confidence, and explain why in requisitioning all the refrigerator steamers employed in the Argentine, it was omitted to requisition the Nelson Line. Probably there are good and sufficient reasons, and I think that there, again, the right hon. Gentleman is showing a very astute business mind. In dealing with the Board of Trade I have only to say that so far as my own experience is concerned—I am not speaking of the Board, including the Archbishop and

  401
  others, I am speaking now of the President of the Board of Trade, and, without drawing any invidious distinctions, I would like also to refer to the Permanent Secretary (Sir George Barnes)—I have always found the representatives of that Department courteous. With regard to the latter gentleman, I can only say that his courtesy and straightforward methods make it a pleasure to meet him, even when he is putting Government hands into one's pocket; because, both he and the President I believe are actuated by their desire to do the best they can for the country and at the same time to act fairly. The President of the Board of Trade is sought to be treated rather like the scapegoat the Israelites sent forth into the wilderness carrying the sins of the whole community; but, on this occasion, I should rather like to hang a garland around the neck of the scapegoat. I think he is the right man in the right place, and, of all members of the Cabinet, he has the best business mind, and is best qualified for a business post such as that of President of the Board of Trade; and I am very pleased to see that in the recent shuffling of the cards he has been left where he was, and I hope he will continue where he is.
  The Board very often have considerable difficulties with other Government Departments, who probably think they are superior to the Board of Trade. For instance, I raised the question this week, in the House, about the action of the Agent of the Admiralty, who requisitioned a ship which had already been requisitioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and was carrying meat. The Admiralty Agent had requisitioned her for the carriage of coal—I think one of the most stupid and most extravagant and foolish things any man who had any knowledge of shipping could have been capable of. I should not be in order in entering into the action of the Admiralty on this Vote, but when the Admiralty Vote is before us I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with a few of their actions and mistakes. So far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I should say he was very pleased—it happened to be one of my steamers—that he was not called upon to dispute with the Admiralty the possession of the ship; for I dealt with the absurd requisition from this Admiralty agent in a very prompt manner, so much so, that instead of that gentleman expressing his regret for his mistake or "slip," as he called it, and apologising for it, he took upon himself
  402
  to read me a lecture upon the proper mode of addressing an agent of the Admiralty, complaining of my want of courtesy and all that sort of thing. However, in my reply I reminded him that courtesy sometimes must go in a case of emergency, and that if a house was on fire it would be rather stupid on the part of the firemen to apply to the owner or occupier of the house in courteous and dignified form for permission to turn on the hose. I turned the hose on that gentleman, and I think the verbal castigation he got will not be forgotten, and I hope it will be of benefit to the Admiralty and Government Departments. Government Departments are by no means faultless, nor infallible, though some of them may think they are so.
  The President of the Board of Trade has a very difficult task indeed, in dealing with this question of meat, and I am sure if he had not dealt with it in the manner he did, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would have had something to talk about in regard to the price of meat in this country. As I pointed out, by requisitioning the ships he deprived the meat combine of any means of transporting their meat. He was in a position, therefore, to dictate what price he would pay for the meat, always within reason. Of course, they would have refused to sell otherwise, and might have shut down their works, but I have no doubt they saw the power of the right hon. Gentleman's position and met him fairly; in fact, I have no doubt from my knowledge of him and the manner in which he drives a bargain, that they did meet him, and I should be very interested to learn the price he has really paid for the meat. Of course, he wants to keep the secret. If he is making a profit for the Government at the expense of others I may sympathise with him; but if he is putting money into the Government's pocket, and taking it out of the pockets of the poor, then I do not feel that sympathy with him. Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know what he is paying for that meat? I know what he is doing. He is selling meat to the French Army on exactly the same terms that he is buying it for the British Army. That I know. But I do not know quite yet what terms he has made with them for the sale of meat to the British public, and that is what we want to know. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is he prepared to give us that information, because I shall not prosecute this matter any further if he is. He is silent. Perhaps he will make

  403
  his mind up by the time he stands at that box, and be quite frank with us. I hope he will. I am pleased to see, in looking at the Estimates that, notwithstanding the extra work thrown on the Board by reason of the War, they have been practising economy. On the item for salaries there is a saving of £1,491, and on the total Estimate there is a net decrease of £4,000 for the current year. Therefore, I think, that we can all agree that the Board has been practising economy without impairing efficiency; and, speaking as a business man of a business department, and having had some experience of that department for a great number of years, I can assure the House frankly that I am not flattering the right hon. Gentleman when I say that never has the Board been better controlled or managed than it is at the present time.
  Mr. LOUGH: I take the opportunity of this Vote to ask my right hon. Friend a few questions with regard to this matter of the great rise in prices of certain commodities. After the long Debate which we had previously on this subject, I think we must all agree that it is a matter extremely difficult to deal with. As to the intervention of Parliament, I heard just lately a remark about the way in which Government intervention brought down the price of that great commodity, wheat; but I understand a discussion on that point is not in order to-day, and it is practically in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. For the same reason the subject of sugar cannot be raised in connection with this Vote, and we must take another opportunity to discuss it; for my part, I trust the opportunity will be found soon. I think the House may well recognise that during a period of war it is impossible to expect that prices can approach to anything like the normal rates. A great number of men from this country and from other countries have been withdrawn from the work of production, and they are now engaged in the work of destruction. Owing to that great fact alone, there must occur considerable scarcity and a great rise in the price of commodities. Although I wish well to every effort Parliament may make to reduce those prices, yet while the War lasts I am very doubtful that much can be done. There is one great commodity to which I wish to call the attention of my right hon. Friend opposite, and it is one the high price of which is felt very much in London—I mean coal. Something has
  404
  been done perhaps by the Board of Trade in regard to it, but a good deal more might be done. I think there is a good deal of disappointment throughout the country, and especially in London, that there have not been greater reductions in the price of coal.
  Coal is produced in great quantities in this country, and now that exportation of it has been greatly restricted, and seeing that coal is produced not very far away from London, it seems to me that there are facilities for reducing the price of coal to a moderate basis, but the Government have not yet so far succeeded in doing so. On the first rise in the price of coal early in the year, the Government were perhaps directly responsible for the first fall. When the rise in price of coal occurred, the additional cost of freight for the transport of coal in itself almost accounted for the full rise in the price of that commodity. In deference, I think, to a great many questions put in this House, the Government placed certain ships at the disposal of this business and some reduction took place, but not, however, to any adequate extent. Now with the fine weather and smaller consumption there has been a slight reduction, but the price still remains at a very high level indeed. I hope my right hon. Friend will inquire more fully into this matter, more fully even than the Committee, both in London and amongst the colliery owners. I do not know whether there is any combine with regard to keeping up the price in London, or whether the element of free competition is entering into the distribution of coal as completely as in normal times. If not, perhaps the Board of Trade will imitate the action of the Board of Agriculture with regard to wheat. I believe the reduction in the price of wheat was secured by a great purchase of that commodity and by the prospect of a great supply being thrown on the market. I do not know whether that would be an extreme remedy to adopt in the case of coal, but if other means failed I do not know whether the Government might not consider a step in that direction would be justified. If the distributers charged too much, the Government could in that way establish a reasonable price.
  Part of the rise, at all events, is accounted for by the advance made by the colliery owners. I think that is a bit unreasonable too, and that pressure ought to be brought to bear upon them in accordance with the recommendations of the

  405
  Committee. I listened to all the debates in connection with this question, and it is very hard to suggest anything definite that can be done. I do think if there is one subject more than another in which some effective action might be taken it is on this question of coal, which is such a simple product so largely used and over which the right hon. Gentleman has full control. I should not have intervened except to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of doing everything he can to effect a change in the price. Coming on the autumn and winter there will be great trouble in London if something bold is not done to establish a reasonable price. The only other point to which I wish to refer is that of cotton. which I understand even less than coal, so far as the details are concerned. I must say I am puzzled about the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate as to the great increase of the imports of cotton into certain neutral countries. The idea is that they must have got through to some extent to enemy countries. I do not understand the position which the Government have taken up. There have been some facts brought to light about copper and other articles being found in bales of cotton, the effort apparently being to smuggle them into Germany. Those instances may be taken merely as examples and give ground for the belief that a considerable trade of that character has been going on. I cannot understand why the Government have resisted so much the pressure which has been brought to bear upon them to take more drastic measures in this matter. I do not understand the question very fully, and I shall leave it in the hands of those more acquainted with the business.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: As a member of the Committee charged with inquiring into the coal question, I am very glad that the subject has come up for consideration in the House. I think I can dispel at once two of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough). If he will look into the early part of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade he will find that the increase in price did not take place immediately after the Government requisitioned the boats. It is as well that the impression should not get abroad that the rise in the price of coal at the latter end of last year and at the beginning of this year was the result alone of the boats being taken. There was no change whatever
  406
  in the freightage of coal that came by railways. In investigating this question one was brought up against some very extraordinary facts, to which I would direct attention. For instance, you had had the War going on for a considerable period before a great increase in the price of coal took place, and the War had been in progress for six months before that increase began to anything like the great extent which it afterwards reached. In September the price was 27s. and on 21st November it had only gone up to 28s., and on 12th December to 29s., while on 19th December, 7th January, and 29th January, it rose a shilling on each day, making the price on the latter date 33s. On the 17th February it rose 2s., which brought the price to 35s., which is roughly the top price which coal reached in the earlier part of this year. We want an explanation as to how it was that, notwithstanding the fact that the War had been going on for a considerable number of months, it was not until February that you suddenly got this high price. One of the reasons advanced, and I admit that to some extent there is some weight in it, was that when the price began going up there was a scare and people, very foolishly, gave larger orders than they were in the habit of giving, and which, of course, tended to send the price up. That, however, does not at all justify anything that has taken place to bring this commodity up to the price which it has reached.
  What was the effect of the high price? I am sure I have the sympathy of everyone in the House when I point out that the burden of the increase of price fell very much more heavily on the poorer people than upon those who were better able to afford the price. You will find from the evidence that the increase on the poorer people, who are supplied by the trolleys, was very serious indeed, and weighed very heavily upon them. One of the most extraordinary facts disclosed by the evidence was, as a rule, the poorer people buy the best of coal; they cannot afford to have two sorts of coal, and so they are bound to have a coal which will suit all purposes. Those in a better condition of life can have one sort of coal for one use and another sort of coal for the kitchen. The price went up against the poorer classes of the community till it reached the fabulous sum of somewhere about 37s. per ton, bought by the hundredweight. As the price went

  407
  up one effect was that the cheaper coal immediately rose to a higher price relatively than the better class coal. Thus for months the community, and especially the poorer portion of the community, were supplied, not with the kind of coal they used to have, but with anything that was black. The whole definition of coal, as set up by the coal merchants, disappeared, and you had one generic term "coal," which was applied to anything that could be got hold of and which was then sold and distributed. I desire to point out particularly one effect on the community of this high price of coal which does not at first strike those who have not gone into the question thoroughly. With the rise in price the large consumers like the gas companies and various electric supply and municipal and other undertakings, had to pay the increase. With regard to gas companies, every shilling that goes on a ton of coal is, I believe I am right in saying, reckoned to mean a rise in the price of gas of one penny per thousand feet.
  That may seem a small thing, but some years ago, as will be remembered by my older friends in politics, I had occasion to engage in a very long controversy with the principal gas company in London, and at that time I had to go into the matter very thoroughly. A penny on the thousand feet in the case of the Gas Light and Coke Company means a difference of £110,000, and in the case of the South Metropolitan Company means about £50,000. I cannot for the moment quote what the increase amounts to in the case of the Commercial Company, but roughly speaking, a penny in the thousand cubic feet means, in the case of those three companies, a difference to the consumer of £200,000. If you multiply that by 2d., 3d., or 4d., as the case may be, you will realise at once the enormous sums of money with which we are dealing. Large institutions which use gas a good deal for cooking purposes are very heavily mulcted by the increased price. The people who use the slot system do not pay on the extra thousands but they have a shorter number of feet supplied to them. Those people use gas not only for lighting but also for cooking purposes. The penalty that has been imposed on the people by the increased prices is almost incalculable. It may be said by some of my Friends that I am confining myself to the case of London. That is quite true, because it is the greater case. But the argument applies just as
  408
  strongly to other large towns where they have had also to pay those enormously increased prices. In the Committee we went very carefully into the necessity of the increase of price, but we failed to find that there was any cause why the price should have gone up as rapidly as it did. We know that the boats were taken by the Government. Some of the large undertakings, such as gas companies and electric supply companies, were almost out of coal, and had they not been supplied, especially in my own Constituency, there would have been no electric light. That would have meant that munition works turning out work for the Government would have been unable to go on with their work. This largely arose because the supply of coal which used to be seaborne was reduced by about one-half.
  That was a very legitimate reason for the shortage, so far as that was concerned. About half of the supply was borne by the railway companies and brought into London. I must say a word for the railway companies here, for I do not always, by a very long way, champion them. They rose to the occasion, and, notwithstanding the enormous amount of extra traffic which they have had to carry for the Government, they managed to bring this large amount of coal to the South of England. We looked into the question thoroughly, and got from the witnesses, as far as we could, evidence as to the rise in prices of the various commodities they were using, such as timber and other articles of that description. After carefully examining the matter we came to the conclusion, and put it in our Report, that a margin of 3s. increase more than covered the whole of the increased cost as against the price of coal for last year. Yet we still have coal being advertised at the ridiculous summer prices which we see in the papers to-day! This question has to be dealt with, and it must be dealt with by the Board of Trade in a very drastic manner. I have in my possession letters sent by coal merchants to their customers in which they give a warning that the price of coal, instead of going down, will go up. Why should it go up? Put on anymore increase you like for the causes I have mentioned; put on any increases that may be paid to the miners—there have been none up till now—and you are still far away from anything like a justification for the increased prices which now exist.
  I believe it is possible for the Board of Trade to do something very drastic in

  409
  connection with this question. I know my right hon. Friend will tell me that they have done several things. First of all, they tried to meet the question of the taking of the boats by using the interned steamers. I appreciate what they did in that direction, so far as it went. My great charge against the Board of Trade is that they did not meet the demand with regard to the user of the interned boats in the way they should have done. I know they will say that they gave instruction to their representative at Newcastle that he must not keep to the top freight prices. In his evidence he told us that he was generally a shilling under the freightage of other boats. What we say is that, having taken away the means of transport from the public utility bodies, they ought to have placed these boats at the disposal of the municipalities on the same terms as those on which they themselves had taken the boats. I do not think there is any justification for any other course. We have not asked, and we would not do so, that they should place the boats at the disposal of private individuals in order that they might make a large profit. When you are dealing with public utility organisation—such, for instance, as those municipalities and urban councils which supply their own electric light—you are not enabling private profit to be made; you are only putting them in such a position that the ordinary members of the community may benefit. All the gas companies, for instance, are under a sliding scale, and every penny per thousand feet increase in price means a reduction of a ¼ per cent. in their dividend. I think, therefore, the boats should have been dealt with in a much more drastic manner.
  I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is true—I hope it is—that owing to his action the sliding scale in connection with merchants and colliery owners is to be done away with? It is a system which cannot be justified. Suppose the price for selling at the pit mouth were fixed at, say, 10s. 6d. a ton, which it is reckoned would mean a selling price, when it reached London, of 25s. a ton. If the price went down the merchant had to stand the whole of the loss. But if the price went up the colliery owner had 6d. out of each 1s. rise and the merchant had 6d. I do not say that they did it, but one might suppose that there was an incentive to the coal owners to keep a shortage so that the coal exchange might send up the price and thereby enable them to get an
  410
  extra 6d. over the contract price previously agreed upon with the merchants. Another thing we found out was that coal owners were not carrying out to the full their contracts with the merchants. When prices went up they said that they could not supply the whole of the coal they had contracted to supply. It was a revelation to me to find that contracts were dealt with in that manner. I understand it is the custom for a large proportion—say two-thirds—of the coal to be contracted for; the remainder the coal owners keep as free coal, to sell according to the fluctuations of the market. They did not supply the full quantities they had contracted to supply, and they had in their hands an extra amount of free coal. Thus they were able to get the extra price, while they were not fulfilling their contracts, and, in consequence, the merchants were unable to supply their customers. I can produce the evidence of gentlemen in the coal trade outside London who were unable to get coal through their own merchants whom they had contracted with because the merchants could not get from the coal owners the amount they had contracted for at the prices arranged. The volume of evidence issued yesterday is a most interesting one. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that he has got rid of the sliding scale. That, at any rate, will be one good thing in connection with the recommendations of the Committee.
  With regard to the export of coal, I know that some of our friends in the North of England, where they have coal that can be used only for export purposes, are very much troubled about our recommendation in favour of restraining export. I think, however, that the new Committee set up by the Board of Trade will deal with the whole question in a very efficient manner. We think, and it is no good hiding the fact, that the last of our recommendations is the strongest and most useful, namely, that the Government must take positive action on this question unless the coal owners come to heel at once. Had my right hon. Friend been upstairs in the Committee Room yesterday, when every section of the House was represented, and seen the feeling exhibited by that gathering of representative men from the municipalities and big utility societies, he would know that he was face to face with a problem which in the interests of the community must be grappled with at once. If he takes up that attitude—and he has the

  411
  courage to do so if he makes up his mind to it—he will find in his negotiations that the coal owners will become much more pliant. We do not ask him to nationalise the mines. That is not the sort of question to be discussed in the midst of our present difficulties. There are many other ways of dealing with the matter. There is the one so strongly recommended by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) of fixing the price according to the extra cost on the prices of 1913. There are other ways if that does not succeed.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a good lead on the question, and show us that he means to deal with it. It is not a question of to-day. It is not a question of buying a summer supply in the ordinary way and keeping it for the winter. It is a much bigger question than that. You have to face next winter. Prices are already 33s., 34s., and 35s. a ton for the best coal. What are they going to be a month or two hence? You will have a very serious state of things, not only in regard to lighting, but in regard to all our great industries dependent upon this commodity. I mention gas in connection with domestic affairs. I mention gas also in connection with the thousands of little gas engines in the various small works throughout the Metropolis and the rest of the country. If coal goes up it will add materially to the cost of production in all these factories, and make the struggle for existence much more severe than it must necessarily be under war conditions. I have perhaps spoken rather warmly on the question. We investigated the matter as carefully as we could. We gave all the time necessary for the examination of the witnesses. The one thing we wished was that some of the witnesses had not forgotten to bring their figures and papers with them. If it had been a Select Committee instead of a Departmental Com-Committee, I should have asked for the proceedings to be stopped in order that witnesses might have been compelled, under the powers we should have then had, to go and fetch their papers. We wanted the most reliable facts and figures which they could put at our disposal. I sincerely trust that when my right hon. Friend replies we shall hear that this great problem is going to be grappled with. I can assure him that he will have the support of the whole House in any action he thinks it necessary to take.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir W. PEARCE: If I added to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, it would be to say that it has become evident during the last few months that it is extremely difficult to get a large supply of coal at all. Anyone who was in the Committee Room upstairs yesterday and heard what was said there would come away with the idea that an adequate coal supply was really in jeopardy. I hope that when the President comes to reply he will be able to give us some assurances in this respect. We realise that the coal trade has been disturbed in many ways, for not only have a large number of miners, from patriotic motives, gone to the war, but their labour being removed there is really a shortage of labour. There is also a shortage of freight, so that it is extremely difficult to get the traffic over the railways. The problem, then, that the Board of Trade have to face is unfortunately an extremely difficult one. There is the loss of the men who were working in the pit, the fewer ships to carry the coal, and the extraordinary difficulty of getting this heavy traffic over the rails. The matter is one of extreme importance for the East End of London which some of us represent, and the state of affairs is one that may become deplorable. At the present time, with coal as it is, it is difficult to get proper stocks, and one wonders what is likely to happen in the longer nights. The statements that were made yesterday, I think, impressed most seriously the hon. Members who heard them. Representatives of the large gas companies told us that at this time of the year they were accustomed to put into stock, for their winter requirements—one gas company's representative said, 50,000 or 60,000 tons of coal a month. To-day they find it quite impossible to do little more than to keep their ordinary requirements going. It comes home to everyone that the maintenance of the supply of coal for the large industrial centres is in jeopardy. It is not only the gas companies that supply gas for lighting and cooking, but the electric companies upon which many industries depend, together with large works in the industrial centres. Unless this question is very carefully watched by the Board of Trade, I am afraid that the whole industry of the country may be greatly injured, and that the new Minister of Munitions may find that he is up against one other problem which is of a most serious character.

  413
  My object in rising was to try to add something to the impressive speech of the hon. Member for the Dartford Division of Kent (Mr. Rowlands), and to make quite sure that the Board of Trade—for whom I have nothing but praise for many things they have done—realises the enormous seriousness of the problem they are up against. There is another question, the rise in the cost of living, that I should like to deal with for a moment. We all deplore that—especially those who represent very poor districts. I represent one of the parts of the East End of London which is always a land of hard times. I do not think there is any more difficult district in the whole world than that in which the one and a half or couple of million people live. They always have hard times. But I want to say to-day—and I think it is right that somebody should say it—that in spite of the great rise in the cost of living the anxieties of everybody concerned with this industrial district have been greatly relieved. We all felt the anxiety when we entered into the War and wondered what would happen in such districts. So far, during this time—I feel it on my conscience to tell the House, and it is the general opinion of everybody who is concerned in these problems in the East End—that, in the main, these people are better off than they have been for many years. There is more comfort and more money; there are evidences of welfare that are lacking in other times—this to the relief of everyone concerned. I feel bound to put this ray of brightness in the situation, and to say that, in spite of all these very high prices, in spite of there still being a great deal of suffering, the extraordinary circumstance is that in this large district, taking the matter altogether, the opinion of everybody whose opinion can be respected suggests that times, instead of being worse, are much better than they were. To me it is a cause of great satisfaction and heartfelt thankfulness that the rise in prices has not resulted in a situation so entirely deplorable or with such effects as the House might imagine was likely to be the case.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As I have to leave the House for a short time for important labour topics which are demanding my attention, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I intervene thus early in the discussion. May I, first of all, deal with the subject of coal, which has been the subject of several speakers, and with the
  414
  statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, who served on the Departmental Committee? There has been no commodity the general rise of which has given more anxiety to the country than that of coal. The rise in the price of wheat, great as it has been, has not been a rise over which we can have much control, for the world's prices fix very largely the price that has to be paid here. Coal is in a different category. Coal is produced in this country, and the price of coal is in no way dependent, or very little dependent, upon the world's direction outside, if we take the necessary steps to prevent a leakage of our coal for foreign purposes, and it is possible to deal with the situation, if it is possible to arrive at an agreement with the merchants and coal owners, which is satisfactory to the great consumer. I had not the privilege of knowing what was stated by the representatives of the local authorities and the gas companies upstairs yesterday, but if, as it was suggested in the course of this discussion, they stated they were not able to make up that accumulation of stocks which are necessary in the summer months, I can only say that is not the general experience. The figures which have been accumulated in the Department show that steps are being taken, and successfully taken, although at greatly enhanced prices, to increase the amount of stocks which are usually accumulated in the summer for consumption during the winter months. That is a slight improvement in the right direction, and we hope it may proceed rapidly during the next two or three months.
  Sir W. PEARCE: The statement referred to was made by the representative of the Gas Light and Coke Company, who said that they were entirely unable to make up the large stocks which they had been accustomed to do up to the present time.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not had the opportunity of refreshing my memory on the state of the stocks of the Gas Light and Coke Company, but the figures are known to us, and the great London gas companies and the local authorities who make gas and electric light for the people of London have been able to make some progress to overtake the depletion which takes place in the winter months.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: It is a special kind of coal.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is entirely due to that fact. I am not now speaking of coal as a whole, but of coal for gas, which was the immediate subject dealt with yesterday. If we take London we get the coal problem in its most acute form. From the inquiries of the Committee it is clear that the high prices which ruled from about the beginning of October right through the winter months, have not yet declined to any appreciable extent. They were due, in the first place, to the great shortage in the supplies coming into London. The number of vessels which carried coal here was diminished to an enormous extent, for the smaller colliers engaged in the north country traffic were suitable for many Admiralty purposes, and the Admiralty would have been failing in their duty if they had not taken possession of them first of all. The interned vessels which were put into this trade were not as suitable for it; they were not as easily turned round. In point of fact the whole traffic was impeded by the precautions which had to be taken on the coast to enable those vessels and crews to travel backwards and forwards with reasonable security. Buoys were removed. Lights were put out. Many channels were covered with mine fields. Voyages which in the old days should have been completed in one-third of a fortnight, were taking as much as the whole fortnight. In many respects the available tonnage was not effectively carrying anything like as much as did the collier tonnage previous to the outbreak of the War.
  When we took the whole of the interned German vessels and put them into the London coal trade, we did it with the de liberate object of helping the coal supply of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford took the view that we ought to have let all these vessels at the rate of freight equivalent to the rate which was paid by the Admiralty for the commandeered colliers. If we had done that it is quite clear that we should have been giving certain coal consumers—the great companies as well as local authorities—advantages which were obviously being withheld from others. Those vessels were by no means able to supply the whole coal requirements here, and even the allocation of them was a matter of great difficulty in order to avoid giving favours to some companies and withholding them from others. I need not mention the name of these great companies which control the London supply nor that of the
  416
  merchants. It is well known to Members of the House that they control not only groups of merchants who sell by retail for household purposes, but that they also do a great deal of carrying for local authorities, for public utility companies—if you like to call a gas company that, though I prefer to call such a company one which is performing a public service for a private advantage—and if we had embarked on any discrimination of that kind we should undoubtedly have been giving large favours to some of these concerns and withholding them from others.
  There was only one fair thing to do under the circumstances, and that was to take the market rate as being a fair indication of the price that ought to be paid, such profits as were made by these vessels going to the community as a whole. I hope they have been managed with skill. I believe they have been by the business men in the North country who undertook that duty for us. They did so not on a basis of commission, or so much per cent. on the earnings or profits, but on a lump sum commission based on the returns. Long after that had been earned they went on with their work just as enthusiastically and as zealously as though they were being paid the full percentage on every ton of coal carried.
  Mr. HOUSTON: What were the profits made?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot give any definite information as to the exact amount of the profits, which go into the Exchequer, where they will accrue for the benefit of the tax-payers as a whole. I hope before the whole transaction is over that we shall far more than have paid for the whole upkeep of these vessels, the repair of them, and the restoring of them, if necessary, in much their original condition. If we have the exchange of tonnage with Germany and with Austria when the War is over, we shall have a profit of, say, a couple of hundred thousand pounds on this transaction alone, which will be very small assistance towards the expenses of the War, but at any rate there is this satisfaction, that it will be a profit, and not a loss. If we had run them on the same rates as were being paid to these same collier owners of the requisitioned boats as were running for the Admiralty we should have made a definite loss. I could not recommend the Treasury to sanction a transaction of that kind. I feel that the whole of the arrangements

  417
  made were most just and fair to all parties concerned. In fairness I should state that one effect of these vessels carrying was to reduce the rates of freight that were ruling lower.
  The cost of the carriage has been rather expensive. It is only fair also to say that the merchants' expenses were greatly enhanced owing to the outbreak of the War. The Committee will remember that immediately the War broke out the War Office took—was bound to take—a very large number of available horses. It was represented to this House that that was a great hardship to agriculture. As a matter of fact the number of horses taken away from farms were not in excess of those which were taken from town industries. Those taken from those engaged in the carriage of coal were by no means the least important. From the outbreak of War we had a large number of offers for the carriage of such commodities as bakers' bread and similar goods. For some weeks there were owners of motor cars in the West End of London who lent us their motor cars to carry round bakers' bread because the horses had been withdrawn from that trade. What happened there happened equally in the coal trade, and for a time there was disorganisation in the retail distribution of coal. There is no doubt that other expenses were enhanced, but they were by no means sufficient to explain the enormous rise that took place in the winter months. I entered into communication with the merchants after they had furnished the Committee with particulars. They came down to the Board of Trade. There were many conferences. As a result they have now recommended that their profits shall be strictly limited. We have examined with the greatest possible care their running expenses. We have provided now that there shall not be violent fluctuations such as we saw last October, November, and December, but that the limitation of profits shall keep the price at a fairly steady level, and will certainly limit the profit which might otherwise have gone into the merchants' pockets. In fairness to them, might I say, when we had thrashed out the subject, they declared that at ordinary times they would not have been prepared to meet us as generously as they did, but, recognising the great hardship under which people were suffering in London, and not wishing to be accused of making great profits out of the War, they were prepared to make this limitation.
  418
  Having done that, we were thrown back on the producers of coal. The cost of production has undoubtedly gone up, partly owing to the withdrawal of a great number of miners for the War, where, by reason of the kind of warfare which is going on, they are amongst the most efficient of our men. But the mere withdrawal of something like 200,000 miners has led to a shortage of output in nearly every colliery district in the country. I am glad to say that, with the exception of about two districts, the "get" per man has actually gone up since the War, because the miners have realised that a great deal depends on their producing a larger output even with a smaller number of men. But the reduction of men does lead undoubtedly to an addition, apart altogether from wages, to the expense of getting the coal. Standing charges remain the same with a small output; roads have to be kept open and routes started just as in normal times, but the main addition to the expense of getting coal is undoubtedly owing to the rise in wages. There is no doubt the miners were fully entitled to the rise of wages they got, and I am glad to think that, taking the advice of the Prime Minister, who spent a great deal of time in dealing with this most difficult question, they agreed to abide by the decision of the arbitrators in the districts concerned.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how much per ton the increase in wages involves?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If I were a coal owner I should say 1s. 6d. per ton, but I am afraid I cannot agree with that estimate, which has been put to me by many coal owners who were bound to be on the safe side from their point of view. What it will actually amount to on the whole output I cannot say at the present moment, but there is no doubt that 1s. 6d. is a gross exaggeration. It is much nearer pence than shillings. But, whatever the increase may be, there is no doubt that was the largest cause of the increase, and I would like to point out that the increase in the cost of getting coal did not stop there. All materials went up, and the most serious was undoubtedly that of pit wood. When we were faced with a shortage of pit wood it became the duty of the Board of Trade to increase the supplies in every direction. We sent Commissioners out to Newfoundland and Canada. We got the French Government to assist the export from Bordeaux. We got assistance from Portugal, and, to

  419
  a certain extent, we made up the shortage which was the direct outcome of the War. Obviously, owing to the closing of the Baltic, the coal trade was bound to be short of its main supplies of pit wood, and the increased price to be paid for pit wood must ultimately, and would ultimately, come out of the consumer. I am not quite sure how far that increase has been checked. It may be that this summer we shall find our supplies of pit wood are not as great as they ought to be, and we are not relaxing our efforts in every direction. The Department of Woods and Forests, under the Board of Agriculture, are doing everything possible to stimulate the home supply.
  But, when all is said and done, the present pit-head price of coal is far in excess of what the expense justifies. The coal owners are engaged in a highly speculative industry. There are some years when they make fairly large profits, some years when they make none, and some when they make losses. But I have pointed out again and again that they are not justified in looking upon this as one of the normal good years. Their getting high prices for coal depends, not on a trade boom at all, but on a state of war. It is in pressing that point that I have almost reached an agreement with the Midland coal owners, who are mainly concerned with the supply of the coal which is the subject of anxiety to consumers in London. I hope to be able to announce shortly that they have come a little nearer to our expectations—I may say a little nearer to our demands, because it must be perfectly obvious that, if we are not fairly met by agreement, Parliament will not tolerate any exploitation. I hope still that we may be able to come to an agreement. When that has been reached there will be found some means of checking those violent fluctuations which are so disturbing, not only to householders, but also to those engaged in industry. For the moment, perhaps, the Committee will excuse me from saying anything more on that topic.
  I now come to the extremely difficult topic of the fluctuation in the price of food. The long Debates we had here some months ago gave the House full opportunity of expressing its view, and the Government then stated many of the steps taken towards, reducing the price or preventing further extravagant
  420
  rises in the price of food. I can only repeat what was said then, that, so far as the price of wheat in this country was concerned, we cannot ascertain that it was in any degree the result of speculation in this country. I cannot answer for what happened in the United States of America. The American price undoubtedly did control the world's price. We were, unfortunately, met with a great shortage in the supply of wheat from Australia; indeed, Australia became an importing and not an exporting country, and some of the wheat we might have expected to come from the Argentine was actually diverted to Australia. The high price of wheat here was the subject of great anxiety to us, and when a day is given, when there is a general demand, for the discussion of the Government's transactions in wheat, I think it will be possible for the House to understand the service which was rendered by the Department of the Board of Agriculture which was mainly concerned in this matter, and the firm who acted as the Government purchasers, to prevent our being faced with a very serious shortage. So far as wheat was concerned, not only had we the anxiety of high prices, but, what was much more serious, we were faced with anxiety as to a definite shortage in this country; and, although, no doubt, it is a serious matter for wheat to be anywhere in the region of 50s. to 60s. a quarter, it would be a still more serious matter if we had found our margin cut down to two or three weeks' supply and ourselves running the risk that the interruption of supplies across the Atlantic meant—absolute hunger and starvation to those not able to pay famine prices. We staved off all risk of that, and I think I can assure the Committee that there is no fear of our supplies being cut off or our margin being destroyed.
  With regard to the great profits made by one or two firms in this country during the great rise in wheat prices, which is natural when the market is rising rapidly, I hold no brief for the firm of Spillers and Baker. Their balance-sheet shows an abnormal profit. The statements made with regard to the figures in that balance-sheet were not soothing to public opinion. I can only say they had a rising market on which to produce that balance-sheet. I hope in 1915 they will have a falling market on which to produce their balance-sheet, and that the profits they made last year will be swallowed up in the diminution of prices experienced this year.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman see there has been a falling off of something like 10s. in the price of wheat, and that this firm will have an enormous reduction in their profit?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no means of knowing what will be the experience of that firm, but I can only hope that all that is going on now will not be stopped before the new harvest comes forward, and I hope the abundant supplies of the new harvest will tend to bring prices further down, and that the opening of the Dardanelles, to which we all look forward with great certainty, will lead to Russian supplies coming forward and flooding the markets.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those speculators who made huge profits in rising markets are now dropping their profits like leaves in autumn?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Just in the same way as I did not envy them when they were making their profits, I have no pity for them now when they are making losses. What is necessary to this country is not to see an outbreak of speculation, but steady supplies conducted through normal channels at moderate profits. On both sides the subject of meat was raised. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that our meat supplies are going to be largely increased during the War. There is a great strain being placed on the Home meat supplies, and imported beef is mainly going to feed the French and British armies. When we discovered that not only our own demands were going to be very large, and that the hunger of the British soldier was much greater than that of the British civilian in matters of meat, we were faced with a change in French policy. The French decided that as our men fight well on meat, they would feed their men on meat also. This made an enormous demand on the frozen meat supply of the Argentine, Australia, and New Zealand. The first step we took was with regard to Australia and New Zealand. We had been closely in touch with the subject from the first, but we felt that we ought in the first instance to ask for the co-operation of the Dominion Governments. I would like to say publicly that nothing could have been more thorough-going than the action taken by the State Governments of Australia and the Dominion Government of New Zealand. Through the Colonial
  422
  Office we were occupied in communications with them for only a short time before they put into operation the legislative powers they possess, and within a few weeks the whole of the meat which could be exported in refrigerating steamers was, under the control of those Governments, purchased in the interests of the Empire as a whole for shipment across to this country in the tonnage we had requisitioned. The steps taken by them there are deserving of the highest praise, and the Ministers concerned worked with so much energy that we not only lost no time in getting the meat over here, but, I think, even surprised our Allies by the assiduity with which we filled their own frozen stores.
  Our main supplies of beef, however, were not from Australia but the Argentine. The ownership of meat in the Argentine has been the subject of discussion in this House before now, and, as the Committee well knows, the big American companies which went by the slang term of "The Meat Trust" control a very large share of the meat exports from the River Plate. There is a certain amount of control by English companies, but they all act together, and, if we had left the British and French military authorities to the mercy of those companies, there is no saying what price they would have been able to extract out of them. The Board of Trade felt, therefore, that the first necessity was that the whole supplies of both Armies should be under a single control. The French Government were good enough to leave the whole transaction in our hands, and I am glad to say they have expressed their satisfaction at the way in which we handled it. We are now buying all the frozen meat that is required for their use as well as for our own, so that we are in no sense competitors in those markets where there are only a few producers and where we should have been entirely at their mercy. We could not make a good price with them until we had tonnage. By negotiations with British owners, covering the whole of the refrigerator space that plies from the Argentine to Europe, we requisitioned every one of their available steamers, except those belonging to one company, and I wish to say that, after long discussion, we were able to come to an agreement, satisfactory to us, without exercising the compulsory powers which we held in reserve. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Houston) took a prominent

  423
  part in those negotiations, and he is well aware of the fact that in driving the bargain which I drove I was not thinking of my own interests, and I hope he will exculpate me from any moral guilt, because I was merely looking after the public interest. The rate of freight now paid will leave a good profit to the shipowners concerned. I am well aware that they might make more money out of the carriage of wheat than out of the carriage of meat, but, after all, those shipowners who run regularly in the Argentine trade, and are not engaged in the carriage of passengers, will not suffer materially from the bargain we have made with them. I know some of the big lines, like the Royal Mail, ended up last year with a loss, but I do not put that down to anything I did, and it must have been from some other cause. At all events, it is clear that we are getting meat carried from the Argentine and Australia at cheaper rates than are being paid for any other commodities.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make it quite clear that he did not require to use the power of requisitioning to get shipowners in the Argentine trade to agree with his terms, and that, so far as I myself was concerned, I did not enter into any discussion or argument with him in regard to freight, because I was quite prepared to accept any rate from the Government. I know perfectly well, and the right hon. Gentleman does not need to tell me, that when he was driving this very hard bargain he was doing it on account of the nation, and I am quite sure that he drove a harder bargain than he would have done on his own account.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I freely admit that when I was negotiating with the Argentine companies, the hon. Gentleman did not fight about these questions. The requisitioning power, which I held in reserve, was not necessarily used with the object of compelling the companies to accept our terms, although they were quite conscious of the fact that I had that power. Requisitioning had many other advantages. It enabled us to "pool" the ships, and to get them run on a regular traffic with a regular distribution of sailings, and this enabled us to send them to ports which they were not in the habit of visiting. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question with regard to one of the principal lines as to why they were left out of the requisition. My reason for
  424
  not requisitioning them was that after the negotiations were over I discovered that the Nelson line had a running contract with the meat companies, and therefore there was no need for us to make a bargain, because they were bound to carry the meat. Consequently, there was no need to give them the benefit of requisition rates, and so we merely asked them to go on carrying out their contract. The price of meat as it is delivered here will certainly be higher than last year. I confess I was a little nervous about these supplies falling into the hands of speculators, and I got a small committee of business men to undertake the distribution of this meat through the retail channels. I asked them, and they are complying with my request, to avoid all sales to merchants, and they sell directly to those who distribute, and the speculator, so far as these meat supplies are concerned, does not come in, and the meat will pass through channels which are not speculative. We had to ask consumers to check their appetites for meat throughout the coming summer, and unless they do so, there may be a great diminution in the amount of stock in this country. In so far as that is done, we shall meet a general demand. May I now turn to two or three other topics raised by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that subject, I would like to know if he is willing to give any information about the terms he has made with the Meat Trust.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I rather deprecate these frequent interruptions.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think it was better not to give the exact price, and I do not think it would be in the public interest to do so at the present time. I now come to the subject of cotton. I may say that there is no topic which has given us more trouble, not only at the Board of Trade, but in other Departments. The Committee is well aware that of all the commodities which come from the United States of America there is none which causes the United States more anxiety and nervousness than cotton. We have taken practically from the first, all the measures we thought were likely to be effective in checking the supply of cotton to the enemy, but in one direction after another we have found evidence to which we cannot shut our eyes, that the cotton passing into neutral countries was leaking

  425
  through to Germany. The opinion of the Department which is best able to advise us on this subject, was that Germany was not finding this cotton necessary for the making of her explosives, because she has already stocked herself with cotton for that purpose, but that any cotton which went to Germany might be used for that purpose, and therefore it became incumbent upon us to see that amongst the articles which we prevented passing into Germany, cotton should be included. Consequently, we have held up a large number of cotton vessels, but we have held them up on terms which are satisfactory to the vendors of cotton in America, and in this way the Foreign Office has avoided friction. The cotton has been largely sold in Lancashire, thus finding its way into the Lancashire spinning mills, and in the course of time, I hope, will go out to our customers abroad, which is a much better use of the cotton than allowing it to be made into explosives on the Continent.
  Our anxiety spread not only to cotton, but also to yarn. The figures which I gave yesterday must have made it clear that we cannot go on allowing cotton yarn to be freely exported, even when it is ostentatiously going to neutrals. We have adopted many means of preventing raw cotton which goes out to neutrals passing into the hands of the enemy. We usually get a guarantee that in the case of exports to these destinations the cotton is either going to the actual spinner of the yarn or is going to be used in some way in the country to which it is consigned, and cannot be exported. I cannot quote instances of that guarantee having been broken, but I can only take the figures of the imports of cotton yarn into some of those countries, and the exports out, and those exports seem, at all events, to suggest that the cotton yarn has not all been used up there, but has been going to succour the enemy. Under these circumstances we feel bound to place cotton yarn on one of the lists which will check its exports. In the future cotton yarn will not go out to a long list of countries without a licence. In order that those licences may be quickly and promptly dealt with, the War Trade Department are setting up a Cotton Licensing Committee, somewhat similar to the Coal Licensing Committee presided over by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Russell Rea), about whose excellent work I should like to say a word of praise. There are no exports so quickly dealt with
  426
  as those which are dealt with by the Coal Export Committee, and I hope that the Cotton Licensing Committee will also do its work rapidly and well. The view we hold is that these sub-committees composed of business men engaged in that particular trade, and having intimate knowledge of it, can deal with this question far more efficiently and justly than any Government officials, however excellent they may be.
  I would like to conclude by making two or three remarks on the labour questions raised by the London Tramways strike. The Board of Trade is in close touch with the parties concerned. The Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department day after day is giving information as to the demands put forward and the extent to which they were being met, or not being met. I am not prepared to discuss the merits of the case now, but there was one aspect of it which we were bound to deal with at the earliest possible moment. There are a large number of workmen who cannot get to their work at Woolwich except by tramcar, and it became necessary that we should revise the tramcar service, and we took the necessary steps to see that cars were run to and from Woolwich for the convenience of Arsenal workers. We co-operated with that object, and though at first there was some inconvenience for a short time, it was soon overcome. We cannot claim that the settlement of the strike, in so far as it was settled, was brought about by us, but I believe that the Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department did a great deal to keep up constant communication between the parties in order to avoid a complete cessation of the tramway service. That we did not take action promptly, I must deny. From the first, Sir George Ask-with and his colleagues were in touch with the leaders of the men and the representatives of the London County Council.
  My last subject is that of the "Daily Express," which has done the Board of Trade the honour of devoting to it a good deal of attention during the last few days. Its attacks on the Board of Trade are based on this case. The "Daily Express" was setting up through its columns, at the expense of nobody, what was practically a Labour Bureau, and they succeeded in getting a very large number of men, through their advertisements, to say that they would be prepared to do certain works, especially those concerned with the making of aircraft. On the 29th of April,

  427
  I think it was, we published an Order in Council, which gives us the power to prevent an appeal being made for the transfer of labour in certain cases, and the wisdom of doing that has been challenged by questions in this House. Perhaps I may be allowed to say how necessary it was that that power should be taken by us. The munitions companies have been making enormous demands on the labour markets for skilled men. I believe they can get plenty of unskilled labour without difficulty, but the supply of skilled men has been more difficult, and they have had to be gathered from other countries, some from Belgium, Holland and Canada, where at the present moment the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) is doing good service collecting engineers, fitters, and mechanics. We are drawing men from industries in this country not engaged in producing munitions of war.
  We find that some of these great concerns are making machine guns, rifles, shells and the like, but no sooner do they get the men into their works than someone else comes along, offers them a little more bonus, and they attract them in other directions, with the result that this kind of ding-dong competition leaves these companies in a constant state of anxiety. In one case, out of 1,000 men the firm lost 300 within a fortnight in this way because it paid the men to move elsewhere. This is a kind of attraction of labour which is well known to the shipbuilding trade. Hon. Members of this House who know how shipbuilding labour passes to and fro are aware that there are times of great pressure in shipyards, and these methods are adopted in consequence. While this was going on in a state of war, some of our great concerns were not producing up to their contract dates. It became necessary that the canvassing for labour should be under control. That was the object of the Order in Council of 29th April. I believe that when we drew the attention of the "Daily Express" to this Order in Council they did not realise when it was published, for I notice that the "Daily Express" says that application for approval of advertisements somewhat of the nature of those they have been publishing took about two months to pass through the mill. There must be some mistake about it, because it was on the 29th April that the Order in Council was first published, and two months must
  428
  obviously have been an exaggeration. As a matter of fact, we have dealt with the "Daily Express" case as rapidly as we could.
  Take the case of the "Daily Express." These large numbers of men were obviously far too many for the "Daily Express" staff to carefully examine and sift. The mere task of classifying applications of this kind, sending them on to employers, and then insuring that there was prompt treatment and no diminution in the necessary precautions of inquiry, could not be conducted except by a very well-organised staff especially created for the purpose. I have no means of knowing how the "Daily Express" staff is drawn and recruited, but I am sure of this fact, that it is impossible for a newspaper staff to make all the necessary and the individual inquiries for dealing with thousands of men to the same extent and on the same scale as can a Government Department. The Labour Exchanges are accused of being a slow and cumbrous means of dealing with this subject, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that some of the figures which I gave yesterday very much understate the services rendered by the Labour Exchanges. I hope the Committee will not run away with the idea that the Labour Exchanges have been inefficient, particularly during the War. I am sure when they hear these figures that they will realise what great service has been done by that labour organisation. In the last four months over 400,000 vacancies in all have been filled by the Labour Exchanges. Over 80,000 of these were in the engineering and shipbuilding trades, including 46,000 in skilled trades. Vacancies are even now being filled from the Labour Exchanges at the rate of 4,000 a day. Since the outbreak of War no less than 100,000 workpeople have been transferred through the Labour Exchanges to engagements on national work in other districts, and the total number of transfers from one district to another has been no less than 187,000. These are really very large figures, much larger than could have been dealt with by any voluntary organisation outside, and, gladly as we welcome any help we can get, it must be quite obvious to the Committee that you cannot have a great distribution and sifting of labour on that scale without elaborate machinery for examining the cases which come forward.
  I am informed that a good many of the cases about which complaints are made are

  429
  not well founded. Take one case which the "Daily Express" gave. The Linotype Company, who needed 300 men, are said to have applied in vain to the Labour Exchanges. I only give this as an example of how criticism which cannot be well informed is likely to do an injustice to a Government service Three hundred men needed, and the company applied in vain to the Labour Exchanges! What are the facts? The only order at the Labour Exchanges of this company was for one improver. In another instance a workman, A. J. Perry, is said to have applied in vain for employment on war work. I have had the case of A. J. Perry turned up, and the House may be interested to hear that he was a painter by trade, but had no serious qualifications for war work, and he insisted on a job in which he should only do a little bit. We submitted him to two employers, and neither of them would have him.
  The "Daily Express" can do good work, and we have already pointed out to them one direction in which they and the rest of the Press can help us. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will also give us his assistance in this matter, I have a draft here of a public appeal for the Engineers' War Service Official Register. If we get assistance from the Press in extending the number of men who will put their names down on this register we will have the cases sifted out, and we will do what we can to help the new Minister of Munitions to keep the labour he already has in the factories, rather than taking them out of one factory merely to plant them in another. I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the new Minister of Munitions for saying that unless the control of labour or the distribution of labour in this way remains in the hands of the Labour Exchanges they see nothing but trouble ahead of them, and it is on their behalf and not out of pride in this Department, of which I am very glad to be the President, that I ask the newspapers not to attempt on an amateur basis to do this work entirely by themselves, but to co-operate with us in an effort to make the best use of such labour as is available.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The Committee will generally agree that we do not often have a more interesting Debate than that which was initiated by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) and carried on by the President of the Board of Trade. Hopes were held out to us that there might be some considerable fall in
  430
  the price of coal, and if that is the case everybody will sincerely rejoice and some considerable satisfaction will be felt. The hon. Member for Dartford seemed to me to attribute the great increase in the price of coal more or less to the fact that coal has been withheld and not supplied by coal owners according to contract. He said that he had evidence of this, but he did not produce it.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman will find the whole of these facts in the Report made by the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade himself.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I ought to have said that nobody can lay less claim than I can or than I can pretend to have to anything in the nature of expert knowledge about coal or mines, but I know, when I have sometimes congratulated coal owners—I have a great many friends who are large coal owners—upon a rise in prices by which they ought to be making a great deal of money, that they have said, "We are not making anything more. We make contracts for a very long period of time. We have not gained anything by the increase of price. It very often happens that prices fall again long before our contracts come up for renewal." The hon. Member said something which I own that I was not able to follow, although he said that it was contained in the evidence. He said that owners would have been able in this case to fulfil their contracts, but they declined to do so. Surely there is a remedy for that if it is the case. Nothing would have been easier than to have brought an action against them to compel them to fulfil contracts which they were able to fulfil. I am bound to say that I think the President of the Board of Trade gave much better reasons. He said that coal was not in the same category as wheat, and he went on to say what were the real causes of the great shortage in coal. London is the worst case of all. What is the cause of the shortage in London? It is due to the vast number of ships taken for Admiralty purposes which formerly conveyed coal to London. That is one of the reasons. True it was, he said, that some merchants have made very considerable profits; but, on the whole, I think the Committee will agree with me, from what he told us this afternoon, that it is quite clear the merchants have behaved exceedingly well, and were quite

  431
  ready to meet the Government in any way in which they could be fairly asked to contribute towards a diminution in the price of coal.
  Then he turned to the producers, and there again there was a reason which fully accounted for what has been a very considerable part of the shortage. An enormous number of miners have been recruited in the north of England, and, according to him, that was one of the main reasons of the great shortage. I will not enter into the question of what the gain or the loss has been to owners at different times either by the great rise or fall in price, because it is a subject on which I know nothing whatever; but I thought it only right, in view of some of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Dartford, just to put before the Committee what I have been told myself by many owners and producers of coal, and which seems to me to offer a somewhat fair reply to some of the criticisms which he made.
  The President of the Board of Trade dealt with another question which certainly was of great interest to me, namely, the great increase in the price of food in consequence of the War. Years ago I made great efforts to procure the appointment of a Commission to inquire into our food supply in time of war. Like most other Commissions, it met with the fate which is so common in these days, when reports of Commissions upon almost any subject whatever obtain the smallest possible attention. I venture to say in defence of that Commission that a large number of its members made a report which I still believe, if it had been adopted and carefully carried out by any Government, would have gone a long way to relieve this country from any possible apprehension of a shortage of wheat, and would have done it at a cost inconceivably small, something like an addition of one-half or three-quarters per cent. on the estimates for national defence at that time. I hope the Committee will pardon me for referring to this, as I do in justification to the members of the Commission, who worked hard for a very long time at this question, and whose recommendations have never received, as far as I know, the smallest attention from any Government whatever.
  I only want to say one word more, and in the absence of the President I must say it to my hon. Friend opposite (Captain Pretyman). I do it with some confidence, because I am sure that he will put my case
  432
  6.0 P.M.
  very fairly and effectively to his chief at the head of the Department. It arises from the fact that I have been actively engaged lately in forming a committee with the object of promoting the employment of women in agriculture. Although we endeavour to work in full co-operation with the Labour Exchanges, and although I have no feeling whatever myself against the Labour Exchanges, I know, whether rightly or wrongly, that there is a prejudice against them amongst the farmers in this country, at present at all events. The great object I have had in view was to get over that prejudice, and to see whether, by forming an agricultural committee interesting themselves in the subject, visiting the districts, and sending representatives down there, we could not succeed in bringing the farmers and the women together in their own particular localities, and so enabling progress to be made in the movement. So far we have been working in selected areas. I was informed—only three days ago—by an excellent agricultural representative who was sent down into Gloucestershire that he has made the acquaintance of nearly all the farmers in the district and has set up a small office. He has already received numbers of applications for women from these farmers, and, not only that, but he has already supplied a considerable number to farmers requiring additional labour. I believe that is a thing which may be prosecuted with very considerable success in a vast number of districts in England, because there is a great shortage of labour in many parts of the county, and in some parts it is so great as to be really most serious. Only two days ago I received a letter from a great Radical proprietor in the Holderness District of Yorkshire, asking me if our association could possibly provide him with 2,000 women, and if we could send them down to that part of the world to do much of the work which was formerly done by agricultural labourers who have been recruited. I will conclude what I have to say on this subject by asking my right hon. Friend a question which arises out of something that passed in the House of Commons yesterday—out of a statement that was made by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "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."

  433
  Then one of my hon. Friends sitting behind me (Mr. G. Terrell) put this question:—
  "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?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1915, col. 263.]
  That is a matter of great importance to my colleagues and myself in trying to carry out the policy in which we are engaged, because what we have to do first of all is to find out if the farmers will employ women labour and how much they will take of it. Then, having got customers, the next thing we have to do is to get the women of the locality, and the way in which we are doing that is by inserting advertisements in all the local papers stating what openings there are for women. I want my right hon. Friend to get an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that, in what I believe to be the very beneficial work in which we are interesting ourselves at the present time, if we continue to do what we are now doing we shall not be putting ourselves within the danger of the law, and that what we are engaged in doing will not be illegal. I hope my right hon. Friend will submit our case as urgently as he can to his chief, and then I have every confidence and every hope, if we are allowed to proceed a little longer in the way we are doing at present, we may really be able to accomplish something which will be of genuine advantage and help to agriculture at the present time, having regard to the great shortage of agricultural labour in many districts.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Captain Pretyman): I may answer that point at once. The question does not really arise in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's association, which is doing admirable work, and the Board of Trade officials are working in co-operation with it.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I think the statement of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon marks a very distinct step forward. For a good many months we have been asking, many of us not sitting on any particular bench, that there should be a larger measure of public control over the real needs of life, and I venture to suggest that the President of the Board of Trade has this afternoon made a statement with regard to labour which endorses and emphasises everything we have asked for in this direction. When we have asked questions in regard to controlling the
  434
  profits of shipowners we have been told—we were told, for instance, in the "Times" newspaper—that it was absurd to interfere with the law of Supply and Demand, and that if there is a chance of making larger profits, larger profits will be made, and we are merely trying to interfere with the laws of the Medes and Persians, if we seek to set aside the law of supply and demand. But this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade told us that, in regard to labour, the demand is in excess of the supply, and because of that workpeople are being offered the bait of higher wages to go from one factory to another. In order to prevent this the Government are now placing the canvass for labour under public control. I suggest you have no right to apply a law to workpeople which you are not prepared to apply to shipowners and corn millers at the same time. If there is going to be a law in one direction it should apply exactly the same in every direction.
  I am quite sure of this, that a large part of the labour unrest which we have seen has been due to the conviction that the Government was not as strong and as vigorous as it might have been in controlling food prices and the prices of coal and other commodities. So far as the miners are concerned, I have the authority of their president, Mr. Smillie, for making this statement: that if there had been anything in the direction of the effective control of coal prices at the start there would have been no wage movement among the miners at all—no demand for anything in the nature of an increased wage or a war bonus. I come now to the question of coal, which has been raised again and again in this discussion. The President of the Board of Trade admitted that the rise in prices had been enormous. The Board of Trade, we are told, is now taking action in more than one direction. I am very glad of that, but at the same time I must express my regret that that action was not taken more promptly: that it was not taken many months ago, as it might easily have been. The very point we put to the President of the Board of Trade he now repeats from the Front Bench; That point is that whereas the supply of wheat is difficult to control, because that commodity comes from all parts of the World, the supply of coal is confined to these island shores and prices could be controlled far more easily than the prices of wheat. If that is true—and it is true—the law that

  435
  is to be applied now might easily and profitably have been applied in the interests of the people many months ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman states that profits are now going to be limited. We are very glad of that. He says it is going to be done in order that the prices may be made steady. I would say, in regard to that, it really depends upon how far you are going to allow prices to rise as to whether the steadiness is or is not going to be a good thing. It is a good thing to have steady prices, but it is not a good thing if you allow even them to be too high; therefore, action in that direction will be tested by the extent to which prices are forced down by the Board of Trade action. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that even now prices at the pit-head are far in excess of what is justified by the present War situation. It is just that part of the prices which is far in excess that we want to deal with. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were going to demand that there shall be no more exploitation. I am very glad indeed to hear the right hon. Gentleman make that announcement. The position is serious, not only in regard to householders but for many kinds of municipal enterprise, as was pointed out to a large number of Members yesterday, in regard to undertakings like those of gas and electricity. I must say, in this connection, that only this week, in Bradford, they have been obliged to raise the price of gas to consumers 5d. per thousand cubic feet. That is an enormous rise in prices, and the Bradford City Council, in coming to that decision, passed a resolution at the same time urging the State to assume the control of the output of coal during the War. I should like to read a statement from a well-informed Labour correspondent in Glasgow as to the position there in regard to the corporations. This gentleman, writing to the War Workers Emergency Committee, says:—
  "Various committees of the Glasgow Corporation are buying for immediate need only, as if they were to place their contracts at the present prices it would mean an increased charge of £400,000 as compared with last year's prices for the same quantity and quality of coal. The gas department is now in the market for 750,000 tons, and if they are compelled to pay present prices the extra charge on this lot alone, according to the manager, would be £300,000. Because of the high prices of fuel, the cost of household gas is to be raised from 1s. 11d. to 2s. 6d. per thousand cubic feet."
  We have heard put forward here various causes to explain this considerable increase. It is quite true that some two
  436
  hundred thousand of the miners have gone to the Colours, and that has meant, I believe, a reduced output of some 13 per cent. It is also true that the price of pit wood has increased, and here I would say it would be a good thing if this War teaches the country certain economic lessons which should have been learnt long before the War came upon us. We have had reports from Afforestation Committees showing how much timber is imported into this country. The same lesson also applies to the production of wheat and other commodities in this country. If the land were put to its best and most profitable use, and I am quite sure, even if we did not all agree as to the exact methods by which it can be done, we all believe that the resources of our country should be developed to their very fullest capacity, and it would be a good thing to try and put mere party cries on one side and settle down to the question how we are going to do our best for the country and make the best of it. This question of coal prices is pressing very heavily, indeed, on the poor people in the East End of London and elsewhere. There has been an increase of from 7s. to 11s. per ton, where coal is bought by the ton, and, of course, poor people, who buy much smaller quantities, have to pay very much more than that. We shall all be glad if the President of the Board of Trade is no longer afraid of what he was apt to call "millennium proposals." Not many months ago he told us not to try to bring about the millennium in the middle of a big War, but he is now going to apply the principle that prices are to be controlled and that the output of coal is not to be forced down, which means that he himself, with a somewhat hesitating and gingerly step, is beginning to go in the direction of the millennium, if you can call it that. All we ask is that the poorest people shall not be left entirely at the mercy of coal owners and coal merchants, and that a larger measure of control should be exercised.
  The hon. Gentleman who represents the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool (Mr. Houston) appeared to take a very optimistic view of food prices and of the world generally. He spent most of his time in twining garlands round the head of the President of the Board of Trade. He described a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) as an attack on the President of the Board of Trade. To try to put pressure or to make useful or helpful criticism

  437
  is surely not in the nature of an attack. If everything in that connection is to be construed merely as a personal attack, we had better close down Parliament altogether, as there would no longer be any need for the liberties of Debate. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Houston) said that prices were coming down with a rush. So far as the prices of the commodities of life are concerned, these reduced prices have not yet reached the poorest people who need them most.
  Mr. HOUSTON: The price of flour has already been reduced.
  Mr. ANDERSON: There has been no reduction in the price of bread in London.
  Mr. HOUSTON: The price has been reduced in Liverpool.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It had not reached London yesterday. There has been no reduction in the price of meat.
  Mr. HOUSTON: You cannot expect that.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Or in the price of coal, and there will not be until the President of the Board of Trade carries out a vigorous policy in that direction. We want the President to believe that in any step he takes in that direction he will have most of the country with him, and he will do a great deal to remove the feeling on the part of the working people that there has been unfairness if he will say that the rule he is going to apply to them in the sale of their labour is going to apply also to shipowners. I do not believe that either workmen or shipowners ought to take advantage of a crisis like this. If that rule had been applied more frankly all round the idea of National Service might have been a far more real thing than it is to the mass of working people at present, because they have believed that their service was going to be used for mere profit making. The matter has to be faced in a far bigger and bolder way than that, and if the President has taken the first step in the right direction I am sure he will have the support of hon. Members from all parts of the House.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I was very glad to hear the last words of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I am not at all sure that in the near future we may not come to look upon him as an advocate for National Service. He is the first hon. Member, except the President
  438
  of the Board of Trade, who has made any allusion to the rise in miners' wages, which must at any rate be an item—I do not know whether it is 1s. 6d. or 1s. a ton—in the increased cost of coal. The hon. Member said that he was of opinion that no class, whether the working class or the employers of labour, should take advantage of the War to gain benefits for themselves. With that I wholly agree. I do not think that anyone, whether he is a coal owner, or an employer of labour, or any class you may like to mention, should take advantage of the present crisis to gain pecuniary advantage or any other kind of benefit for himself. The hon. Member said that the President of the Miners' Federation (Mr. Smillie) had told him that if the profits of the coal owners had been regulated at the commencement of the War the miners would not have made any demand on the coal owners for increased wages.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I said that if the Government had dealt more strongly with the rise in the prices of coal and food there would have been no rise in the wages among miners.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand the hon. Member to allude to food. I thought he only alluded to coal. May I point out to him that that principle, which I consider to be a most excellent principle, has not been observed by the working classes? I will give him an instance. The Government at the very outset took control of the railways, and they not only regulated the profits of the railways, but said that they were not to make anything more than they did make in the first half of 1913 before the War. They took over the whole of the railways, and any increased profit there has been—there has been a considerable increased profit—has gone to the taxpayers. Notwithstanding that fact, almost the first thing that occurred was a demand on behalf of the railway employés for a war bonus. At any rate, with regard to the railway men, they did not carry out the idea to which, according to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Smillie has at the last moment been converted. If the hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a prominent member of the Labour party, will inculcate that idea among the working classes and the railway men, he will be doing a great service to the country.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask the hon. Baronet whether the demand by the

  439
  railway men for a war bonus was not due to the increased cost of living, including food?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know to what it was due. I was only remarking that the hon. Member had said that Mr. Smillie had made a statement that if the Government had regulated the price of coal and there had been no increase of profit to the coal owners, the miners would never have asked for an increase in wages. I would ask the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitehouse) are the labouring class to be the only class which is not to sacrifice itself or to be placed in disadvantageous circumstances owing to the War? Every class that I know has made great sacrifices for the War. They all have to pay the increased prices, while many of them are not getting increased earnings—in fact, some of their businesses have almost disappeared, their investments have decreased in value, and their income has largely diminished. Why should the working class, who are getting greater opportunities of obtaining work than ever before, get, in addition, a war bonus in order to put them into the position they were in before the War? They must suffer like everybody else, and to my mind the idea of a war bonus is absolutely repugnant.
  Mr. E. JONES: I am sorry the President is not in his place, because there are one or two things I wish to say in reference to the speech he has delivered. Before I come to a criticism that cannot be very pleasant, may I say that nobody realises more than I do the excellent service the President, as a personality, has rendered to the country in this great crisis? The only difficulty is that the Board of Trade is overloaded. The one thing the War has brought out, perhaps more prominently than any other, is that the functions of the Board of Trade should be divided under different heads. There has been some discussion here about Spillers and Bakers. I am going to tell the Committee one thing to which publicity should be given. I have failed to make it public earlier. It was not wise to make it public at the time when it occurred. We should put it upon record, inasmuch as the President seemed to suggest, and he was supported very much by the cheers and approval of an hon. Member opposite, that there was more or less a palliative, if not a justification, for Spillers and Bakers' profits on the rising market in
  440
  view of the fact that they were likely to incur large losses on the falling market. I want to call attention to one of the ways by which Spillers and Bakers did make their profits. I went to the Department several times during the first fortnight of the War with particulars and facts relating to Spillers and Bakers, but I failed to get the Board of Trade to do anything at all. Therefore I have to modify the encomiums that have been lavished here this afternoon upon the activities of the Board.
  There is no doubt about it that the Board of Trade was beaten by the millers in the first week of the War. The Board were not quick enough, prompt enough, or strong enough. May I give one instance? I cannot go into the whole of the proceedings of Spillers and Bakers, as I have not all the documents with me this afternoon which I took to the Board of Trade. The Committee will see one item which suggests the manner by which this firm was allowed to deal with the country in the most critical period, the first two or three weeks of the War. In the South Wales mining districts, which are covered mainly by Spillers and Bakers, the small tradesmen and grocers have always had with Spillers and Bakers a monthly credit. That has gone on to my personal knowledge for the last twenty-five or thirty years. There has been a regular monthly credit and even an extension of that. Every small shopkeeper and grocer responsible for supplying flour to the working miners out of which they made their bread, was running more or less before the War broke out on a monthly credit system with Spillers and Bakers. Then came the first week of the War. Then, I confess, having imbibed too much of the doctrines of Mr. Norman Angell and others, I thought the whole world was coming to an end. A great financial stringency existed. What did Spillers and Bakers do? During the critical period, when things seemed to come to a dead stop, they sent a circular round to all these traders stating that they would not give them a pound of flour unless they paid spot cash for it. That disorganised the whole business. The effect was that these small traders, running as they were accustomed to run on a monthly credit system, were unable to get flour. They were not in a position to find the money suddenly to buy flour at the greatly rising price at the time. Although I put these

  441
  facts before the Board of Trade and tried to get them to take action, they could do nothing. They were in the hands of the millers, and nothing in the world was done. That was one of the ways in which Spillers and Bakers earned the profits over its operations during this War.
  Again, I must impress upon the Board the necessity for more courageous action in connection with pit wood. According to the President's speech this afternoon one would think that the question of timber and pit wood has been only a minor item in the increased cost of production and the price of coal. I can assure the Committee that that is not so. The prices of coal in this country are largely determined by the prices obtaining in South Wales. The pit wood crisis in the mines in South Wales in particular has been an extraordinary one, and remains so, and unless the Board of Trade can do something really heroic and on a big scale, we are going to meet difficulties that will be insuperable. It is very remarkable how the coal owners got over their difficulties. They got over them very largely by going round and purchasing any bit of a wood which was to be found anywhere on the hill-sides. They were very fortunate in many parts of South Wales in keeping down the speculative prices of the timber that came from Bordeaux and other places, with the assistance of the Board of Trade, but this is the difficulty: Although the coal owners were very successful in buying the standing timber at an exceedingly cheap price, practically the normal price, in great quantities in the West, the price became absolutely prohibitive because of the difficulties that the railways put in the way of shifting them. The Board of Trade has no conception of the difficulty that the coal owners in South Wales have had to get the railway companies to afford any facilities whatsoever for shifting a log of timber to the works, and the prices which have been charged, just shunting prices alone, for simply shunting a truck from one line to another have been extortionate and ridiculous, and I press upon the Board of Trade to go into the question again and see whether, with the help of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) or other members of the railway executive, something cannot really be done. I can assure the hon. Baronet that if he wants cheap coal for the engines of his railways he had better try and carry the timber a little more cheaply and quickly to the collieries, or he will cry in vain for the coming winter.
  442
  There is another point. The President of the Board of Trade has had to handle already, in the course of the War, several disputes in regard to wages. I have no doubt he has observed, as hon. Members have observed, reports of the approach of another very serious crisis in the coal industry of South Wales. I am going to press upon the Board of Trade with all the emphasis I can to begin to look around at once. Negotiations have already been broken off between the coal owners and the men's representatives, and it is for the Board of Trade to come in. I deplore very much the readiness with which the uninformed Press here in London at a time like this take hold of the thing and suggest that this is an illustration of the rapacity of the miners and the working men, and that it is an outrage for them at a time like this to be talking about new agreements and precipitating a crisis. It is only fair to the miners of South Wales to make it perfectly clear to the House and to these newspapers that they are doing no service in taking up an attitude of that kind, because one could, if there were time and this were the occasion, give reasons which would absolutely convince hon. Members in every part of the House that what has happened has nothing in the world to do with rapacity or lack of patriotism on the part of the miners. In South Wales there has been a system of payment that started when the coal industry began. It has been built up in the most haphazard way, and it has got so complicated that it constantly creates difficulties in the locality, and steadily for years now the miners' representatives have been quietly and constitutionally and in a legitimate way trying to get some kind of intelligibility and order out of the chaos that reigns there in regard to the method of paying wages in the separate pits.
  For the last two years it has been clear that when the agreement came to an end, as everyone knew it would, on 30th June of this year, the miners would insist on having some revision of their agreement. It is mainly a matter of administration. It is not mainly a matter of wages at all. It is a matter of reorganisation. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham), who is interested in the South Wales coal trade as well as in other parts of the Kingdom, has expressed himself most eloquently as to this method of payment. There is not a single coal owner in any other coal-field in the Kingdom who will say a single word in favour of the system that prevails there.

  443
  Any business man who has anything to do with coal mines would condemn the whole thing as a ridiculous anachronism and would say that the arrangement ought to be altered in the interests of peace and fairness between miners and miners in different pits and in different localities. I have said enough to indicate that there is there a difficulty of the supremest kind. I do not wish in any way to belittle the arguments of the coal owners. They say if you begin to touch this complicated old structure that has grown up in South Wales you will get into hopeless tangles and disputes and difficulties, and, indeed, coal owners have a good deal of detailed evidence to produce in favour of the practical hopelessness of the task of getting a new agreement. But a new agreement has to be had, and I can assure the Board of Trade now that if they think to settle it by simply waving the flag and telling the miners that they have to put it off till the end of the War they will reap disaster, and I press upon them, because this is the sort of matter that they could aid in if they brought the ability that they have in the Department to bear upon these difficulties, they might be able between the two parties to construct now, in good time, before there is a rupture, a basis for new negotiations, and perhaps set the thing going away in peace and harmony.
  In view of the complexion that has been given to it in the London Press to-day, I feel I must say that the miners of South Wales will see to it that the ships are not without the coal that they want. They are shrewd enough and they are keen enough. There have already been crises since the War began, but I do not believe it can be pointed out by the Admiralty or anyone that the supply of coal from the South Wales mines was jeopardised. No working men in this country have responded to recruiting more readily and more handsomely than the miners there. As a matter of fact, the War Office has found it almost impossible to keep them? in the pits. Young men have been going and trying to enlist by saying they were shop assistants and all sorts of things like that in response to the appeals which have been made. But, although that is so, you can depend upon it that they know their business. They are as astute bargainers and managers of their concern as anyone, and they will insist that something shall be done before the mines are again flooded
  444
  at the end of the War with the thousands who will come back and fit themselves into a new possible scheme of wages, and, although there will be crises and a good deal will depend upon the firmness, the tact, and the promptness with which the Board of Trade will act, I think I can say on behalf of the miners in South Wales that until something has happened people need not taunt them with any lack of patriotism, and whatever happens the public can take it for granted that they will look after the interests of the nation, while making it consistent with their rightful claims and their hazardous and not in the circumstances exceedingly remunerative employment.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: A reference was made a little while ago to the price of coal. In fairness to South Wales I ought to tell the Committee something as regards the prices which obtain there. The hon. Member (Mr. E. Jones) referred to the increased demands of the miners with regard to the new agreement which they wish to bring into force at the end of their notice, which they have given, to terminate the existing agreement. He says they do not desire any increase of wages.
  Mr. E. JONES: I did not say that. I said it was not mainly a question of wages.
  Sir C. CORY: I thought my hon. Friend went further than that, but I may tell him that their demands would mean an enormous increase of wages. First of all, they want to raise the standard by 50 per cent. and then raise the minimum from 35 per cent. above the present standard to 10 per cent. above the proposed new standard, or to 60 per cent. above the present standard. There are other points which make the increase enormous. A Member of the Labour party referred to the enormously increased price that the gas companies were asked to pay for coal supplies. It was stated by Lord Joicey at the deputation of coal owners to the President of the Board of Trade that the gas companies were deserving of no commiseration whatever. South Wales does not supply gas companies, so this question does not affect them; but so far as other districts were concerned it was stated that the gas companies made contracts for some 300,000 or 400,000 tons before the War broke out with German coal owners with the object of reducing the price of the English coal owners. When the War broke out they could not get delivery, but they then could have contracted

  445
  for English coal at below the prices which existed before the War. But in their wisdom they apparently thought the probabilities were that the War would be over soon and they could get supplies at very much less cost, and they neglected to make contracts until prices went up very much higher, and then they came along, by which time the coal owners had sold practically the whole of their outputs and they had not the coal to sell. Why people who have taken the risk of buying these coals on contract, and had to take delivery whether the prices went up or down, should give them the coal at a very much reduced price than they could get for it, I am at a loss to understand. In their wisdom they elected not to buy, and then they whine and complain because they cannot buy except at a high price. It may be very hard on the gas consumer, and he has a right to complain of the gas producer for his bad judgment.
  So far as South Wales is concerned, it is well known to people who know anything about the trade that the bulk, something like three-fourths to seven-eighths, of the output is sold on yearly contract, and the contracts are made in the fall of the year for the ensuing year. The bulk of the 1914 contracts were made at 17s. to 18s. a ton f. o. b. Cardiff, but the amount of free coal left over was very small, and the Admiralty practically commandeered the bulk of the coal in South Wales and practically awarded their own price, and the price they gave up to the end of February this year was shillings a ton less than the market price reigning before the War broke out; so I do not think anyone can accuse the Welsh coal owners of having exploited the position in order to make great profits out of the country during this time of stress and trouble. The contracts entered into for this year were made at 18s. or 19s., a shilling a ton more than for 1914. You may say they made their contracts too low, but in South Wales we are bound to make contracts so that we can keep our collieries going from day to day. If the collieries stop it means that you have great expense in timbering and clearing away falls, and one thing and another. Therefore it pays you better to take a low price to keep things going than to risk a better price and have the collieries standing idle a few days now and again. Under the contracts the bulk of the coal has been sold at from 18s. to 19s. Some of
  446
  that coal, in fact a very large proportion of it, has been taken by the Admiralty at a somewhat higher price, but still a very moderate price—about 8s. or 10s. a ton less than we could get from the foreigner. The increased cost in the production of coal in South Wales has gone up enormously. All stores have gone up about 100 per cent. A war bonus has been granted to the men of 17½ per cent. above the standard, and from 15 to 20 per cent. of the men have joined the Colours. The latter fact has been responsible for reducing the output of coal enormously, and, of course, the standing charges are necessarily higher, because they are spread over a lesser quantity of coal than if we had those 20 per cent. more men working the coal. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Edgar Jones) has said that the men have enlisted in great numbers. That is perfectly true; they have shown a splendid example in South Wales in the way they have responded to the call of their country by enlisting, and I think the coal owners, too, are deserving of some credit, because, against their own interests, they have offered inducements to the men to enlist. Nearly all the companies there promised to pay sums of money to the dependent relatives of the men. Wives are receiving 10s. a week and 1s. per week is being allowed to each child. That makes a very onerous burden on the companies there.
  Mr. E. JONES: I am sorry I did not mention that fact. I had intended doing so, but somehow or other I forgot it. The hon. Baronet is quite right, and I thoroughly endorse what he has said.
  Sir C. CORY: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, and I am sure he would have alluded to the point had he not forgotten it. Supposing you limit the price in South Wales, or prohibit shipments of coal from South Wales, you are not going to help London, Liverpool, or other parts of England in regard to prices, because if you stop the shipment from South Wales you will not be able to get the coal away from there. For instance, it is the practice in South Wales for the colliery proprietors to own their own wagons. They have sufficient wagons to take the coal from the collieries down to the ports at a distance averaging twenty miles. These wagons make one, two, or three journeys a day. If you had to send them to London, Liverpool, and other places, these wagons would be away about three weeks or longer. The result would

  447
  be that the collieries would be closed. Moreover, the class of coal in South Wales would not be suitable for the householder or for gas or other purposes. Therefore, if you limit the price in South Wales, you will simply limit the price which the foreigner would be paying, and thereby making a present of money to the foreigner. There is very little free coal which we can ship to the foreigner, because the Admiralty take most of it. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Russell Rea) and the Committee over which he presides are concerned with a scheme for prohibiting the shipment of coal, which I think is a great catastrophe. Apart from our own interests, I think it is a catastrophe for this country, because we find American coals are pouring into Brazil, the Plate, Argentine, and Uruguay, and the consequence is that the Americans are getting the business. Anyone who is in business knows that if you have a customer on your books for years and if you lose him it is very difficult to get him back. If it is really necessary to prohibit these shipments, there is not a coal owner in South Wales but will accept the position for the sake of his country; but if it is not necessary then we are entering upon a most disastrous course, because once the American coal owners get into this market we shall find it very difficult to get it back again.
  It must be remembered that our cheap food depends upon outward freights. Cheap freights from the Plate home depend upon cheap freights outward. If you are to send ships out in ballast to the Plate instead of loading them with coal, or if they go in ballast to America and there load coal for the Plate, then, you will have to pay much higher prices for the wheat home to this country. I cannot see what would be gained by prohibiting shipment to foreign countries. You will not be able to make coal any cheaper in England by doing that; on the other hand, the collieries probably will be stopped. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Russell Rea) says that if there is only a certain amount of free coal now, and if the price is so much and we prohibit shipment, there will be ever so much more free coal and the price will go down. I do not see who is going to benefit by that. If the English shipowners want bunker coal at Cardiff they can afford to pay for it, because freights are certainly high. The British Admiralty are getting all the coal they require and our Allies are getting all
  448
  the coal that they want. With regard to Italy they do not want South Wales coal for the present. It was offered to them and they said they did not want it at present. The average price for South Wales coal by ascertained audits shows that the figure is a very moderate one indeed. Whatever may be the case in regard to other parts of this country—I do not speak for them because I do not understand their position—I can say that so far as South Wales is concerned the prices are moderate. So far as anthracite coal is concerned, a large number of collieries are working at a loss. The anthracite price has not gone up, and therefore if people want cheap house coal they had better use anthracite coal from South Wales. It would be a good thing for South Wales if they do so, and it would do a great deal to abate the smoke nuisance in London. If people would use an anthracite stove they would find it cleanly and, as I have said, it would be a very good thing for London in remedying the smoke nuisance.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the difficulties and grievances under which the Constituency I represent is suffering. I refer to the Potteries. Hon. Members will know that in the production of earthenware and china the cost of coal is a very important matter. Just before I came here to-day I received a letter from one of the manufacturers in the Potteries asking me to use every endeavour to put before the President the present position there. The President told us that following upon the increase in miners' wages there had been an increase in the cost of coal, and he said that some colliery proprietors had stated that that increase in wages could be covered by an increase of 1s. 6d. per ton. The right hon. Gentleman declared that in his opinion this was a most extravagant estimate of the increase that would be due to the increased wages. I will read a letter which has been sent by a colliery proprietor at Stoke-on-Trent, who is one of the local combine, to my informant, who is a manufacturer. The letter says:
  "We beg to inform you that the price of all quantities and sizes of manufacturing fuel will be advanced 4s. a ton throughout the district on and after Wednesday next, the 26th inst."
  That is to say, that when the recent increase in the miners' wages took place, instead of putting on what the President of the Board of Trade has described as an extravagant increase of 1s. 6d. per ton,

  449
  these colliery proprietors in this district have put up the price of coal to the still more extravagant figure of 4s. per ton increase. My informant says in his letter:
  "Further, please note carefully that the North Wales colliery proprietors are paying exactly the same advance under the same Lord Coleridge's award, and you will see from the newspaper cutting I enclose that the North Wales coal owners are content with an advance of 2s. 5d. on coal and 1s. 8d. on slack. Observe the great difference between 1s. 8d. and 4s., which latter the Staffordshire potter must endure for the production of his ware, and this in addition to prices already extravagant for what is, literally, dust."
  At the outbreak of the War the President of the Board of Trade urged manufacturers to endeavour to keep production going in order to maintain the employment of labour. There is probably no district where it is more difficult for that to be done than in the Potteries, and there is probably no district where the manufacturers have made more businesslike or more strenuous endeavours to keep their work going, or where manufacturers and workers alike suffer more than in the Potteries at the present time. They have continued the production by working three days a week instead of discharging hands. It is grossly unfair to a district of that sort that you should allow colliery proprietors to make these extravagant charges and so hinder industry. I trust the President of the Board of Trade will carry out the suggestion he made, or the threat he made, to take steps for the limitation of these charges, and that he will work on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), that we should have prices fixed on the basis of the prices that ruled this time last year. I trust the President will do this, not only in the interests of householders, but in the interests of manufacture.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Baronet (Sir Clifford Cory) dealt with the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) and I need not reply to it; but I would point out that neither the hon. Baronet nor the hon. Member said anything about the Eight Hours Act and the strong feeling held by many people that the suspension at least of that Act is really more needed at the present time to meet this difficult crisis than any other palliatives that could possibly be supplied. I do not know whether the hon. Member said it was the intention of the miners to strike—
  Mr. E. JONES: I did not say they intend to strike.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am glad. At any rate, I hope that the suspension at least
  450
  of that most disastrous Act will be considered by the Government in the present crisis. I am well aware that things have reached such a pass that even the suspension of that Act would not really meet all the difficulties, because, while wages are so high, there is really no need for men to work every day as hard as they could. I wish that the Government could adopt some such step as that suggested by the hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Sir A. Henderson), who is a man of great and wide business experience, whereby payment in notes which could be redeemed at the end of the War could be made for some portion of the present high rate of pay. I do not pretend to have any qualifications to discuss that subject, but I wish something could be done on those lines. The President of the Board of Trade stated that cotton yarn is now to be placed upon the absolute contraband list. Why only cotton yarn? If I understand the case aright, it is not only cotton yarn that is useful for the making of explosives, but cotton in other forms.
  Captain PRETYMAN: That is already prohibited.
  Sir J. D. REES: Not sufficiently, as I gather from the reply given to me by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Robert Cecil) the day before yesterday. I do not think it is. I stated my reasons for that opinion, and I will not state them again now, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Pretyman) if he will look into that point. The other day it appeared that cotton was being exported under false declarations from the United States to neutral countries and that matter is of the very utmost importance.
  In regard to Messrs. Spillers and Bakers I did not mean when I interrupted the President of the Board of Trade to claim any particular knowledge of the affairs of that firm, but only to point out that if the very high profits which they made are not fairly made and are to go to the taxpayer as was suggested by an hon. Member, then it would only be fair that the losses of the same firm which must have happened when the price of wheat had gone down by 10s. in one week, should equally be met from the taxpayers' pocket. You cannot have it both ways. If they are not allowed to make profits they must be indemnified for losses they make, and in this way the whole of the business would be thrown upon the taxpayer.
  Mr. E. JONES: Does the hon. Member say that they should be compensated for loss of profit on a falling market?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that firms in that position make forward contracts, and are liable to immense losses. The possibility of the opening of the Dardanelles has been referred to, but without that there has been a fall of 10s. a week, and that knocks out altogether the case against this firm. May I ask if anything has been done to assist firms in this country who are owed business debts by Germans? Suppose, as a concrete case, that a lace firm which has a branch in Chemnitz has its stock there confiscated by the German officials in Saxony and has large debts owing to it from Germans. I do not know what steps should be taken by the manufacturers in the case which I have put in order to ensure that they will receive the fullest possible consideration at the end of the War. Should they lay the matter before the Public Trustee? I am in some doubt about it. I am perfectly well aware that the Government cannot perhaps deal satisfactorily with this matter now, and I have considerable reluctance to ask that anything should be done at the end of the War, because all we have to do now is to bring about the end of the War by defeating the enemy. Nevertheless these questions are greatly exercising British manufacturers, and if the hon. Gentleman does not think the matter of sufficient importance to occupy the time of the House then I should be glad if he would let me know privately what steps should be taken by manufacturers in circumstances such as I have described.
  Can the President of the Board of Trade say anything more on the subject of a firm, about which I put a question, who make chimneys, and who, although the whole of their capital, with the most trifling exception, is held by Germans, nevertheless carry on their business in this country, competing with British firms who carry on the same business? There seems to be something utterly wrong about this. Though the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was all right when answering me, it is a significant circumstance that one of the greatest lawyers in this country, Lord Justice Buckley, has expressed the opinion that though the letter of the law may be with the Government in this matter the spirit is contravened when these companies, which are practically altogether German companies, are able to carry on
  452
  business here. It is true that in this case an inspector was put in, but still the business was being carried on and this firm was competing with British firms. We are far too lenient in all these matters. We do not exercise sufficiently the powers which we have under the Trading with the Enemy Act, though I am not sure that those powers are sufficient to deal with a case like this. But firms like this should not be allowed to compete with British firms in existing circumstances, and I do urge my hon. Friend to bring this matter before the President of the Board of Trade and to let me know the result.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: We have understood that this is a time of truce, and yet we have the hon. Member for East Nottingham actually suggesting to the House the abrogation of the eight hours day for which the miners fought so long.
  Sir J. D. REES: Which they detest,
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Which they do not detest. The hon. Member speaks of this "disastrous" Act which tends to show the spirit in which he makes the suggestion of its abrogation even during the period of the War. Let me tell him that for a man to stay eight hours in a coal mine would appear to me to be quite sufficient for one day, and to set aside now this very valuable piece of legislation would be to raise feelings of intense hostility in a class of men who have contributed probably more than any other among the artisan classes to the Army which is new fighting so magnificently. And when we find him suggesting what method should be adopted by the working classes in the disposal of their wages—the hon. Member shakes his head; did I misunderstand him when he stated that a certain part of the wages of working men should be kept from them and notes of acknowledgment given and their compulsory savings handed to them at the end of the War?
  Sir J. D. REES: It was not my suggestion. I referred to the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I understand from the hon. Member that he endorses that opinion: or is it that he does not endorse it? I am very glad to know that he dissociates himself from that suggestion.
  Sir J. D. REES: I do not say that. I said that it should be discussed.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Then the hon. Member contributes nothing to the Debate

  453
  either positively or negatively. The working classes will resent the proposal just as much as the owners of profits or the takers of profits would resent any decision as to how the profits should be disposed of. Just as much as Cabinet Ministers, the Prime Minister for example, would resent very strongly any suggestion even that this House should dictate to them how their salaries should be spent, the working classes take the same view of any attempt to interfere with them as to the disposal of their savings or their earnings, and they will resist to the utmost any compulsory abstraction from their earnings, even though these deductions be rated at a percentage and the whole thing be given to them with interest at the end of the War. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is always interesting, and certainly he has the courage of his convictions. He is brutally frank when he gets on this question of wages of the working classes, but he is pleasantly frank in his brutality. The hon. Baronet suggested that in war time the working classes must suffer like everybody else. That is exactly what they are doing, and for my part I am not prepared to pick them out and to say that they alone are making sacrifices.
  The aristocracy are making sacrifices no less than the working classes; sacrifices are being made all round, but in the case of the low-paid wage earner the sacrifice is the sacrifice of his all. In the matter of the man who is well-to-do the sacrifice may be between champagne and bitter beer. It may be between running his motor car 10,000 miles and 2,000 miles. That is not the case with the working classes. The working classes realise, and the same is probably true of other classes, that when there is a rise in prices you have in effect a reduction of wages. It has been admitted that the purchasing price of the sovereign has been reduced from 20s. to 14s. Will the hon. Baronet consider the case of the porters on his own railway at a wage of 25s. a week? When there is this reduction in the purchasing power of the sovereign the man in the employment of his company, and of similar companies, who has a wage of 25s. a week, is now in effect receiving something in the region of 19s So the sacrifice through the War in the case of such men is the sacrifice as between a very modest standard of living and a standard which is now below even workhouse conditions, and when a war bonus is asked for it is
  454
  asked for to bring the standard of living up as nearly as possible to that enjoyed previous to the War. The War bonus will not amount to 6s. per sovereign, so that the sacrifice in the case of these working-class families in receipt of low wages is a very real sacrifice. In their case it is not a question of the limitation of certain luxuries so much as the cutting down of the necessaries of life. It is the kind of thing which is being brought home very strongly to the working-class homes that I know.
  Therefore, when these men ask for a War bonus it is not because they are not prepared to sacrifice, but they have seen that the railway companies—and I am speaking now especially of railway men—have received from the Government a guarantee of pre-War profits, and while the railway companies will not have their profits diminished the railwaymen see that by the operation of certain combinations and of causes which ought to be brought under control, and as the President of the Board of Trade knows can be brought under control, causes which are in no way due to faults of theirs, prices have so increased that they have suffered a very considerable reduction in their wages by this inflation of prices. So I hope it will not be suggested that they are not making sacrifices. They are making very real sacrifices. It is brought home to them, too, for example, in the case of the engine driver. Very many engine drivers on the North-Eastern Railway Company, as I know, earn two guineas a week without the overtime. These men have been ready to volunteer and have been refused permission, in many cases, because their services were required for transport in this country. But these men see the separation allowances given to the wives and families of their colleagues who have gone do not maintain the family at the same standard of living as they enjoyed previous to the War breaking out. These men who are not allowed to go, though they are willing to go, see the standard of living of these people who are in receipt of separation allowances still further depressed because of the inflation of prices, and their feelings find expression, because they have no other opportunity, in a demand for more wages. It is not primarily, believe me, from a selfish idea, but it is the only means of expressing their desire of getting a return in their cases because others have used the opportunity to take advantage of the national extremity and exact great profits where

  455
  they ought not to have been allowed to do so. The railway men would not have moved, in my opinion, had the Board of Trade in the earlier stages kept in hand such firms as Spillers and those people who are exploiting the opportunity to put up the price of flour, coal, and other things.
  If there had been action taken which would have kept prices at such a level that previous standards of living could have been maintained, in my view neither the miners nor the railway men would have brought the pressure which they have brought to bear to secure such increase as will bring them somewhere nearer though not entirely up to the standard of living which they previously enjoyed. While on this point, I may, I hope, be allowed to say that, from information which has reached me, the amount of the bonus given to miners in Lancashire would be represented in prices by the addition of 9d. to the cost of a ton of coal, and that these extraordinary rises in the price of coal are not due to the bonus which has been given, but due to manipulations of the market, combined with arrangements which have had the effect of inflating the price of coal. So far as Northumberland and Durham are concerned, you will find in a number of the collieries, in regard to the pit-head price, that many contracts, not yet exhausted, are still in the region of 11s. 6d. per ton. Because so much of the trade is export trade, the collieries have not been able to work full time. The possibility of exporting coal from north-eastern ports to Hamburg and to Baltic ports has been cut off, and therefore the collieries have not been working full time, and they have been in the position that the contracts at 11s. 6d. have been delayed. So far as some of the colliery owners of Northumberland and Durham are concerned, they are not reaping that great advantage which has been obtained by some of those who have been in a position to charge full retail prices and so make enormous profits.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman will remember that a number of the professional classes have lost a considerable amount of their income—many of them the whole of their income. Take an architect, for instance; he is doing nothing. Many professional men have practically lost the whole of their income, and they do not get any bonus.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I agree that in these matters there is some truth in what the hon. Baronet says. It is true that a number of the professional classes have suffered severely, but in their case many of them are in the possession of reserves which the working classes do not possess.
  Sir F. BANBURY: One class is thrifty; the other is not.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I would like to know how a man, with a family, can be thrifty on 25s. or 30s. a week, especially when he has to pay rent of a house in which he can live, if he desires to bring his family up in a reasonable manner. My point was not to say that the sacrifices made by the professional classes in consequence of the war are small; it is not so. I do not want to say that of any class; I do not believe it is true of any, with the exception of a small number of persons indicated by Lord St. Davids in another place yesterday. The point I was endeavouring to make was rather one in defence of the working classes, and not one of aspersion on any other class. Rather, I want to show why these bonuses have had to be asked for. The point I am making is that the rise in prices, which could have been delayed, and possibly prevented altogether, have imposed the necessity upon the men—if they were to maintain their families at something like, though not altogether like, the original standard—to ask for a small bonus, which I acknowledge with gratitude has, in the main, been accorded.
  Colonel YATE: I wish to ask the representative of the Board of Trade a question as to pit wood, of which we have heard a good deal this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gave a list of the various countries with which he had been endeavouring to make arrangements for the supply of pit wood; and the question which I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board, who I am so glad to see sitting on the Treasury Bench, is whether he can tell us why it is we are so dependent on these foreign countries for our supply of pit wood. Is there anything special in pit wood that it cannot be produced in this country? Or, if it can be produced, and if it is produced in this country, is it that the high rate of freight on railways prevents its use? Is it the want of cheap water carriage, either by sea in present circumstances, or cheap inland water carriage, like canals, or what is it that makes the

  457
  price of home-produced pit wood so prohibitive? We have been told that the price as gone up by some 100 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us how that is, I must say that we shall be very much obliged to him.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I think we are all indebted to the hon. Member (Sir H. Dalziel) for having raised this interesting Debate. He has certainly elicited much of value from the speeches which have been delivered on this most important question of the increased cost of living, as we must feel that he has done a most valuable service this afternoon. When we know that there may be a great industrial strike in Lancashire, when we know that the question of the increased cost of living enters into every field of industry in every part of the country, I think we can measure the importance of this Debate as to what action ought to be taken. There has been no attack upon the Board of Trade, and what criticisms there have been were intended to be helpful in any action the Department may think fit to take to relieve and make less severe the burden from which the community, and especially the working classes, are now suffering throughout the country. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his place, and congratulate him upon his appointment. As I said, the desire has been shown to be helpful to the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend crystalised the whole question by pointing out that a sovereign to-day is only equal to a purchasing power of 14s. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt) stated that the average increase of wages recently given works out at something like 3s. a week, so that it will be seen, as was pointed out by an hon. Member on the Labour Bench below me, that the war bonus, in addition to the wages of the working classes, by no means anything like meets the hardship from which they are suffering through the increased cost of living.
  The point to which I desire to call the attention of the House has reference to what I think to be one of the most contributing causes to the increased cost of living. Of course, there is no one single cause; still, I think something might be done to alleviate the conditions caused by these high prices of commodities. I believe the Government can do something to relieve the burden by avoiding the continuous issue by the Treasury of these
  458
  currency notes. The vast addition to paper money undoubtedly affects the price of commodities, and if the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, can bring that point of view before his colleagues in the Cabinet, and particularly before the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he will be able to do something, and the Government will be able to do something of a practical nature to relieve the position. Let me quote a few authorities to show how the continuous issue of paper money by the Government is bound to have an effect upon the price of commodities, and therefore the cost of living.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on the present occasion. The hon. Member should bring that subject forward when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here. We are now discussing the Board of Trade Vote.
  Mr. MASON: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I thought in view of the Debate turning so much on the increased cost of living, I might offer some suggestion to alleviate the hardship which results. Of course, as you have said, Sir, it is no concern of the Board of Trade, and I must therefore defer what I have to say to a further opportunity, trusting that the remarks I have already made may merit the consideration of the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
  Captain PRETYMAN: I am quite sure that everyone at the Board of Trade will appreciate very much the spirit in which their work has been dealt with by everyone who has taken part in the Debate. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Department, much regrets that he has been able to be present during only two hours of the Debate, but hon. Members will easily understand that he has other business which calls for his attention, and which is so urgent that he could not remain here longer. I know that he will have the sympathy of every hon. Member, and no further apology is necessary. I have been at the Board of Trade only a very few days, but I can assure the House that the expression of goodwill and approval in regard to the work of the officials of the Board of Trade is well merited, so far as my observation has gone. They have had a very heavy burden thrown upon them by the fact that, in a crisis of this kind for very obvious reasons everybody, in the case of difficulties between capital and labour, and

  459
  between the consumer and the producer—which they are in a position in a time of peace to settle between themselves easily—now requires arbitration, because it is the wish of all concerned to get those difficulties settled as soon as possible in the national interest. Therefore they look to the Board of Trade to decide and to facilitate their work by arbitrating, the parties being of one mind in seeking to arrive at an early and satisfactory conclusion in the national interest. That is the object of all who are concerned in those questions which arise between parties.
  A great deal has naturally been said about the rise in the price of food and the cost of living, but I think that everybody who referred to the subject had one thing at the back of his mind at any rate—a feeling of thankfulness that the cost of living, high though it is, and anxious as we all are to reduce it, is nothing compared with what our anticipations of it were when the War broke out. I think we have really cause to congratulate ourselves in the first instance that the situation is as good as it is, and that the Government has been able to keep the rise of prices, which are inconvenient, but which are not disastrous even at their present limit. It is perfectly true that it is possible that steps can be taken and must be taken to keep those prices down, because, as has been pointed out, the effect of high prices is really only severely felt by those whose incomes are at the vanishing point. Those are the people who are affected by high prices and reduced consumption. When you come to look at the reduction of consumption in figures on a piece of paper it does not look very much.
  But you have to look beyond that; you have to see at what point that reduction has taken place. If you find that it is due, not to a general reduction of consumption, but an enforced reduction for people who are unable to afford to buy the articles, then it is obvious that a very great injury is done to those people. Therefore I think everybody will realise that they will do what they can to keep prices down. But I think we may also recognise that this House has done a great deal in another direction to reduce that bad effect of the high cost of living, and that is in taking care that the dependants of all those who are at the front should receive such grants and allowances as will enable them, notwithstanding the high cost of living, to
  460
  live practically at the same standard as that which they had before the breadwinners went to risk their lives at the front. That is the direction in which this House has done a great deal. When you are doing something to reduce poverty you are really dealing with the same problem as you are dealing with in trying to reduce the high cost of living.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board has dealt with the question of coal very fully. I think almost every hon. Member who has spoken since has said something about it. That is not really to be wondered at, because the price of coal enters into the daily life of every individual in this country. There is not a single hon Member of this House whose constituents are not vitally affected by the matter of the price of coal. As usual when prices are high, everybody concerned tells us that he regrets the high prices, but that he and those with whom he is associated are not responsible, but that it is somebody else. The coal owners will not admit that they are responsible and the coal merchants will not admit that they are responsible. I do not think that anybody at this time of national crisis, and certainly nobody representing any class in this House, will come to this House and say that those whom they represent are not desirous of making sacrifices in the War, and if they can be shown a reasonable arrangement by which prices can be kept down without their being absolutely penalised, then I do not believe there is any class in this country that is not prepared to agree to such an arrangement. If there is any such class, and if coal owners or coal merchants or anybody else are not prepared to agree to a reasonable arrangement by which prices may be kept down without they or their class being penalised, then I say it is necessary that the powers of the State should be exercised, where they can possibly be exercised, in order to keep prices down. I think everybody will agree with that, and after what the President of the Board of Trade said, I do not think I need add anything more on the subject.
  The hon. Member for Melton (Colonel Yate) referred to the supply of pit wood. I can speak from personal knowledge on one aspect of that question, because I know that those who own wood suitable for pit wood in various parts of England have desired to meet the demand, and at the same time to obtain something more

  461
  than the starvation prices which have hitherto been obtainable for English-grown timber, by offering that pit wood to coal owners. The Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture have done their best to bring the two parties into touch with one another, but the chief difficulty is transport by rail. One hon. Member who spoke said that the railway rates were prohibitive. I do not think that that is because the railways desired to make great profit out of timber. My hon. Friend knows that the railways really are congested at present. I believe the figures in this question are that out of 4,500,000 tons of pit wood annually used in this country, about 750,000 tons only have come from this country, and nearly all of that from somewhere in the neighbourhood of the collieries. No timber has been carried very long distances by rail, and practically all comes by sea. If you now transfer that supply, the oversea supply to an inland supply, you have to provide an immense amount of additional transport both in the form of railway trucks and extra trains, and in the present condition of the railways one of the greatest of national problems is how to carry on at one and the same time the ordinary trade of the country—passenger traffic of the country, and the immense requirements of the War Office, and all the additional inland trade due to the difficulties of obtaining tonnage for sea transport.
  Therefore I believe that the real difficulty is a difficulty of transport by rail. I do not at present quite see how that is to be got over except to a limited extent. Something has been done. Railway rates have been reduced to a certain point. I for one should certainly say that if you could find the railways to carry more supplies of pit wood to the collieries, the rates should be reduced to a point, this being a national matter. It is not, however, so much a question of rates as it is one of capacity to carry the traffic. The Board of Trade have interested themselves very much in this question. Mr. Rew, who has special charge over this Department of the Board of Trade, has been over to France and has been negotiating for increased facilities. The French Government have gone so far as to withdraw men who were actually at the front in the French Army, and who were timber cutters in the South of France, in order to allow those men to go back to their districts to fell pit wood
  462
  to come to this country. Therefore I think that, so far as is possible, everything has been done in that connection.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask if anything has been done to use the canals and inland waterways?
  Captain PRETYMAN: It might be possible to do so if the timber were adjacent to the canal, but if the timber had to be carried twenty or thirty miles by rail to the canal, I am afraid there would be no economy in doing so. That is a question of detail as to each particular case. My hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees) asked about two firms which were referred to at Question Time. I can only tell him that there appear to be two firms. One firm is a German firm, and the other with a very similar name states that it is a purely English firm with solely English capital. They are two different companies. The matter may be open to further investigation. But supposing any firm with German capital is working in this country, as my hon. Friend knows, there has already been an Act passed by which that company comes under national control, and under that Act a great deal has already been done. There are certain stages in national supervision. Where a firm is suspect of not only having been under German control, but of being in German hands at present, that firm is put under what is called a controller. That controller manages the whole business, but that system so far has only been applied to six companies and three firms, making a total of nine. Where the conditions are more favourable supervisors are appointed. Those supervisors do not take over the absolute management of the business, but they have very considerable control over it and complete access to the books and management. Supervisors have been appointed in the case of 209 companies and 59 firms—268 in all. There is a third class where it is only a question of there being a certain proportion of German capital, but where it is necessary to watch very carefully the transactions of the firms concerned. In those cases an inspector is appointed with full powers of access to all the business, and that action has been taken in 593 instances, of which 459 are companies and 134 firms. That number is being added to either on general grounds or on any reports received from private sources. My hon. Friend will therefore see that where there was German control before the War, that control

  463
  is not now being exercised in any case, and certainly not in any case within our knowledge.
  As to the question of debts owing by foreign firms, that is a matter for the Treasury. A Committee has been appointed, and I may tell my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade Committee has met those kind of cases as a rule by financing British creditors in case of need. He asked what would happen at the end of the War. I only make this suggestion. My hon. Friend no doubt knows that all German property in this country, whether in the shape of shares of dividends or any form of property, is now invested in the Public Trustee, who controls it all. I suppose when we come to the end of the War there will be some negotiations and arrangements for the transfer of property. Then as our Public Trustee in this country will control the whole of the German property in this country, I can only suppose that some arrangement will be made by which creditors here will receive proper consideration from Germany before the money which belongs to Germans is released from the custody of the Public Trustee. I cannot say, naturally, nor can any other man say, what is going to happen at the end of the War, but we are in a position to suggest that if Germans expect to be fairly treated by us they must treat English property fairly in return. I think those are really all the points which have been raised with which I can properly deal. I will take care that my right hon. Friend hears of all the points that have been raised during the Debate. I can assure hon. Members that the Board of Trade, and everybody at the Board of Trade, do most thoroughly realise the responsible position in which they are at this time, and certainly, so far as my experience goes, everyone there is sparing neither time nor brains nor trouble in carrying out what, after all, must be carried out at the Board of Trade, and cannot be carried out here. The House of Commons is the place where most excellent suggestions can be made, and where difficulties can be pointed out, such as those which arise between capital and labour, and as to prices, and differences between consumer and producer, and so on. But those questions cannot be settled here. They require careful detailed attention, such, for instance, as Sir George Askwith applies to all labour questions, and such as other officials of the Board of
  464
  Trade give to masses of detail in other matters. In doing all that I believe that they desire most fully and in every particular to carry out the spirit of the instructions which are given to them from this House, and, of course, they expect only to be judged by the success of the efforts which they make in this time of crisis.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I heard the hon. Gentleman referring to the question of railways. I can tell him that the feeling amongst the trading classes of this country is that the transference of the railways to the Government has not been productive of or quite realised the public conveniences which ought to have attended such a transfer. For instance, I should like to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that there have been a greater extension of certain arrangements and a greater clearness of organisation with regard to goods traffic in through rates. Traders feel that the Board of Trade and the authority controlling these aggregated railways since the outbreak of War are not laying down a system such as they had hoped might result as a by-product out of the War, whereby in future some scheme might have been evolved which would produce some system of co-ordination of all the railways or the nationalisation of all the railways within the small compass of our native land. I had hoped that some reference might be made to that. I did not hear, nor have I heard from time to time, any stress laid upon the advisory position which, in a great national crisis like the present, the Board of Trade might fairly be expected to take up. I believe that a large number of our industries are still ignorant of much of the pressure that is being increasingly exerted by the great international disturbance of markets and foreign products. I think that they would have welcomed a larger measure of advice which might have been given by the Board of Trade in regard to certain products and certain methods of distribution as well as of production, which, had it come from the Board of Trade, which possesses their respect and confidence, would have been peculiarly helpful and valuable. These questions we have left singularly alone. We have taken too few opportunities to organise trade, industrial, and domestic matters in this country on such lines as would have been helpful, stimulated interest in our national position, and enabled us to carry more easily

  465
  both the burdens we already know we have to carry, and those which I do not doubt the future has in store for us.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.—Class II.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £74,671, 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 certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions." [NOTE.—£70,000 has been voted on account.]

  BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.—Class II.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 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 meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914." [NOTE.—£5 has been voted on account.]

  LABOUR EXCHANGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.—Class VII.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £734,430, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries of the Staff and other Expenses of Labour Exchanges, including the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911." [NOTE.—£300,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to call attention to Item (I)—"Repayment to associations (1 and 2 George V. Cap. 55, Section 106), £100,000"—which shows an increase of £30,000 over last year. The Statute referred to is the Unemployment Insurance Act, and gives power to the Government to make, under very stringent conditions, certain grants to societies for the purpose of unemployment charges. In many instances these societies are trade unions; in
  466
  others they are not. The conditions require certain payments from the members themselves. The Sub-section is as follows:—
  The Board of Trade may with the consent of the Treasury and on such conditions and either annually or at such other intervals as the Board may prescribe repay out of monies provided by Parliament to any association of persons not trading for profit, the rules of which provide for payments to persons whilst unemployed, whether workmen insured or not, such part (in no case exceeding one-sixth) as they think fit, of the aggregate amount which the association has expended on such payments during the preceding year or other prescribed period exclusive of the sum (if any) repaid to the association in respect of such period in pursuance of an arrangement under the last foregoing section and exclusive in the case of payments which exceed 12s. a week of so much of those payments as exceed that sum.
  There are other conditions with which I need not trouble the Committee; the important point is the "not exceeding one-sixth" provision. The facts are, I understand, that quite outside these two sums of £70,000 last year and the estimate of £100,000 this year a sum of between £50,000 and £120,000 has been paid by the Government since last August to societies of that kind. I understand that over £50,000 was paid to trade unions in connection with the cotton industry in Lancashire alone. The details of the other payments we have never had, and I do not know to whom the remainder of the £120,000 has been paid. I submit with some confidence that these are absolutely illegal payments, and that the Treasury in acting as they have done have acted absolutely ultra vires. I feel that I am taking the hon. Member (Captain Pretyman) personally, to a certain extent, at an unfair advantage, but I am addressing him merely as representing the Board.
  The matter is not a new one. The Estimate for £90,000, which was explained as being for £120,000, less £30,000 which they had made by way of profit in connection with Labour Exchanges. That Estimate was brought in in a way which I and other Members criticised very strongly at the time. It was pressed upon the House, but after a very heated Debate it could not be got through, and it was withdrawn for that evening. The reappearance of that Estimate was closely watched. It was on the Paper once or

  467
  twice, but some of us were generally ready to discuss it, and the result was that the matter never came on at all. That is not the way the House of Commons ought to be treated. Whether our criticisms were right or wrong, the matter ought not to be dealt with in that way. If a Supplementary Estimate was considered necessary, why was it withdrawn? I have heard privately that the money has been paid in some way under the powers of emergency legislation, and that that Supplementary Estimate has simply been allowed to be buried without a word of notice to this House. The money has not been accounted for here at all. We are now asked to pass another £100,000 for the same purpose. It is not an increase of £30,000 at all, because not only was a sum of £70,000 taken last year, but the amount I have mentioned, between £50,000 and £120,000, has been spent in addition. Has it or has it not been spent? If it has been spent, it is not fair to put an Estimate forward in this way. I am not debating so much the desirability or the necessity of the Estimate. It may be perfectly proper or perfectly improper. What I complain of is that an Estimate should appear here for the same object as that Supplementary Estimate which has never been passed by this House at all. I submit that we have knowledge that a very much larger sum has been spent, and that the matter ought to have been brought before the House in the proper way.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I can assure the hon. and learned Member opposite that nobody was more sorry than I that events kept me away on the occasion when the Debate to which he referred took place. If Members of the party with which I am associated had been present a different complexion might have been put upon the matter. I am not quite sure what his complaint really is—whether it is that action was taken to enable the trade unions to meet the unparalleled difficulties they had to face, or whether it is purely in regard to the form in which the matter is dealt with.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: My complaint is that a sum of between £50,000 and £120,000 has been spent without appearing on these Estimates at all.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: I have some little experience in connection with a union of nearly 150,000 members. A considerable number of my members were
  468
  thrown out of work when war broke out. As a matter of fact, the number of people unemployed doubled each week for four weeks. Obviously, if that had gone on for any considerable period, there is not a trade union in the country but would have been bankrupt. Their rules are drafted to deal with industrial difficulties, and the war is not an industrial difficulty. The unions were necessarily bound to meet their obligations and to pay their members who were thrown out of employment, not because of any slackness of trade, but because the result of the War with regard to industry had been such that it had thrown everything out of gear.
  8.0 P.M.
  At any rate, so far as I am concerned, I would have no fault to find with what has been done. I compliment the Government on having done it. I would further say this: that the conditions under which this money has been spent were drafted with a very keen regard to the Government's money. Those conditions were that before any of this money could be paid to members of the unions, they themselves must pay a weekly levy to show that the matter was serious and urgent. The result of that was, of course, that many unions were very badly hit. Some even were not in a position, from the poverty of their members not being able to pay a levy by being thrown out of work, to take advantage of the money, and owing to the stringent conditions laid down by the Board of Trade. I have no fault to find, but in my judgment the Board of Trade has taken scrupulous care indeed of the money of the country, and have seen, so far as they are concerned, that each side of the halfpenny was scrupulously examined.
  Captain PRETYMAN: I think there is a little confusion in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend about this. I quite understand his indignation if he thought that the money had been surreptitiously added, without the consent of the House, to a sum which had been already voted. That is not what has happened at all. This £100,000, or £70,000, in two successive years is a sum normally required, in varying amounts in peace time, to cover certain special expenses of associations which are concerned with unemployment insurance. The money to which he refers, £80,000, and as to which he has raised a question, is not money in the same category at all. It is not a normal sum. It is not on the same Vote at all. It is a

  469
  special Grant given to certain bodies referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow to meet special distress in certain cases caused by the War. It was brought forward, not as an ordinary Vote, but as an Emergency Vote of Credit. I was not present in the House, but I understand—and I think if my hon. and learned Friend looks up the Debates he will find—that the matter was debated, and, in that Debate, the hon. Baronet for the City of London took part, expressing his satisfaction with the Vote. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend did not question the object of the Vote at all, but only its form. I have no doubt he is quite in agreement that part, or one of our objects, during War time has been to avoid distress. This was simply a question of War relief. Of the normal expense of the associations referred to a maximum of one-sixth was given by the State, really a War relief grant for special purposes. I believe it was particularly for those engaged in the cotton and furnishing trades, which at that particular moment were very hard hit by the War. I think I am correct in saying, and that my hon. and learned Friend will find out that I am correct, that the two things are not on a par at all. The form has been as duly observed in the case of the Emergency Vote of Credit as it was in the normal Vote to which he has referred.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his explanation, but I would like to point out to him that he has been absolutely misinformed, and I am sorry to say it. The matter was not brought up as an Emergency Vote of Credit at all; it was a Supplementary Vote which was brought up.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not intervene before because the hon. and learned Gentleman was using the term Supplementary Estimates to back up his question as to whether or not this Estimate was correct; and, of course, he was entitled to do so. But he has now started to go back upon the question pure and simple as to whether such an Estimate was presented and withdrawn or otherwise. He has been told that there is no such element in the present Vote. It is only the present Vote we are now discussing.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I was endeavouring to point out to my hon. Friend in charge that there was a Supplementary Estimate; that it was not an Emergency Vote of Credit. Of course, it is a separate
  470
  thing. There was an ordinary Supplementary Estimate of the ordinary type, not for anything different, but exactly for the same purpose and, indeed, proposing in the exact words a Supplementary Estimate and exactly for this purpose. It was not an Emergency Vote of Credit at all. I am going to read the words from the OFFICIAL REPORT. The heading is: "Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance.—Class VII." That is the same Clause we are busy with now, and the same heading. It is the ordinary Supplementary Vote to this particular Vote. It goes on to say:—
  "Motion made and Question proposed,
  'That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £91,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1915, for the Salaries of the Staff and other Expenses of Labour Exchanges, including the contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and repayments to Associations, pursuant to Sections 86 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and certain additional repayments to Associations.'"—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 4th February, 1915, col. 188, Vol. LXIX.]
  I take it the Act referred to is the same as that to which we are referring now. It refers to the same Vote and the same Section. The Vote was in the ordinary form of Supplementary Estimates, which, I am sure, my hon. Friend has seen many hundred of times.
  Captain PRETYMAN: I do not think that was voted.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I say that it was discussed over all these pages of discussion. I am not in the least dealing with the object of it. There was a great divergency of opinion.
  Captain PRETYMAN: What date was that?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: February 4th, 1915. The matter was discussed at some length, and the final result was it was not voted. I moved to report Progress, but subsequently withdrew that Motion. Subsequently, however, a Motion to report Progress was agreed to by the Government, the representative of the Government agreeing to it for reasons given. From 4th February the matter has never been mentioned in the House again, and that is how it stands. From the point of view of the House of Commons, it is, I submit, a very serious matter that this fresh Vote comes up without any reference to that previous Estimate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that it is not a satisfactory way to put Estimates before the House. What I am objecting to is the form in which the present

  471
  Estimate is put before the House, without mentioning in any way the fact that that sum, which has never been voted by the House of Commons, has been spent for this particular purpose. As to what it was spent on I do not even know now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the whole purpose of the hon. and learned Gentleman is to go back on the question of the original Vote, which he is really not entitled to do under the present Vote.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What I am saying at the present time is that, before the Committee is asked to vote a Vote of £100,000, we ought to have absolutely clear details as to the amount which has been latterly spent upon this very purpose, the purpose I read out, and to whom the money has been paid during the past two years, or whatever the time may be.
  Captain PRETYMAN: I really cannot see that there is any great disagreement between us. I understand the difficulty we are in, and I will look into the matter afterwards. The matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to say, has rather taken me by surprise. I have been obliged to speak from information rather hastily obtained. If I had known the question was going to be raised, I could have spoken more positively. I understand what has happened is this: That at a subsequent date to 4th February, following the proceedings to which he had referred, the Supplementary Estimate was withdrawn by leave of the House, on the understanding that it would fall under the Vote of Credit. My reference to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London was perhaps a little beyond the mark in saying that he expressed approval of the Vote, but it was understood that he at any rate did not oppose. What I believe was thought by those who criticised the Vote was that it should be in a more proper form, and not be introduced as a Supplementary Estimate of the ordinary kind. It was really a relief Grant, and it was subsequently agreed—possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know that—that as a Vote of Credit to meet distress—not to be mixed up with the other at all—it should be regarded as an emergency Grant coming under the general Vote of Credit.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will look into it I shall be glad, and I will bring the matter again on Report.
  Captain PRETYMAN: I will look into it.
  Mr. HODGE: Unfortunately, I have been engaged in a business of national importance, and I am not quite sure as to the Vote we are at present discussing, but I understand that it is with respect to unemployment insurance, and that this is one of the items that comes under this Vote. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the necessities, so far as administration is concerned, is the facilities for registration for those who are in receipt of that benefit at the Labour Exchanges. It is very essential to prevent malingerers, or people seeking to defraud the fund, that there should be as perfect a system of registration as possible. I understand that within the last week there has been a proposal to close one of the exchanges where that registration can be done. That is the sub-office of Morriston. It will be a very grievous thing, so far as my own society is concerned, if that takes place. I believe it to be a most important sub-station and I hope that before it is closed proper investigation will be made.
  Captain PRETYMAN: I will look into that.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I ask a question on a subject which was raised in the House of Commons yesterday as to insuring houses against attack by Zeppelins?
  The CHAIRMAN: That would be out of order. This is a Vote dealing with Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  HARBOURS UNDER THE BOARD OF TRADE.—Class I.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,087, 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 maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade, and for Grants in Aid of Harbours."—[NOTE.—£11,000 has been voted on account.]

  INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.—Class VI.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the

  473
  year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in connection with International Exhibitions." [NOTE.—£2,000 has been voted on account."]
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  ZEPPELIN RAIDS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I now ask the question which was out of order a moment ago? It is this: A question was raised in the House yesterday as to compensation to people whose houses have been injured by air raids and so forth. The Prime Minister stated that there was under discussion a scheme of insurance for house owners against such possible injury. I should like to ask when it is likely that that scheme will be made known, and, secondly, what Department is being entrusted with the subject, so that we may know to what Department we may put
  474
  questions in regard to it? That is a matter that has been pressing for the last three of four months, and great inconvenience is caused to householders, who, of course, do not intend to insure if the Government is going to insure them for nothing, or bring out a scheme somewhat cheaper than insurance outside.
  The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Gulland): I am sorry neither my hon. Friend nor I can answer the question. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put a question on the Paper for Monday or Tuesday.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes after Eight o'clock till Monday next (14th June), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  The following Petition was presented, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  WEDNESDAY.
  East India (Cultivation of Waste Lands)—Petition of G. K. Harkáre, in favour.
WAR.
  AUTHORISED RECRUITS.
  AUTHORISED RECRUITS.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (ADMINISTRATION).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (ADMINISTRATION).
  WAR ESTABLISHMENT.
  WAR ESTABLISHMENT.
  FLEET SURGEONS.
  FLEET SURGEONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  ENEMY PROPERTY.
  ENEMY PROPERTY.
  MEAT PRICES.
  MEAT PRICES.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  Army Manœuvres, Ireland (Injury to Boy).
  Army Manœuvres, Ireland (Injury to Boy).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Dill Committee.
  Dill Committee.
  National School Buildings (Ireland).
  National School Buildings (Ireland).
  Public Trustee Act.
  Public Trustee Act.
  Live Stock Supplies.
  Live Stock Supplies.
  East Preston Union (Medical Relief).
  East Preston Union (Medical Relief).
  Cotton Yarn Exports.
  Cotton Yarn Exports.
  Bee Disease.
  Bee Disease.

BARONIES OF FERRERS, BOURCHIER AND COMPTON.
Petition of Charles Vere Townshend Mainwaring-Ellerker-Onslow that he may be permitted to withdraw the case, propositions and pedigree already lodged by him, and to lodge in lieu thereof a revised print of such case, propositions and pedigree; read, and ordered as prayed.
THE EARL LOREBURN acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The KING 'S consent and the consent of the PRINCE of WALES signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
House adjourned tilt To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.