Sitting of 17 June 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas Bill [Lords],
Altrincham Gas Bill [Lords],
Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (GERMANY).
Sir JOHN SPEAR: I ask leave to present to the House the humble and numerously signed Petition from the inhabitants of the parish of Whitchurch, Devon, praying that further steps may be taken to obtain the systematic inspection of concentration camps and military prisons in Germany, with a view to securing the humane treatment of British prisoners of War.
BERMUDA WAR CONTRIBUTION.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 1st June, 1915, showing the manner in which instalments of the Bermuda War Contribution will be applied [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
Copy presented of Fortieth Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, 1914–15 (with Appendices) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 267.]

NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1913–14).
Annual Accounts presented for 1913–14 of Shipbuilding and Dockyard Transactions,

767
etc., and Dockyard Manufacturers, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of February, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS.
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of St. Andrews for the year 1913–14 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 269.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    WOOD AND WOOD-FIBRE.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the Germans are using wood-fibre in the manufacture of a species of gun-cotton; and, if so, if it is his intention to place wood and wood-fibre in the list of absolute contraband?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Such information as has been received on the subject is now under consideration.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information of a definite character, and is anything likely to be done?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would rather not go into the matter in further detail at the present moment. The matter is under consideration, and as soon as any conclusion has been arrived at, I shall be glad to answer any further questions.

  MUNITIONS.

    CONTROL OF FACTORIES (EMPLOYERS' PROFITS).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Minister of Munitions whether, with a view to securing the highest efficiency of labour in the output of munitions of war at the lowest possible cost to the nation, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to provide that during the continuance of the War no owner of, or shareholder in, a factory producing munitions of war shall receive profits exceeding the average net profits earned by that factory during the three years immediately preceding the outbreak of War?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions (1) what are the powers he possesses to enable him to deal with employers and employés in case of trade disputes connected with the production of munitions and equipment of war; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the Government has control of all factories at the present time in respect of the manufacture of war material, he has any power to limit the employers' profits and to ensure the voluntary and permanent provision of labour in those districts where it is most needed?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I hope next week to be able to make a statement on these subjects.

    CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CONTRACTS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Minister of Munitions whether Canadian manufacturers of munitions are required to deal with the Imperial Government through the agency of Messrs. Morgan, of New York; whether any Canadian firm able and willing to supply large quantities of munitions direct to His Majesty's Government has refused to transact business through an agency in the United States; and whether he intends to adhere to a condition which is resented by manufacturers of British nationality, and unnecessarily hampers and limits the supply of munitions of war?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is that Messrs. Morgan's agency extends only to orders executed in the United States. Orders for the manufacture of certain classes of munitions in Canada are placed through the Shell Committee, an organisation of Canadian manufacturers set up for the purpose by the Dominion

    769
    Government. The second part of the question appears to refer to a proposal made by a Canadian manufacturer, whose firm is supplying munitions under orders from the Shell Committee, to organise a group of American firms for the production of shells in the United States. The manufacturer declined to negotiate through Messrs. Morgan, and in view of the risk of interference with contracts already placed the War Office considered that it would be unwise to adopt his scheme except with Messrs. Morgan's co-operation. I see no reason for dissenting from that view I may say I am arranging to send a big business man over to the United States to discuss the whole position of American and Canadian contracts on the spot.

    CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL RESOURCES.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Minister of Munitions if he will appoint a small advisory body consisting of the most eminent scientists obtainable to advise the Government during the continuance of the War as to the fullest employment of all the resources of chemical and mechanical science and invention in aid of military operations?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am fully aware of the importance of this matter and I have been in communication with the Secretary of State for War on the subject.

    LOCAL MUNITIONS COMMITTEES.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Minister for Munitions what are the powers of local munitions committees?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The primary business of local munitions committees is to examine and organise the resources of the locality for the output of munitions of war. The work of the committees naturally varies according to the special circumstances of each district.
    Sir R. COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the explicit powers which these committees will have in view of the fact that manufacturers upon whom he is depending for immediate co-operation are under very grave anxiety as to how far they are going to be under the thumb and the power of these local committees?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must say that that anxiety has not reached me, and I do not think the War Office or the Admiralty have heard anything of it. On the contrary, from all I hear, manufacturers are very glad to co-operate.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-day, in Leeds, one manufacturer for this very reason has put up his machinery at public auction, which otherwise he was going to use for the manufacture of shells, for which he has been trying to get a contract with the War Office since the middle of April last?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the name I will either take steps to buy the machinery, of which we are sadly in need, or utilise his services.

    SKILLED MECHANICS (DISCHARGE FROM ARMY).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state the number of applications which the War Office and his Department have received for the discharge from the Army of skilled mechanics who have enlisted, and whose services are now required by employers engaged on War Office work; the number of cases in which discharges have been granted; and whether there is delay and difficulty owing to the reluctance of the War Office to grant discharges?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the precise figures asked for are not available. A systematic scheme for dealing with this important matter is being arranged in consultation with the Secretary of State for War in order to ascertain from employers the names of men who have left them and, if possible, the units they joined. That will enable us to trace the actual men who are available.
    Mr. TERRELL: Has any definite basis now been settled upon which men can be discharged from the Army to resume their civil employment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have arranged with the Secretary of State for War to get back all those who are in this country whose services can be utilised for the purpose of turning out munitions of war from the ranks to the workshops.
    Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the War Office has informed Members of Parliament only a few days ago that a soldier who wanted to get his discharge to go back to his former work should apply to the firm which employed him before he enlisted in the Army? Are we to understand that that is not now to be adhered to?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am rather surprised to hear that, and I think there must be some mistake about it, because that is not the arrangement I made with the Secretary of State last week.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will some very simple form of procedure be adopted in regard to obtaining the discharge of men? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of difficulty and delay and inconvenience?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The difficulty and inconvenience is due very largely to the difficulty in finding the men. Steps have been taken through the AdjutantGeneral to find out the skilled men who joined the ranks, but it is almost impossible to get at them. A good many men who were not skilled gave their names, and then it was found that they were not engineers at all. Now we have proceeded the other way. We have circularised all firms with a view to getting the names of the men they want back. These names are now coming in every day. We have already had thousands. We are going to classify them and take steps upon that basis to get the actual men whose assistance the firms want.

    FOREIGN SUPPLIES.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions what system or systems are at present in force in connection with the acquisition of munitions and equipment of war from centres outside Great Britain and Ireland; and whether he will have complete powers in respect of placing contracts, arranging prices, and inspection as to quality before shipment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the United States, the Government agents are Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company. As regards Canada, orders for the manufacture of certain classes of munitions are placed through the Shell Committee, an organisation of Canadian manufacturers set up for the purpose by the Dominion Government. As regards other sources of supply, these will be dealt with as occasion arises at the discretion of the Minister of Munitions, who will have full powers in regard to all the matters mentioned in the question.

    GAOL POPULATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government proposes to employ the gaol population of the country
    772
    in making ammunition for the troops, as has been done by the Government of the French Republic?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): The answer is in the negative. All the available prison labour has been concentrated since the War began in making other war stores for the Government.

    MECHANICS FROM CANADA.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps are being taken by the Labour Exchanges to obtain for War Office work skilled mechanics of British nationality from the United States of America and from the British Colonies; and if he can state the number of men, if any, who have been obtained and the terms which are being offered?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Board of Trade have sent to Canada a mission, of whom the principal members are Mr. W. Windham and Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P., for the purpose of finding unemployed skilled mechanics in Canada and bringing them over to the United Kingdom for employment here, so far as this can be done without interference with Government contracts in Canada. The mission is only at the beginning of its work, and no men have as yet been brought over. The reports so far received indicate, however, that the mission is likely to meet with considerable success. Workmen brought over from Canada will come on the understanding that they are prepared to accept the rates of wages obtained by British workmen upon similar work, including any customary War bonuses or other allowances. Fares will be paid. No steps have been taken by this Department to obtain workmen from other British Dominions, or from the United States of America.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Would it not be well, in view of the shortage of labour and the great number of skilled mechanics of British nationality in the United States, to induce those mechanics to come over and help in our factories at this crisis?
    Sir J. WALTON: Will my right hon. Friend institute a similar mission in England to seek to bring into the ranks thousands of chauffeurs who are not being—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making up for lost time.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the Department making any effort to secure the help of the Belgian refugees who are skilled mechanics?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; we have already placed in Government works a very large number of Belgian refugees. Some of the best Belgian engineers have placed their services at our disposal, and they are now employed on munitions of war. Our shortage in engineers and mechanics has been made well known in the United States, and I do not think it is necessary to send a mission there; in fact, I am not sure whether it would be welcomed by the authorities.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of vacancies for skilled mechanics required for War Office work which are daily notified to the Labour Exchanges in the Metropolitan area; at what daily rate such vacancies are being filled; and how he proposes to supply the deficiency?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the four weeks ended 11th June the average daily number of vacancies for skilled mechanics for Government work notified to Labour Exchanges in the Metropolitan area was 129, and the average daily number of such vacancies filled was 81. The problem of supplying the deficiency is receiving the careful attention of the Government. It is necessary that I should say that public detailed inquiries into the supply of labour for War Office work are to be strongly deprecated.
    Mr. TERRELL: Has it not been the fact that the Labour Exchanges have been very little used by employers?
    Mr. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state by whose authority the rules—endorsed on Form L.E. 302—relative to advertisements for workmen have been issued; whether they constitute part of the Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether it is proposed to compel all employers who are seeking workmen to have recourse to the Labour Exchanges?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The procedure of which the rules referred to form a part was introduced by the Board of Trade in order to enable employers affected by the Order in Council of 29th April to continue to advertise for labour in the Press, if
    774
    they desired to do so, without infringing the Order. The Order, the objects of which have already been fully explained and are intended to apply only to the period of the War, prohibits certain classes of employers from seeking to obtain workmen from a distance of more than 10 miles otherwise than through a Labour Exchange.
    Mr. TERRELL: Do not the Regulations prohibit employers advertising in their own name, and compel them to put the name of the Labour Exchange for the purpose of their advertisement?

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (IRISH PRISONERS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will give the House the latest information regarding the health and treatment of the political prisoners now in Irish prisons?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Neither the health nor the treatment of any prisoners now in custody on conviction of offences under the Defence of the Realm Acts present any special features which would be of interest to the House.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how Mr. Macdermott, a delicate man, is faring under his heavy sentence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I can only say that the greatest possible care and attention is being paid to him.

    CORK COUNTY COUNCIL (LABOURERS' WAGES).
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland, having had under their consideration the resolution of the Cork County Council, passed on the 25th March last, increasing the wages of labourers employed by the council under direct labour by 3s. a week and in the case of horse owners by 2s. per day in consequence of the increased cost of living resulting from the War, have intimated to the council that they must be prepared to satisfy the auditor that the increase was fair and proper;

    775
    whether this communication has prevented the council from acting on their resolution, the members being apprehensive of being surcharged; whether there is any objection to the increase of wages proposed by the council assuming it to be granted bonâ fide on the grounds specified, namely, because of the cost of living; and whether, if not, the Local Government Board will make it clear to the council that the resolution which they have passed is within their powers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board, on the 21st April last, informed the Cork County Council in reply to the resolution referred to in the question that the Board in existing circumstances would not interfere with the discretion of the County Council in the matter of granting a reasonable increase of wages to men employed under direct labour schemes in the county, but that should any question be raised at audit the council should be prepared to satisfy the auditor that the actual increase of wages granted in any case was fair and reasonable having regard to the conditions affecting employment in the county. The council appear to be doubtful whether even with the Board's sanction they can legally give an increase of wages under a direct labour scheme during the time it is in force, and it is more probable this advice that deters the council from acting on their original resolution to increase wages. The Board have been advised in a similar case that if the rural district councils agree to pass the necessary supplemental proposals to meet any expenditure in addition to that already authorised under the direct labour scheme caused by the increase of wages, the county council may pay additional wages to their workmen. The Board have so informed the county council, and it is for that body to decide whether they will act on the advice given. The Board are precluded from interfering in any way with the auditor in determining at audit the legality or otherwise of payments made by the council unless and until an appeal is lodged with them against any allowance or surcharge made by that officer. Such appeal, however, may be made by persons aggrieved to the Court of King's Bench in lieu of to the Board.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that an intimation by the Local Government Board to the members of the county council that
    776
    they would have to justify their action before the auditor was highly calculated to deter them from adhering to their original resolution?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think it was for one moment suggested that it would be called to account by the auditor. There is a general impression in Ireland that the Local Government Board can control its auditor. That it cannot do. Therefore it is essential it should be understood that although the Board might be quite willing that a thing should be done it might be called in question by the auditor.

    RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether retired naval officers in the employment of the Civil Service who have resumed active service since the outbreak of War are in some cases worse off in resuming active service, by reason of a decision of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury that naval pensions must be disregarded in calculating civil pay?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I do not think that the situation is as stated by the hon. and gallant Member, but it is not possible to reply more definitely without knowing details of the cases referred to.

  RECRUITING.

    PREJUDICIAL STATEMENT.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Attorney-General if he will state the number of persons in the United Kingdom who have been prosecuted for making statements calculated to prejudice recruiting; the number of such prosecutions having relation to written and to oral statements, respectively; and the number of convictions?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): In the Metropolis no criminal proceedings have been instituted for the making of statements calculated to prejudice recruiting. Official representations have from time to time been successful in staying the publication of matters which might be construed as a direct statement likely to prejudice recruiting. I have no present information as to the number or

    777
    results of cases which may have been heard in England outside the Metropolis, but if the hon. Member desires the information I will do my best to obtain it.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to say whether the representations which have been made have included any representation to Lord Northcliffe?
    Sir E. CARSON: I cannot say.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the privilege of Parliament protect a Member in making such statements?
    Sir E. CARSON: I never heard that that was alleged.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Sir CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has formed any estimate of the amount of agricultural labour which has been lost through recruiting; and if any estimate has been formed of the additional imports of food that will be required because of the loss of that labour?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I understand that returns received by the Board of Trade from over 9,000 farmers in Great Britain relating to the end of April show that 15.7 per cent. of their permanent male workpeople (including members of farmers' families) have joined His Majesty's Forces, while an additional 1.9 per cent. have taken civilian employment under the Government at camps and in similar work. This represents the withdrawal of about 150,000 men from agricultural employment (exclusive of farmers, nurserymen, etc., and all classes engaged in agriculture in Ireland). No estimate can be given of the probable yield of this year's harvest, but such information as has been received from farmers indicates that the area under cultivation is practically normal, and that the farmers have been enabled to achieve this largely by the concentration of such labour as was available on essential work.
    Sir CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the desirability of reducing imports during the War as much as possible, he has noticed that the large recruiting of agricultural labourers will lead to a reduction of agricultural production and therefore to increase importations of food; and
    778
    if he will direct the attention of the War Office to the subject in order that the financial position may not be worsened by unnecessary enlistment of essential producers?
    Mr. ACLAND: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 10th June to the hon. Member for Perth, to which I have nothing to add at the moment.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES (LUNATIC ASYLUMS).
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked whether there is any public fund available to pay for the maintenance of Belgian refugees who have had to be sent to county lunatic asylums in this country, so that the local rates may not be burdened with this national charge?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The Local Government Board have the authority of the Treasury to pay for the treatment of refugees in lunatic asylums, and in a certain number of cases have already agreed to make payments of this character.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Will payments which have already been made by the local authority be refunded by the Local Government Board?
    Mr. LONG: Certainly.

    FIRE (PARK ROYAL).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the loss by fire at Park Royal and the number of motor ambulances and cars destroyed; whether he has any information as to other munitions and equipment for war having been destroyed by fire; whether he has any information as to alien enemies having been responsible for these outbreaks; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the safety of all munitions and equipment over which he has now responsibility?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that no War Office motor ambulances or cars were destroyed, but a number of horse ambulances and Red Cross motor ambulance bodies were burnt. Inquiry has been made as to the cause of the fire, and the police are satisfied from the evidence available that it was purely accidental.

    BRENTWOOD HOUSE ASYLUM.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that three mechanics in the service of the house committee of the Brentwood House Asylum, Essex County Council, having with the permission of the medical superintendent temporarily transferred their services to a local munition factory, were informed by resolution of the works committee that they can serve their country just as well here, and if they decide to stay where they are their places cannot be kept open for them; whether a fourth mechanic was refused permission; whether these men, having served for many years, will, if discharged, lose the benefits to which they are entitled under a superannuation scale; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent local authorities from defeating his efforts to produce munitions and to protect volunteers for this work against being penalised?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    FOOD ADULTERATION AND SHORT WEIGHT.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether, concurrent with the increase in food prices, there has been an increase in the practice of food adulteration and short weight; whether a number of the inspectors have recently been diverted to other duties; and whether he will consider the possibility of imposing heavier penalties, including imprisonment, to protect the public against fraud?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no information pointing in this direction. The enforcement of the Food and Drugs Acts and the Weights and Measures Acts is a matter for the local authorities.

    "WAR BABIES' AND MOTHERS' LEAGUE" (POLICE WARNING).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an advertised meeting of the so-called "War Babies' and Mothers' League"; whether the ladies who attended received a printed slip stating the meeting had been postponed; whether the Metropolitan Police have warned the public against subscribing to this charity; and whether he will take steps to protect
    780
    philanthropic ladies from the temptation to benefit war babies which, as far as this league is concerned, appear to be mainly apocryphal?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the facts are as stated in the question. A police notice has been issued warning the public against subscribing to this so-called league. I hope that the police warning will make philanthropic persons more careful in selecting the societies or leagues which they support.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Mr. NIELDasked (1) whether licences to trade with the enemy are limited in number or in area, or whether either factor enters into consideration; are such licences limited to a particular transaction or to a specified tonnage or monetary value; how many of such licences have been issued to persons carrying on business in London and how many to traders in the principal ports on the East Coast of the United Kingdom, specifying the numbers in respect of each of such places; have any of these licences been granted to alien enemies; and (2) if he will state how many licences to trade with the enemy have been granted since the commencement of the War, and in accordance with what principles, if any, and under what conditions are the licences issued; if any special form of application is requisite, to what end are such inquiries directed; and are any, and what, steps taken to test the accuracy of the answers given?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am glad to have the opportunity of clearing up the serious misapprehension which seems to be involved in such questions. Trading with the enemy is a most serious criminal offence, whether it takes the form of exporting goods to or importing them from the enemy, directly or indirectly. Special Statutes and Proclamations have been framed to stop it, and every effort is made to detect breaches of the law and to punish those who can be proved to be guilty. No system of granting licences in exception to the law exists. The only exception known to me arises in the rare cases when articles of enemy origin, which could not for the time being be otherwise obtained and which are of great importance to British industries, are under strict conditions permitted to be imported. Licences for this purpose are now dealt with by the Board of Trade.

    GERMAN UNDERWRITERS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether his Department received a communication in the latter part of May from the committee of Lloyd's with reference to three persons of German nationality, one of whom is a partner in a firm of underwriters' representatives, the others being employed by the same firm; is he aware that ever since the beginning of the War the committee of Lloyd's have prohibited these three men from coming to Lloyd's, and have notified the Home Office that, in their opinion, it is a national danger for them to be at liberty as, owing to their connection with the firm, they have access to intelligence with regard to English shipping and commercial matters which might be used to the disadvantage of this country; is he aware that the committee wrote a second time on the 7th June, as no reply was received to their original communication, and have had only a bare acknowledgment on a printed form; will he say whether these men are still at liberty; and whether, in view of the warning from the committee of Lloyd's and to avoid any possibility of public danger, any action has been or is proposed to be taken by the Government for the curtailment of their liberties at the present time?
    Sir J. SIMON: Both letters were received at the Home Office and were immediately sent to the police to be dealt with. I understand that directions have been given for the internment of the three persons referred to by the hon. Member.

    CHANGES OF FOREIGN SURNAME.
    Mr. FELLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the frequent cases of change of name by foreigners who in place of their own name assume an English one either in private life or for their business firm, and are enabled thereby to commit frauds on the public in this country; and if he will bring in a Bill to compel such foreigners who desire to assume an English name to continue to use for ten years their foreign name in addition to the name they assume?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent.
    Mr. FELL: Is it not the case that these changes, when they take place, are for the purpose of deceiving the British public, and cannot more prompt steps be taken?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think it is true in all cases that people changed their names to deceive the British public. There is a law strictly enforced that no alien enemy can change his name during the War.

    SUPPRESSION OF NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the general amnesty granted to all political offenders by all the Allied Powers on entering into the War and the entire absence of evil consequences anywhere, it is with the sanction of the present Government a contrary policy is pursued in Ireland, newspapers being suppressed without trial and men being sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with hard labour for the peaceful expression of their opinions on public matters; and whether, in view of the contrast between this policy and the professed principles of the present Government, the prudence of persisting in it at the present time will be reconsidered?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am unable to follow the hon. Member in the analogy of circumstances and contrast of treatment which he draws in the first part of his question. The offences in regard to which action has been taken in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Acts have all been committed since the outbreak of the War, and, as I have already stated, such action has been, and will continue to be, confined within the narrowest limits consistent with the safety of the Realm and the successful prosecution of the War.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the announcement just made by the Attorney-General that nobody has been punished in the Metropolitan area for statements prejudicial to recruiting, whilst they are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with hard labour in Ireland for the same offence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know anything about the same offence, but I know that no corresponding language has been used in the Metropolitan area.

    FLEET'S READINESS FOR WAR.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the statement made at Dundee by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he will say if in 1911 he laid on him the duty of putting the fleet in a state of instant and constant readiness for war with Germany; and, if so, will he say how that fact can be reconciled with the statements of himself and other Members of the Government that they neither expected war nor did anything to bring it about?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It is the duty of every First Lord of the Admiralty to maintain the Fleet at all times in a state of instant and constant readiness for use, and the fact that that duty is being properly performed does not indicate any expectation of, and still less any desire for, war.

    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister what had been the total losses of the Royal Naval Division in killed, wounded, and missing until the end of May?
    The PRIME MINISTERgave the following information:—

    Officers

    50

    Killed.

    85

    Wounded.

    49

    Missing (including 41 interned).

    Total

    184

    Men

    483

    Killed.

    1,862

    Wounded.

    2,512

    Missing (including 1,444 interned).

    Total

    4,812

    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the publication of future naval lists, the Government will separate the list of the Royal Navy from those of the ordinary naval lists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will inquire about that.

    EX-MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AS SPY.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by an ex-Member of the House to the effect that he had been acting as a German spy in this country; and whether, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the statements, he will introduce legislation making it impossible in future for a person of such alien antecedents to become a candidate for Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter which must be left to the discrimination of the electors.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of preventing recently naturalised aliens, especially alien enemies, from becoming Members of this House?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this gentleman was allowed to escape after the Government had been warned that he was a spy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: How can I answer that?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Whips Office to prevent them foisting such people on the constituencies?

    WELSH CHURCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to proceed with the Welsh Church Suspensory Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This Bill will be introduced at an early date.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May we hope that the date will be in the near future before the House adjourns?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said I cannot name a date.

    WAR STOCK (COMPULSORY INVESTMENT.)
    Colonel WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with the triple objects of raising money for war

    785
    loans, promoting thrift and checking extravagance and drunkenness, and preventing distress after the termination of hostilities, he will consider the possibility of a system of compulsory investment in War Stock of a small proportion of salaries, wages, and separation allowances, under which the holders would draw interest on their holdings during the War and the capital be at their disposal to tide over any slackness of employment after the declaration of peace?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am giving careful attention to various suggestions of the kind made in the question, along with other suggestions for securing that future war loans shall act as an encouragement to saving by all classes of the community. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing to my notice the considerations raised by the particular proposal, but he will agree with me that they are not of a nature which can be adequately dealt with in a reply to a Parliamentary question.

    BARYTA, LIMITED.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the firm called Baryta, Limited, made any reply to the request of the Treasury that the recent advertisement inviting subscriptions to an issue of debentures should be withdrawn; whether subscriptions are still being invited; whether any penalty attaches to a person or firm disregarding the Order in Council and seeking fresh issues of capital without the Treasury sanction; and what are the means at the disposal of the Treasury for enforcing the Order?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, I have not the necessary information. In reply to the third and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division on 18th May.

    TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an opportunity is given to a person convicted by court-martial of making any representation to the confirming authority with
    786
    regard to his sentence or to any question of law or fact arising at his trial; whether regulations are issued by the Army Council with respect to the discharge by the confirming authority of his duties; and, if so, whether he will lay those regulations upon the Table?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): A soldier who is tried by court-martial has every opportunity of raising in his defence any question of law or fact at his trial, and if the trial results in a conviction the soldier has the right of complaint under Section 43 of the Army Act. The regulations as to the duties of a confirming officer are contained in the Rules of Procedure, 1907, which have already been laid before Parliament under the Statutory Rules Act, and are to be found in the Manual of Military Law.

    INDIAN PRISONERS (ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for War if he could give the House any information regarding the manner in which Indian soldier prisoners are treated by the Germans, where they are imprisoned, and whether he has any official information to the effect that no quarter is given to Indian soldiers on the battlefield?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to my predecessor's speech in another place on the 15th May last and the information contained in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 7861, No. 2, Enclosure 2 (5). The question of obtaining improvements in the treatment of Indian prisoners of war in Germany is now under consideration in consultation with the Prisoners of War Help Committee. I have no information as regards the second part of the question.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been alleged and published in India and that it has caused considerable feeling there?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen statements to that effect, but I have no information that is really trustworthy and I doubt the accuracy of those statements.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of a case where, on a trench

    787
    being taken by an Indian regiment, they found two Sepoys hanging from a tree in a German trench?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not heard of that particular case. Of course we have all heard of cases of reported outrageous treatment of our fellow subjects, both natives of this country and natives of India. I have no information that a distinction is being made to the disadvantage of Indian prisoners.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Sir CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, with reference to the actuaries' estimates contained in the White Paper, Navy and Army allowances and pensions in respect of seamen, marines, and soldiers and their wives, widows, and dependants (Cd. 7662), of November last, if he will state, in view of the increased allowances arranged since that estimate and the proportion of casualties already suffered in the War, what are the total liabilities of the State in respect of pensions for widows and orphans which have already arisen from the large recruiting of married men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am afraid that I can only repeat what I said in answer to a similar question put by the hon. Member yesterday.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in order to prevent frauds, he will issue orders to all Army pay offices that, in the event of a soldier being discharged from the Army, instructions should be at once sent to the local postmaster to cease payment of separation allowances?
    Mr. FORSTER: These instructions are in force.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are not carried out.

    ALLIES (TERRITORY IN GERMAN OCCUPATION).
    Colonel WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to educating the nation to the
    788
    magnitude of the European campaign, he will have posters issued of maps of the sphere of operations, showing by shaded lines the extent of the French, Belgian, and Russian territories now occupied by the German armies?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the work of education to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes, and of which I recognise the importance, is already being efficiently performed by the daily Press. Information on this point conveyed by poster could hardly be kept up to date unless new posters were frequently issued, and there would be some risk of misleading the public if the posters were not changed concurrently with the changes in the military situation.

    ENLISTMENT (REGULAR ARMY).
    Mr. GINNELLasked how many of the 7,000,000 men of military age and fitness estimated to have been in England and Wales at the time the War began had enlisted in the Regular Army down to the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. TENNANT: This is a request for the number of men recruited since the War began. As I have often stated, it is not considered desirable to give this information. If and when it becomes desirable to give it, the Government will give it on its own initiative.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will now state the ratio of the number of recruits to the total number of men of military age in each county of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland; and, if not, whether he will state what are the reasons of public policy which prevent the publication of the figures?
    Mr. TENNANT: I fear I cannot give this information. It is not considered desirable at the present time to disclose these figures. If it should become desirable to do so, the Government will disclose it on their own initiative, as I have stated in reply to an earlier question to-day.

    TRAVELLING FACILITIES (SOLDIERS ON FURLOUGH).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether free

    789
    travelling facilities are extended to soldiers visiting relatives on furlough before leaving for active service; and whether, seeing that this would be a boon to families of limited means, he will consider the possibility of organising a scheme in view of the Government control of railways?
    Mr. FORSTER: Free railway warrants are issued to all soldiers once prior to embarkation, or after serving three months, provided that they can be granted leave and that they have not already received the concession. Once a draft has been placed under orders to embark, it is not possible to grant leave, as the draft may have to start at any moment, but arrangements have been made for giving soldiers leave in anticipation of their being detailed for drafts, as far as the exigencies of the Service permit.

    HAY SUPPLIES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office, under the Emergency Act of 7th August, are seizing hay from collieries; whether, seeing that Section 6 of Order 53/5318, dated War Office, 12th April, states that there is a very large quantity of hay of all kinds in the country, he will say why small stocks of hay purchased for pit ponies are being seized; whether he is aware that many collieries on which many of His Majesty's services depend cannot be worked without ponies; and will he explain what are the business considerations that compel the War Office to seize hay in one district which, if the collieries are to work, must be got from other districts and carried on the railways, now greatly congested?
    Mr. TENNANT: What is wanted for shipment oversea is hard hay. Where collieries are concerned, the instructions are that hay in their possession should be inspected and bought, if suitable for war requirements, and that good hay of different class should be sold to the collieries at the same price as the hay bought from them. In other words, the transaction is in effect an exchange of hay not suitable for shipment for hay suitable for shipment, and, in the public interest, I venture to think the arrangement is necessary and proper.

    MESSING EXPENSES (PRIVATE SOLDIERS).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked what allowance per day in respect of messing expenses is made to private soldiers while at home on sick furlough?
    Mr. FORSTER: Unmarried men get a consolidated allowance of 2s. a day for board and lodging. Married men get a ration allowance of 1s. a day in addition to the separation allowance for the family, which goes on as before.

    MEDALS.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider issuing a medal at intervals of, say, six months as, under the present circumstances, many men have died who are entitled to a medal, and, incidentally, the issue of medals protects from unnecessary annoyance those young men who have been invalided out of the service?
    Mr. TENNANT: As is well known, medals are granted at His Majesty's pleasure in commemoration of arduous campaigns. At the present stage of hostilities their issue appears premature.

    INOCULATION.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that the objectors to inoculation in the 3/3rd Field Company of the 2nd London Division Royal Engineers, now at Hatfield Broad Oaks, were paraded on Saturday, 12th June, before the temporary major, who informed them that he had authority from the colonel of the Royal Engineers to state that inocuation was compulsory, and that they would all have to be done; whether the colonel had any authority for such a statement; and, if not, whether he will discourage attempts by Army officers thus to enforce compulsion on soldiers in violation both of their legal rights and the repeated declarations in Parliament of himself and of the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no information to confirm my hon. Friend's statement. If the facts are as stated, the officer commanding acted without authority in saying that inoculation against enteric fever is compulsory.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether soldiers who object to inoculation are being frequently paraded for medical inspection, whilst inoculated soldiers are not so frequently inspected; whether on these occasions the men are lectured and some times threatened to induce them to violate their convictions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of that.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a handbill, dated 22nd January, is still being circulated amongst soldiers containing the statements that inoculation has nothing to do with vivisection, and with proper care it has never been known to do a man harm; whether he is aware that both these statements are untrue, the second one being disproved by numerous cases of destroyed health, and some cases of death following inoculation; whether this circular will now be withdrawn; and whether, in future circulars intended to compel soldiers to be voluntarily inoculated against their convictions and desires, care will be taken to avoid misleading statements?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the circular to which my hon. Friend refers is that issued by the Research Defence Society, it had War Office sanction and authority, and no reason is seen for withdrawing such authority. Every case to which my hon. Friend, and those who sympathise with him in this matter have drawn attention, has been inquired into, and I am not aware of any case except one where death has been due to other than natural causes of one sort or another.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the circular referred to in the answer is not the one to which I refer?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me a copy of the circular to which he refers.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner Ernest John Gardner, No. 1761, who enlisted in the 2/6th London Field Artillery Brigade (Territorials) on 2nd October, 1914, and was in perfect health until 23rd December, was inoculated on that day, and within three hours fell ill; whether he is aware that for nearly six months, although
    792
    treated in several hospitals, he has continuously suffered from delirium, loss of memory, fever, neuritis, and weak heart; whether any cause of this illness other than inoculation is known; and seeing that on 8th June he was discharged from the Army, his discharge paper being marked conduct good, whether any and, if any, what compensation will be paid for the loss of health and capacity to earn a living due to his inoculation by the Army doctor?
    Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend wants me to obtain the facts of this case, I must ask him to postpone his question so that the allegations may be investigated. At present I have no information on the matter.

    WAR MATERIAL (INSPECTION).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that quantities of goods and materials manufactured for the War Office in Scotland and elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom are sent by rail to Woolwich for inspection by Government inspectors and returned again by rail to the district in which they are to be used and that cost and delay are thereby incurred; and whether he will arrange for the inspection of such goods and materials taking place in the localities where they are manufactured or where they are to be used?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; stores ordered throughout the United Kingdom on War Office contracts for the use of the Army at home and abroad are being inspected at the manufacturers' works when such procedure is possible and expedient. Otherwise they are sent to Woowich. Stores purchased locally in Scotland and other military commands for the use of the troops in the command are not sent to Woolwich for inspection and return.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether officers or men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Territorial Force, who have signed A. F. E. 624 A are liable to be transferred to combatant units; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the War Office to transfer officers and men originally enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps to the Artillery or Infantry without their further express consent?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; but the signing of the form is not compulsory, and, if it is signed, the consent of the officer or man will have been obtained. That is the purpose of the form.

    OFFICERS TRANSFERRED FROM INDIA (PAY).
    Mr. STEWARTasked whether general officers commanding divisions or brigades in India brought home to serve are entitled to receive compensation for the loss of Indian pay and for the expenses incurred in breaking up their establishments at a few days' notice?
    Mr. FORSTER: General officers of the British Service, whether in India or elsewhere, are liable to be called upon to take up duty in any part of the world without compensation. Those of the Indian Army who went to France in command of troops from India retained their Indian rates of pay.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the hon. Gentleman look up the answer to the same question which was given on the 22nd April, and see whether it agrees with what he has now said?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I did not give the answer.

    MOTOR TRANSPORT SERVICE.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked whether, in view of the shortage of men for the motor transport service and in munition works, His Majesty's Government will make an appeal to all motor car owners to release their chauffeurs if willing to join either of these branches of service and undertake to reinstate them on the conclusion of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such an appeal has already been issued and widely diffused. It is not contemplated at present to reissue it.
    Sir J. WALTON: Has the appeal been issued by the War Office, or has it only reference to that of the Royal Automobile Club, which only covers a fraction of the motor-car owners of the country; and, in view of the fact that undoubtedly great loss of life has taken place at the front
    794
    owing to the insufficient supply of shells and other munitions of war, is it not the imperative duty of the Government to address an appeal to all motor-car owners to free their chauffeurs?
    Mr. TENNANT: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the connection which he has established between chauffeurs and shells. The appeal was issued by the War Office as well as by the Royal Automobile Club.
    Sir J. WALTON: What was the result?

    RESPIRATORS (GALLIPOLI PENINSULA).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked whether all possible steps have been taken to provide the troops in the Gallipoli Peninsula with respirators and all other appliances to enable them successfully to resist attempts to poison them by means of noxious gases?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

    ARMY BUTTER SUPPLY.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in the case of the butter supplied in one pound tins for the use of the Army renovated, repacked, and other low grade butters have been accepted; whether the Army authorities, as regards this class of butter, adopt a lower standard than that adopted for the mercantile marine by the Board of Trade, which rejects renovated and repacked butters; whether, in the case of this class of butter, when supplied by Irish firms, Irish butter is specified for and insisted on; and whether in the figures as to Army contracts given to Ireland Irish butter packed in England is included?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. Such butters have not been accepted in the manner suggested, but it is alleged that they have been purchased for the purpose of blending with other butters for Army purposes, and the matter is now being investigated. The reply to the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the last part, to the best of my knowledge, the answer is in the negative.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (E. E. MAYER AND COMPANY, LIMITED).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Messrs. E. E. Mayer and Company, Limited, have recently imported from Germany quantities of Neuberg chalk under licence to trade with the enemy; whether such licence has been revoked; and, if so, will he say why it was granted and why it was revoked?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The licence was granted in view of representations that the commodity in question was essential for certain manufactures and obtainable only from enemy sources; it was subsequently revoked, with other licences, in pursuance of the more stringent policy adopted since the Order in Council of the 11th March, and also because of the fact that a fairly satisfactory substitute is forthcoming. An extension of time was, however, granted to Messrs. Mayer in order to enable them to import certain quantities contracted for prior to the receipt by them of notice that the licence would be revoked.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: At the expiration of that time will there be any further licence granted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. We do not propose to grant any further licence.

    CUSTODIS, LIMITED.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Custodis, Limited, and Alphons Custodis, chimney construction company, are practically identical in interest, that this firm is still constructing chimneys in Britain with the help of Germans from concentration camps and elsewhere, and that chimney construction offers good opportunity for observation and photography; and will he take further steps to deal with this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have made further inquiries into the constitution of Custodis, Limited, and I find that, although the shares which have been issued are registered in the names of British subjects, a large majority of those shares are held
    796
    in trust for Mr. Alphons Custodis, a German subject in this country, who is a director of the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, Limited. It is, therefore, probable that the interests in the two companies are similar if not identical. I am informed that the total number of Germans employed in the business is three. The official file of the company has hitherto contained no information as to the shares issued by the company, owing to the fact that an agreement which ought to have been filed was withheld from the file. I am at once taking advice as to whether a prosecution of those responsible for the default can be instituted. I have appointed an inspector of the company under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman, seeing the results in this case, look rather to the spirit than the letter of carrying out the intention of the Government in cases such as this, because in this case it was only by repeated questions that the facts came out?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he stated in this House that no Germans were connected with this company, a Mr. Schnadts, a non-naturalised German, living in Norwood, is conducting the business of this company in exactly the same way as before the company changed its name, and that this alien, who has been building at Portland Harbour, is still connected on the telephone, as I know, because I rang him up myself?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I am not aware of the position of this alien with regard to the telephone. If at present he is doing work at Portland he is within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and I will see that the information is conveyed to the proper authorities. In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I may say that it is very difficult for us to obtain all the information we want exactly when we want it, and it is only by very careful and repeated inquiries that we are able to ferret out an agreement which is not filed. As we have been deceived in this matter, I think it is essential that we should take action.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the circumstances now disclosed, is it not desirable to appoint a controller of this company rather than an inspector, who has very limited powers?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a letter stating that this company had definitely stated in precise language that this company was entirely British, that the management was all British, and that no German had any connection with this company?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already stated that the information given to us was deceitful information, and it is on this ground we are now taking action.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the appointment of a controller?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am advised that it is not necessary to appoint a controller, as it is not essential for the purposes we have in view.
    Mr. BUTCHER: To control the operations of the company the appointment of a controller is essential, and the appointment of an inspector alone is totally insufficient to control the company.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what was the average price paid for coal in Great Britain by Italian purchasers in May, June, and July, 1914; what price is being paid now by Italian purchasers; and, seeing that Italy is now allied with and receiving financial aid from this country, and that therefore the increase is being paid indirectly by the people of this country to the coal owners, what action he proposes to take to stop this abuse?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The declared value of coal exported to Italy in May, June, and July, 1914, averaged 14s. 1d. per ton. In the first half of the present month it was about 18s. 9d. A direct limitation of the price of coal exported to Italy would raise very difficult questions, and I am not prepared to promise any action in the matter at present.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the official proposals relating to the fixing of maxima prices of large house coal would apply to less than 8 per cent. of the total output of this country, he is aware that the coal owners, during the long time he has been negotiating with them, have now practically completed all their house coal contracts for
    798
    the ensuing twelve months; whether his proposals, even if effective and agreed to by every coal owner, would now apply to less than 3 per cent. of the total output; whether he is aware that the House and the general public in no way realised that his proposals applied to but a fraction of the output which could in no way affect prices and could easily be evaded by any coal owner who so desired; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that any arrangement I may be able to make will not be limited in any of the ways suggested by my hon. Friend. If an arrangement is not reached very shortly more drastic steps may have to be taken.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the price of Welsh coal is 35s. per ton as against 17s. to 18s. during last year, and small Welsh coal 22s. per ton as against 5s. to 8s. during last year; and whether, seeing that our Allies, the Italians, have no longer access to the German and Austrian coal fields and that a very heavy burden will be placed on Italy unless the Government of this country restricts prices, he will say whether he will take immediate steps to regulate the price of coal at the pit head?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the price of Welsh coal has risen considerably. It would be difficult to restrain prices of coal in accordance with the destination of each shipment, and I am not prepared to undertake such a regulation of prices on this basis.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has my right hon. Friend received representations through the Foreign Office from the Italian Government on the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any representation from the Italian Government would be received with respect.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it scandalous that the price of coal should be doubled to our Ally who is fighting our enemy?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think my right hon. Friend is really doing good service when he suggests that we are exploiting Italy. In answer to a question earlier in the afternoon, I pointed out that the average price of coal exported to Italy is only 18s. 9d. per ton.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Italian contracts fall out within two months from the present time, and that the price will be £2 or 35s. a ton?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is not in accordance with the information I have received.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: One of my companies happens to hold a contract.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to secure the restriction of the price of coal to home consumers in Scotland; whether he has yet been in direct communication with the Scottish coal owners on the subject; and whether any agreement has been arrived at?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not yet been in direct and separate communication with the Scottish coal owners, but I hope that I may ultimately be able to make satisfactory arrangements in all districts.

    FACTORY STRIKE (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the strike at Stevenson, M'Kellar, and Company's works at Pollokshaws, Scotland, has been going on for six weeks; whether, despite the increased cost of living, the average wage paid to the women and girls is 8s. 9d. a week and to the men 19s. 10d., and that the employers refuse an increase of 1d. an hour; and whether he will bring this case to the notice of the Industrial Commissioner with a view to immediate settlement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that a stoppage of work occurred at these works in May. From the commencement of the dispute the Chief Industrial Commissioner has been in communication with the parties, and on 8th and 9th June certain suggestions made by him for a settlement of the dispute by arbitration were agreed to. It is understood that work was resumed on the 14th inst. The arbitrator is hearing the case to-morrow.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to an estimate that food prices have, on an average, risen by 45 per cent., flour costing 71 per cent.
    800
    more, butter 24 per cent., meat 30 per cent., tea 25 per cent., and sugar 88 per cent.; and whether, in view of these increases and the hardships caused to the general public, he will, as far as practicable, extend to food prices generally the same public control which he has now promised with respect to the price of coal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman overestimates somewhat the average rise in retail food prices in this country since the outbreak of War. I may remind him that, in the case of each of the commodities separately mentioned in the question, the supplies to this country are drawn to a large extent from abroad, and that this circumstance limits the capacity of any authority in this country to control their prices.

    AUGENER, LIMITED.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the capital in the firm of Augener, Limited, is almost wholly held by Germans; and whether a receiver and manager has been appointed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before the War 35,000 shares of Augener, Limited, out of an issued capital of 36,007 shares, were held by a German subject resident in this country, but last October 20,000 of those shares were transferred by him to persons who, I am informed, are British subjects or naturalised British subjects. A receiver and manager has not been appointed, but I have appointed an inspector of the company under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

    China (Chefu).
    Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will use his good offices with the Chinese and Japanese Governments to ensure, in the interests of British traders, full consideration being given to the claims of Chefu as the terminal port for the new railway in Shantung, particularly in view of the very extensive harbour works recently carried out at the port?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 8th of March on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. If an opportunity offers itself, His Majesty's Government will gladly represent the interests of the British traders in

    801
    the selection of Chefu for the terminus of the railway in question.

    Nyasaland (Education).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had under consideration the question of the education afforded in Nyasaland by mission schools under native teachers and its bearing upon the recent rebellion in that Protectorate?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): The question has been recently under discussion in the Legislative Council of the Protectorate, but I have not yet received a report from the Governor with regard to it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the Secretary of State, when he gets the report, kindly consider the bearing of this system in mission schools, without any European supervision, in Nyasaland?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly.

    Infantile Mortality.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many children under the age of one year, of or over the age of one year and under the age of two years, of or over the age of two years and under the age of three years, respectively, died in Ireland during the six months immediately preceding 1st April, 1915; and what were the numbers of such children so dying during the corresponding periods 1913–14, 1912–13, and 1911–12?
    Mr. BIRRELL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will publish a statement in to-night's Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. KING: Does that show an increase in infantile mortality, compared with other years?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, it does not, except during the last three months, when there has been a tendency to increase.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that through the English Board of Education and the Local Government Board Grants are made to societies for the protection of infantile life, and will he try to secure for Ireland similar Grants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly. Whatever England can get, I will try to get for Ireland.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the increase in the rate in infantile mortality is partly or largely due to the shortage of doctors and nurses, the increased industrial employment of working women, and the absence of suitable agencies and centres for child welfare; whether he will arrange, in addition to the promised legislation, to utilise the services of some proportion of the 80,000 women who have enrolled themselves for national work, with a view to establishing centres for the care of infants and so mitigating an evil which the country cannot afford at any time, least of all at present?
    Mr. LONG: I am advised that the recent increase in mortality amongst young children has been mainly due to measles and its sequelæ. I am hoping to introduce a Bill very shortly to facilitate the establishment of centres for the care of mothers and infants.

    Midshipmen and Naval Cadets (Private Allowances).
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to make any alteration in the regulations by which the parent of a midshipman or naval cadet is required not only to provide his kit but also to make him an allowance of £50 a year, and so adopt the principle which has been recognised by the War Office in the corresponding regulations of the sister Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have already stated in reply to previous questions on this subject, in the case of the private allowance payable on behalf of midshipmen, the Board of Admiralty is prepared to give favourable consideration to applications for whole or partial relief where real necessity exists; and, further, in the case of midshipmen killed on active service, any sums deposited in advance in respect of a period subsequent to the date of death are returned to the guardians upon the closing of the private allowance accounts of the officers concerned.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In order to avoid the invidious distinction on the ground of economy, would it not be much better to abolish this £50 a year altogether?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have given it every consideration, nevertheless I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

    Notification of Births Act.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Prime Minister when the Bill amending the Notification of Births Act, foreshadowed by the President of the Local Government Board, will be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can as yet give no date when this Bill will be proceeded with.

    Sporting Sweeps.
    The following question appeared on the Paper in the name of Mr. GINNELL: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken any steps to acquire and confiscate for the service of the State the £30,000 subscribed for Patrick O'Brien's great omnibus or combination sweep, the £10,000 subscribed for Patrick O'Brien's John Bull football cup sweep, and the £10,000 subscribed for the John Bull Derby sweep; and what action he proposes to take with reference to this money and the methods by which it has been collected?
    Mr. GINNELL: Since this question appeared on the Paper, a material Clause has been dropped out. I beg to ask the remainder of it of the Attorney-General.
    Sir E. CARSON: The question of the administration or return to the subscribers of the moneys mentioned in the question is the subject of an action in the Chancery Division of the High Court and is still sub judice. I cannot, therefore, make any statement upon the matter.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it was on his instance that the Clause was dropped out since it first appeared on the Paper; and, if so, for what cause?
    Sir E. CARSON: I never heard of it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member would like to know, I ordered it to be struck out. It dealt with a matter which is now being litigated very much to the disadvantage, of the gentleman who was named, and as I think very improperly named, before any decision of the Court has been arrived at in the matter.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: As I have been receiving letters from sporting people in England asking me if I had any connection with this fraud, and if I could recommend them to put their money into it, I desire to say that I have no connection whatever with it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce a Procedure followed by a Money Resolution with regard to a Loan Bill. Then we shall take the Second Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Army Act Amendment Bill, and the Milk and Dairies Acts Postponement Bill.
  On Tuesday, the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Second Reading of the Loans Bill.
  On Wednesday, the Minister of Munitions will introduce the Munitions Bill, and we shall also take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  On Thursday, Supply—Local Government Board Vote.

SUPPLY.— [THIRTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

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

  HOME OFFICE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £167,169, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices." [NOTE—£100,000 has been voted on account.]
  Sir J. D. REES: I put down a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Home Secretary anticipating, I confess, a less unsatisfactory reply than I received to question No. 19, asking whether the Government proposed to employ the gaol population of the country in making munitions for the troops. I am perfectly well aware that a proposal of the kind may be open to very serious objection; at the same time I am informed that in France this measure has been
  816
  taken, and it is rumoured, I do not know with what authority, that a similar measure has been taken in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman in answering me said, that the gaol population were already doing other duty necessary for war than that of making munitions. I presume since they are occupied in this manner that there can be no objection to state what is the duty to which the gaol population are put. The Government have, naturally, this body, for various reasons, completely under control. They are not able to raise any objection connected with trade union rules or any other of the many difficulties which are acute at the present time. For my part I should not in the least fear if I were in charge of a gaol to use them for the purpose of making munitions. The criminal, or potentially criminal classes, outside the gaol throughout the country at the present time are displaying a most excellent spirit, and are showing that they, like other people, are good patriots and anxious not to trouble the magistrates and the Government and their fellow-citizens or anybody else with their delinquencies or natural propensities during the present crisis. I confess I do not understand why any prejudice should exist against employing them. One of our Allies already does so, and I believe our chief enemy also does so.
  There is also the example of the East in British possessions from which I think the Government in Great Britain might very usefully take many very valuable hints. I am aware that this is not a popular view on Benches opposite, but, nevertheless. I think there are other forms of government besides democracy from which hints might be taken. In the Crown Colony of Ceylon it is quite the usual thing in times of crisis and trouble to make use of the gaol population. Quite recently that step was taken with great success by the distinguished and most able Governor who has now vacated the Governorship. I therefore do not believe myself that any difficulty would exist in taking this step, nor would any difficulty arise about the feelings of free labour, so to speak, in working alongside those they might class as criminals. For those reasons, which I have briefly put because I think the subject lies in a small compass, I have drawn attention to the question. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Brace), whom I congratulate and am glad to see on the Front Bench, will be perfectly cognisant of all the interests concerned. I am sure

  817
  he will have no objection to telling us what is the work at which those people are now employed. I believe there are good patriots inside as well as outside the gaols, and that they might be trusted with any work which the Government of the country might be pleased to ask them to do at the present time. Should I be in order in making any remarks on this Vote regarding the case of Custodis, Limited, which has again cropped up?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member would not be in order in doing so.
  Sir J. D. REES: It seems to me to be very near the duty of the Home Secretary, if it is not quite. At any rate, I shall perhaps be in order in expressing regret that the action to be taken in the internment of Germans is not more speedily being accomplished. I believe, and I speak with some knowledge in one case, that the officers concerned would hardly deny that the action taken to carry out what is at length admitted by the Government to be their duty has been somewhat slowly carried out. I believe the explanation is that quarters in which to place the large number of persons, who admittedly should be interned, are wanting. I do not want to complain of any omission on the part of any Minister when all are working so successfully, but it would appear that by this time quarters should have been provided for carrying out this internment. I sincerely hope they will be provided at an early date. There is a feeling, and I can answer for it in some parts, that this action, which is felt to be so necessary, is not being carried out even now when the Government have admitted its necessity, and that considerable delay is taking place. Will the Home Secretary, when he replies, very kindly mention that matter as well as the other?
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I wish to raise the question of the right of policemen in the Metropolitan Force to organise themselves in a trade union. The point is covered by paragraph 25 of the Regulations, which runs as follows:—
  "No societies are to be formed or meetings held amongst the police without the previous consent of the Commissioner."
  That, of course, prevents these men from having an organisation or association of their own to make representations whenever grievances occur. I understand that in this country there is an association for chief constables. There is no difficulty with regard to their having an organisation of their own, and I understand that
  818
  nearly all the chief constables are members. They have recently had their annual conference, which was attended by Sir Edward Troup, the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Home Office. It seems to me a strange thing that a chief constable can be allowed to be a member of an association of his own, while this right is denied to members of the Metropolitan Force. It is either scarcely fair to the constables or something more than generous to the chief constables. I wish to ask that constables should be allowed to have an association of their own, in exactly the same way as the chief constables are. How comes it about that a prohibitive regulation of this sort can be put into operation? Under what Act of Parliament is it included amongst the regulations of the police? There is a little bit of history connected with this matter. The same conditions applied some years ago to the postal service. A number of men in the postal service were organised in the Fawcett Association, and two men, named Cheesman and Clery, were dismissed from the service for acting as chairman and secretary of the association. Since then postal servants have been allowed to combine in their own trade union, to do their own business, and to make their own recommendations and representations in their own way. The two men who were dismissed from the service were offered reinstatement, but they refused to accept it. Ever since then the postmen have been allowd to organise in their different unions, and without any limitation to make representations direct to the Postmaster-General, with the result that many improvements have been made in their wages and conditions.
  The argument used against policemen being allowed to form a union is the same as that used in connection with the Army and the Navy—that is to say, it all comes to a question of discipline. While I am one of those who believe in discipline as much as any man either in or out of this House, I suggest that that argument has very little weight as far as the police are concerned Especially is this so when one remembers that permission to have a union of their own does not interfere with the discipline of the police in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. These are foreign countries, but I am pleased to find that in Australia also, and I believe in New Zealand, two Dominions of our own, the police are allowed to organise in their own unions. The same applies with regard to

  819
  Paris. It seems to me that if the countries I have named can maintain discipline among the police, and at the same time allow them to form associations or organisations, there can be very little force in the argument as applied to the Metropolitan Police. Many people in this country, and possibly some Members of this House, have very strange ideas as to what men's organisations seek to do. Whatever opinion may have been held in the past on that subject, I think that what is happening at the present day will remove an enormous amount of prejudice from the minds of many people with regard to the association of men who have to work for their living. The amount of self sacrifice that is being shown, the diligence and persistence of the men engaged in the manufacture of ammunition and the building of ships, the sacrifice of every consideration that stands in the way of the greater production of munitions of war—all these things should at least disabuse the minds of Members of this House, and of those who hold office under the present Government, of the idea that organisations of men are in themselves a danger to the discipline that is sought to be maintained.
  4.0 P.M.
  It may be assumed by some Members that policemen have no grievances. Having had some experience as a member of a county council, and having been brought into close touch with the policemen of the Metropolitan area, I can say that grievances do exist, but the men have no spokesman to state their case. If there is a grievance, the particular constable concerned would, I suppose, be allowed to state his case. I want to deal with the unfairness of such a method of procedure. For many years I have experience of the trade union movement in this country. We contend, and I think with fairness, that to call upon the individual aggrieved to go before the chief officer of the police and state his case is most unfair. He may be a man who has had very little education, and it may be with the greatest difficulty that he puts two words together, with the result that nine times out of ten he makes a mess of his case. We contend that these men should have the right to have an association, and that on occasion somebody connected with that association—a man of some little experience and ability in stating a case—should be permitted to speak for them. A prisoner is allowed to employ a solicitor or barrister to conduct his case, but a
  820
  policeman is not allowed to have any skilled assistance to state his case in the best way. I suggest that the time has altogether gone by for restrictions of this kind in regard to any section of men, apart from the Army and apart from the Navy. I believe that nothing but good would result from giving these men the necessary permission to form an association of their own, to mind their own business, and to carry it on to the best of their ability. Whatever fears anyone may have in regard to discipline in the force as it exists to-day I am confident that they will find that when associations of men meet there is very little danger indeed on the point of discipline. As a matter of fact, organisations of men are a good deal more cautious as a rule than individuals acting on their own. Therefore, I would suggest that the men in the Metropolitan area should be given permission to have an association of their own without asking anybody's permission. We always assume that this is a free country. It is a free country up to a certain point. It does, however, seem to me a strange proceeding when one finds other countries in Europe, extending this freedom to the men in their police forces, and this country of ours, supposed to be the most democratic in the world, still lagging behind. That position is not a fair one to this country. It is also a very serious injustice to the men in the Metropolitan Police Force. If the Home Office will do its duty—and that is all I ask of it—those concerned will set an example for the police forces in the country which are under the control of the various watch committees of the town councils.
  I ought to finish at this point, but there is another matter to which I wish to draw attention. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not having given him notice of my intention to bring up this matter, but I have not been able to do so. Some time ago the union with which I am connected engaged a Belgian, who had been four years in this country, to organise the Belgian refugees in this country. A short while ago this man was arrested whilst doing his ordinary trade union work. Without any communication in any way to the union he was deported to Boulogne, thence to Havre. No information, I say, was given to the union, the officials of which would have taken any steps, in reason, up to putting down £10,000 bail if necessary, and would have

  821
  been altogether responsible for the man. We met the representatives of the Home Office, and eventually the man was brought back to this country. There was no charge against him. Seeing the man was resident in this country for some years before the War, it does seem to me a very unfortunate thing that an action of this kind should be taken. It is a very serious matter to the union, whose work it interferes with—putting the union to a lot of inconvenience and unnecessary expense to bring this man back from France. But I would not, perhaps, have minded one occasion. My patience would have stood even that instance. To-day, however, I have received a telegram to say that this same man was yesterday rearrested at Newcastle. He was allowed out on his own recognisances, and I suppose he will be tried again at the Police Court at Newcastle.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: How old is he?
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: He is a man between thirty-five and forty, and has been in this country four years.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What was he charged with?
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Heaven only knows, but I suppose with being an alien. In his company there was another Belgian, a town councillor of Antwerp, who is also a member of the Belgian Metal Workers' Union, which has 5,000 of their members in this country. Almost every one of these men, who are members of the Belgian Metal Workers' Union, are engaged in the production of munitions for this country to help win the War. The officers of the Belgian Metal Workers' Union are anxious to get into touch with their members in this country in order, not only to organise them, but to help their members to pay what money they can afford to pay into a fund to be remitted to their wives and children in Belgium, many of whom are starving. One of these men, too, has been arrested at Newcastle. It does seem to me a preposterous thing that this kind of thing should be allowed to go on. One of the officers in my union suggested to me this morning that if this kind of thing is to go on we should ask the Government to give the organisers of the union permits to allow them to move about in this country without being arrested. In drawing the attention of the Home Secretary to this matter I do not want to make any unnecessary grievance of it, but it is a
  822
  serious thing. I understand the difficulties that exist, but it does seem an unreasonable thing that men whose motives are of the best, men who are connected with friendly unions, should not be allowed to move about in this country. They are in touch with Sir Ernest Hatch and with Vandervelde, one of the Members of the Belgian House of Commons and a Minister of the Belgian State. He could go bail for these men to any extent, if necessary. I do ask the Home Secretary to make some inquiry into this matter, and to try and find some method of abating the nuisance.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I desire to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the question of granting certificates of naturalisation to alien enemies since the commencement of the War. The effect of granting these certificates is to confer very great privileges upon these alien enemies—to confer upon them all the rights and privileges of British subjects, and to render them exempt from many of those disagreeable contingencies to which alien enemies are subject. It is an exercise of the authority of the Home Office which, in my judgment, ought to be most carefully guarded. Amongst other privileges which the naturalised alien enemy reaps by reason of his naturalisation is immunity from internment. Personally, I should like to have seen legislation, if necessary, to enable the authorities to intern, in proper places, naturalised aliens, who are very often as dangerous as unnaturalised aliens.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: We have got that power.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I do not think so. I shall be glad to know where it is. My impression is that there is no power in the Executive to intern naturalised aliens, or, in other words, British subjects. The Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. The effect of granting these certificates is to deprive the Executive of the very salutary power possessed by it of interning these alien enemies. I am not going to make a long dissertation upon the danger of alien enemies, but I saw the other day, in a publication issued in May, what appeared to me to be a most appalling list of incendiary fires which had taken place since the commencement of the War. There were forty or fifty up to May, and I believe they have increased largely since. The strange thing about these fires is that in almost every case they have broken out in places where

  823
  Government contracts were being carried out, where munitions were being prepared, or in Government factories which were highly important for the prosecution of the War. I really do not know whether or not the Home Secretary can tell us if he has been able to discover the authors of these fires, but I do say that prima facie the probability is that some of these fires have taken place through the agency of alien enemies. It is the kind of thing you would expect, it is the kind of thing which is in consonance with their nature, it is the kind of thing which the German character, as disclosed in this War, would most certainly indulge in on every possible opportunity. Therefore, when you naturalise these German alien enemies you prevent yourselves from interning them, and prevent yourselves from taking the powers required for them which you have for alien enemies.
  These facts indicate that great care should be taken in interning alien enemies. I confess I have some little doubt as to whether sufficient care has been taken, and one reason for my doubt is this: I have looked very carefully into the figures that were published of the number of Germans who were naturalised last year, during the first seven months of the year, and during the five months after the War had broken out. I find on analysis of these figures—I do not think the Home Secretary will dispute them—that the rate of naturalisation of these Germans after the War began was substantially the same as the rate before the War began. That is a very singular circumstance. I have not been able to look up the figures of this year. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can tell us whether the naturalisation of Germans has gone on at the same rate this year, during the War, as it went on during the last five months of the year. Another matter caused me uneasiness. The late Home Secretary told us that when an application is made to naturalise an alien enemy no inquiry whatever is made from this applicant as to whether he still owes allegiance to the German Emperor. It does not require either a lawyer or an expert to see what a grotesquely absurd and wrong position is occupied by the man who gets the privileges of a British subject at the very moment that he owes allegiance, and the fealty of a subject, to a sovereign who is at war with this
  824
  country! I suggest that the least we can do is to inquire of the applicant: "Can you offer us any proof that you have divested yourself of allegiance to the German Emperor before you ask for the privileges of a British subject?" The late Home Secretary told us it would be no good doing that, because the applicant might tell a falsehood. Let me remind the present Home Secretary that if an applicant for naturalisation is found to have told a lie, then under the powers of the Naturaisation Act of last year you can immediately revoke his certificate.
  I would suggest to the Home Secretary that he might go a little further, and not only inquire of the applicant whether he has so divested himself of his allegiance to Germany, but refuse to grant naturalisation unless the applicant can satisfy the Home Office that he has so divested himself. I do not make these suggestions, I need hardly say, in any hostile spirit. Like everyone eise in the House, I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his new position. I make these suggestions in a friendly manner. I hope that he will approach this question with a fresh mind, and with what the late First Lord of the Admiralty recently called "a more modern eye;" that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise a little more care than perhaps has been exercised in granting these certificates.
  There is only one other matter to which I will refer, and that is the question of granting licences for the export of commodities from this country to neutral countries. I understand that the Home Office have a representative upon the Licensing Committee which has been set up to consider this matter. There are also, I understand, representatives from the Board of Trade, War Office, and Admiralty on that Committee, but, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman is technically, at any rate, responsible for the action of his representative on this Committee, I think I am justified in asking the Home Secretary whether he will inquire into the matters which I am going to raise.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have looked into that point, and I find the War Trades Department, which issues these licences, is really to be taken as a sub-department of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade answers questions dealing with these matters, and it is on the Board of Trade Estimates that that point must be raised.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Of course, I do not want to dispute your ruling, but may I suggest that, technically, the right hon. Gentleman would be responsible for the action of his representative on this Committee, because there is no Department strictly known to the Constitution as a War Trade Committee. It is a thing set up for the emergencies of war, and this Licensing Committee is only a Sub-Committee of the War Trade Department. I would suggest that inasmuch as the Home Secretary has a representative on this Committee, I can ask him as to the action of his representative, and he will be able to communicate to his representative the result of his views. Therefore, is it not in order for me to put a question?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would not do. We must really have one Minister or another responsible for this Department, and I am informed, after inquiry, that the Board of Trade will answer for what is done by that new Department.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of your ruling, of course, I shall not raise the question, but will take another opportunity of raising it.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to associate myself most cordially with my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down in offering congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on this, his first occasion of the defence of the Home Office Vote. I am sure we all wish him great success in the discharge of his new duty. If I may say so in passing, I think his acceptance of the post is a standing refutation of an opinion entertained in quarters outside—happily small quarters—that politicians are actuated by the extent of the emoluments offered, and I think we can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that fact as well. I wish to emphasise what has been said with regard to the whole question of the treatment of alien enemies in this country. We were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the other day for his statement as to the extent to which internment has been carried out up to the present time. The process is moving slowly, and I hope in a very short time the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that the decision of the Government and the intention of the House have really been carried out to the most complete extent. Of course there is difficulty in obtaining accommodation for a large number of alien
  826
  enemies in this country, and the question is largely governed, I understand, by the facility with which accommodation can be provided. I would suggest that the military officers at the War Office at the present time have really enough to do with even more vital and pressing matters, and I think this is a thing that might well be discharged by a committee of business men, who could find premises, make arrangements to pay for them, and all that sort of thing. It surely ought not to be necessary to take the time of high officials at the War Office to provide accommodation, and I would suggest, if it is not too late and the accommodation has not been provided, that it might well be left to the right hon. Gentleman, with his expert advisers and the association of business men, to carry out what is, after all, a very simple matter indeed.
  According to the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day, there are still in London 14,000 alien enemies of military age. I think that is a very important fact, and I hope we may have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman at the very earliest opportunity that this state of affairs has been brought to an end. There is no doubt whatever as to the seriousness of this position. We have got to recognise that Germany has an organised system in this country both for spying and for danger if necessary. I saw a statement by a Noble Lord, a Member of the other House, that to his knowledge £1,000,000 per year has been spent by Germany in this country in that direction. I would not put it as high as that. I do not know how the Noble Lord gets his information, but that there has been money freely spent in every direction there is no reason to doubt. Take the case of aliens in New York. There have been organisation and successful arrangements made for no other purpose than to send spies to this country. A man of intelligence offered to come over here to be a spy, and the German Embassy and officials in America took advantage and were sending him over to this country. We have to recognise that there is, and has been from the beginning of the War and before the War, an organised system by Germany to damage this country and obtain information to its detriment.
  I have been on a Committee visiting these camps. A short time ago a German who was supposed to be a spy escaped from one of these camps, and about three months after, I think it was, they were able to capture him again. He was engaged in a boat

  827
  carrying coals to our Fleet in the North Sea, and he had been employed in that purpose for some considerable time. That is a case known to the authorities, but it is only one of scores that might be given to show the deliberation of these men, the sacrifices they are willing to make, and the risks they are willing to run in order to discharge what they believe to be a patriotic duty to their country. Therefore, I say, in order that things may be on a proper basis, if necessary we have got to do injustice to some so that justice may be done to the rest. I do hope that with the advent of the right hon. Gentleman he will make up his mind, and I am sure he needs very little pressing, that everything necessary must be done, not only to satisfy public opinion on this point, but to carry out what is obviously an ordinary matter of necessary business in regard to this War
  Some time ago there was an order issued for the registration of aliens at hotels and boarding houses in this country. I should like to know what the effect will be, and whether there has been any substantial result. Have we been able to trace admittedly dangerous enemies by means of that registration? I have a letter here from the manager of a very important hotel, who tells me that every visitor has to register, and so forth, but no one is ever told who has been at the hotel. That may be an isolated case. It is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman to say it is not in London, and is, therefore, outside his jurisdiction; but is there a systematic method in London of getting the registration forms and of following up doubtful persons? I think that is almost a necessary corollary to the issuing of registration forms at all. I would ask the special attention of the Homo Office to the whole question of hotels, especially in London. It is a remarkable fact that, until quite recently, the predominant language in the smoke rooms of some of our London hotels has been German. There is no doubt about it: I heard it myself. I admit they were mostly German Americans, but many were naturalised Germans, and, therefore, there is every reason to believe they are here for no good purpose at the present time. I ask that this question will be followed up, and I would like to know what practical result has been obtained. So far as boarding houses are concerned, I am afraid there has not been very strict
  828
  supervision. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something on that point.
  Another suggestion I would make to the Home Secretary is that he should watch with very great care persons who call themselves Swiss at the present time. Many Germans, I am told, are masquerading as Swiss in responsible positions. This I do not state on authority, but I believe it is true. I believe it is true that since the War broke out Germans have been able to go to Switzerland and obtain naturalisation papers and come back here and resume their old positions. Special attention ought to be paid at the present time to persons who make themselves out to be Swiss, and the date upon which they obtained their naturalisation papers ought to be ascertained. I think if that were done some very great surprises would be in store for the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I myself should pass a short Bill, making it a penal offence for any employer to employ an alien enemy at the present time. You can make a special exemption if you like. There may be special cases—they may be very few—where it ought not to apply. The audacity of some of these alien enemies is something remarkable. In some districts I know they insist on being on every representative committee. They are the leaders in every charitable organisation. It is obvious that their object is to disarm suspicion and criticism. An hon. Friend told me he was at a meeting the other day at which only one native-born person spoke; it was in a London constituency, and was held in connection with Some distribution of money obtained for charitable purposes. They foist themselves on committees in order to throw off any suspicion that might be entertained. Only the other day in Glasgow a German was charged with theft, and he admitted that he was drawing £1 a week from the Prince of Wales's Fund. I say that is a very serious state of affairs, and suggests laxity in some quarter. There are too many Germans, especially on the Clyde at the present time, although I hope that is a matter which will be dealt with very shortly.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be specially careful with regard to cases of exemption, more particularly on the coast. At the present time there are still on the coast 2,134 alien enemies who are women and 592 men. Probably, in all those cases, the local police authority is

  829
  satisfied, but at a time like this, when there is so much possibility of danger with regard to these people, I think we ought to be specially careful, and I should be glad to hear an announcement that that number has been very materially reduced. I do not think we ought to have any alien enemies whatever in prohibited areas until the end of the War. Some of my hon. Friends who have been on the spot a very short time after an aerial raid over here say that the most remarkable fact was the number of Germans who were there to inquire how the thing had been carried out. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has information as to certain things carried out at the time of the raids which indicate that they have full knowledge that the raids are going to take place, and where they are going to take place. Another point I suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman should be very strict in the liberty given at the present time to Germans to change their name. For my part, I would have prohibited at the very commencement of the War any German taking an English name, because it makes it much more easy for him to carry out his purpose, if he is hostile to this country, and I see no case can be made out for our assisting Germans to change their name at the present time. If I had the power I would cancel every change of name that has taken place since the War began and make them keep their own name until the War is over. With regard to German magistrates in this country, I think the right hon. Gentleman might issue a memorandum from that subject. I think the Germans who have been made J.P.'s ought to have the decency to keep away from the Courts until the end of the War. Case after case is occurring every day where a German pronounces in broken English sentence upon an Englishman for some paltry offence, and I do not think we ought to submit even criminals to a humiliation of that kind. German magistrates ought not to be allowed to try Englishmen at the present time, and it should be suggested to them that they might very well withdraw their public services from the bench at the present time.
  I also wish to refer to the character of some of the speeches that have been delivered recently in some of our public parks dealing with the War. I am not referring to London alone, but the same thing has happened in some very important provincial towns. I do not know who is organising these speakers, but
  830
  there is no doubt that they are good speakers. In some places, like Hyde Park, you have a recruiting meeting in one corner and a short distance away you hear someone denouncing the War in all the moods and tenses. I do not suggest any interference with liberty, but I think at a time like this it is liberty gone mad for our people whilst walking through a public park to have to listen to someone denouncing the whole operations of the War, its purposes, and everything connected with it, more especially as you may have mothers listening to the speech who may have lost sons in the War. I suggest that there should be stricter supervision with regard to the character of those speeches which are made on Hampstead Heath, in Hyde Park, and at other places throughout the country. I do not make any complaints so far as the police administration is concerned. In London I know the public have absolute confidence in Sir Edward Henry and his assistants in this and other matters, but I think we ought to give a lead in the House of Commons to the police in this matter and stricter supervision should be enforced, and as far as possible these speeches should be suppressed until the War is over; or, at any rate, until it is nearer a successful issue than it is at the present time. I hope the Home Secretary will look into these various points, and I trust it will be possible for him to give me a satisfactory reply.
  Mr. NIELD: I think we can associate ourselves on this side of the House with all that has fallen from the last speaker, and I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the persistency with which he has always tackled this question which is of so vital importance to us. Anyone who has taken any interest in this question cannot fail to have had an enormous number of communications from men of responsibility who are able to put forward concrete facts showing what a serious state of alarm the country is in with regard to the residence amongst us of so many of these alien enemies. I do not profess to believe half of what I hear on these matters, but it has been said and repeated that to-night we are to be subjected in London to a raid of Zeppelins, and something very much in excess of what we have had in this country before. Hon. Members may think that that is a warning which it is unnecessary to take any notice of, but the last speaker has shown that where Zeppelin raids have

  831
  occurred there has always been unusual activity amongst the alien population, which shows that they appreciate what is coming. If that is so why should this information I have received not be worthy of credence, and why should we not try to make such preparations as we can, even at this short notice? Other hon. Members, as well as myself, have raised the question of the fire at Park Royal which is on the confines, if not actually in, my own division. I beg leave to assure the Home Secretary that he ought to look with very great care into the investigation which is taking place as to the origin of the Park Royal fire. A great many of the circumstances connected with this fire are very curious. It took place at a moment when there was a great amount of material ready for delivery, and when there were large quantities of goods which could readily be consumed. I am convinced from the communications which have reached me that there is much more in this matter than the Home Office seem to think.
  A suggestion was made that a Committee should be appointed representing the Fire Brigade of London and some of the principal provincial centres, together with representatives of the Home Office and other officials, which should have power to investigate these matters, take evidence on oath on the spot and deal with these matters judicially under similar powers to those which are now possessed by the coroner of the City of London. I agree with the criticism that it would be undesirable to extend the Act of 1888 which constituted the coroner of the City of London to the whole of the Kingdom, because there are coroners and coroners, and it is perhaps more desirable that we should have an experienced Committee which could deal with these matters promptly on the spot and take evidence. I have a letter from one of the representatives of a large insurance company in which he says that they have no doubt and are quite satisfied that the fires which have occurred lately in industrial works and centres have been the result of the activities of alien enemies. I sincerely hope that the Home Office will bestir itself in regard to this matter, because they are causing enormous losses to the community at a moment when they can ill afford it. Reference has been made to the utilisation of prison labour. As a magistrate who has visited prisons regularly, I know the
  832
  class of men who are engaged there and I believe that much of that labour might be turned to profitable account in making smaller articles in relation to the manufacture of munitions of war, and I am sure this kind of labour, which is often the work of highly skilled workmen, could be utilised very properly in this way.
  Another subject I wish to refer to is the retention in the police force of a greater number of young men of military age than is reasonably necessary for the protection of the people. Wherever you go in the Metropolitan Police district you see a number of men obviously in the full vigour of life who might very well be utilised in connection with His Majesty's Forces under present circumstances. It is a wonderful thing that since the commencement of this War, crime, so far as it is indicated by charges brought forward at Assizes or Sessions, has very singularly decreased. I have not heard that this is the result of the police being unable to effect captures, but I think crime, or rather the commission of crime, has relatively decreased. I know that in Middlesex we used to have thirty-five or forty cases every month, but now the Court is over very often before lunch, and on the last occasion there were only about eight cases, and those were mostly pleas of guilty. That being the condition of the country with regard to crime. I think greater facilities should be given to the police to enlist in His Majesty's Forces. I am sure the police themselves desire to go, and there are a great many others in Government employment only too willing to leave that employment in order to take their part with their fellows on the other side of the Channel and thus remove any suggestion that they are shirking their proper services to the country. I hope the Home Office will give the points I have raised serious attention, and that we may have some alteration. I wish to thank the Government for the reply which has been given to my question in reference to licences to trade with the enemy, because it was suggested in a public newspaper that there were licences to export from this country. I am very glad to have that statement from the Home Secretary, and I am sure the country will feel that we are being gradually toned up with regard to these questions. I hope the action of the Home Office under the right hon. Gentleman will show an activity which has been absent in the past.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I share with my right hon Friend the Member for

  833
  Kirkcaldy Burghs the anxiety he has expressed with regard to alien enemies in our midst. I have felt it very much, and I believe nearly all hon. Members of this House have felt it, and still feel most deeply upon this question. While we have no desire to embarrass the Home Office, or any Members of the Government, who have got a very heavy task to bear at the present time in the conduct of the War and everything connected with it, I believe there is a feeling that the Home Office and the Government have not been abreast of public opinion with regard to this matter, and have been far behind the House of Commons and the country. Even when they answer questions in the House with regard to these all-important matters they do not seem to me to help the House to be satisfied. There seems to be something in the answers we listen to from the Home Office which gives the impression that they are hiding something.
  Sir J. SIMON: Why?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: At any rate, that is the impression, and there does not seem to be sufficient frankness in the answers. I do not mean that the actual answers are not satisfactory, but they seem to miss what the House is looking for. Hon. Members seem to be expecting some answer which will help the House to feel that the Home Office is doing its very best. I always have the impression when the Home Office gives an answer that they are doing more than their answer conveys when it is read out to the House. To-day I asked a question with regard to the fire at Park Royal. The Home Secretary answered the question and eased it over as satisfactorily as he could. He seemed to me to be trying to make the answer such as would minimise the whole thing. We do not want to attach too much importance to newspapers, but at the same time that which has appeared in the newspapers has created a public opinion with regard to that fire, and I had hoped that the Home Secretary when he answered the question would have helped a little more as to the real circumstances with regard to what was destroyed. My question was not merely in connection with the actual burning, but it was also in connection with the munitions and the equipment which had been prepared for almost immediate transit for the front. That was all brushed aside, and we were given to understand that, after all, there was not
  834
  much in it; it was not a Government Department at all; it was not a department of the War Office. That did not matter; it was war material.
  My question was more or less set aside on a technical point, because this material did not belong to the War Office at all. It was not munitions and it was not equipment, because they were not War Office works, and I need not have put the question and hon. Members and the public outside need not worry very much about it, because there was not any very serious loss to the War Office. I say that was the wrong kind of answer to give. I do not say that with any desire to attack the Home Secretary, but to convey to him and to the House how I feel on the matter. We were told, and the public believed it, that there were a large number of ambulance wagons and other vehicles ready for use to help our wounded soldiers at the front. They were burned, and the only answer we get is that, after all, there was not very much in it. That does not satisfy me that the Home Office is so desirous as we are of erring on the side of pursuing this matter to the bitter end to trace out any alien enemy who is destroying these things, so as to abundantly satisfy public opinion, if you like, of an activity of mind and purpose on the part of the authorities of this country and that everything possible is being done in a matter of this grave importance.
  It is not a question of any hostility to the Government or of vindictiveness towards alien enemies personally. I need hardly say that does not enter my mind. What does enter my mind is this question: What is our duty at home? We people who are not going to the front and are not sacrificing our lives, we people here, Members of Parliament, and occupying whatever may be our positions outside this House, what are we doing to help the men who are risking their lives on land and sea fighting for this country? The slightest mistake or indifference on our part, the slightest excuse for this, that, and the other which we may urge may mean the loss of large numbers of lives of our fellow citizens who are fighting in this war. The "Formidable" went down, and many of us believed that it was largely because of alien information. The loss of these ambulance wagons may mean a great deal of suffering to people. This is the only thing which prompts me, and I am always worried morning, noon, and night with regard to this question. I may be too

  835
  sensitive and susceptible with regard to this alien question, but I fully share the view of my right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Dalziel). I am anxious every day with regard to this matter, and the rare occasions on which I speak will convince hon. Members that I would not have got up now if I did not feel anxious about it every day.
  I am not satisfied that the Government are doing as much as the House wants them to do. We believe that the Home Office can increase its pace and its work to a much greater extent than it has been doing. My right hon. Friend suggested that there was delay in interning alien enemies, because of a lack of accommodation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that accommodation might easily have been provided by a group of business men. You do not want to wait until the busy police authorities or the War Office, whose business it is to make fighting men, and all credit is due to them for the glorious work which they are doing, can find the accommodation. Let them do that which is their work. It is not their work to go about the country finding sites on which to intern alien enemies. There are twenty, fifty, or even one hundred Members of this House, to say nothing of large numbers of responsible business people outside, who would be only too glad to give their whole time and to place their services at the disposal of the Government in connection with this work. But no, the War Office goes on in its old water-tight traditional way just as if we were not at war. I do not mean the right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench. They are at the mercy of the officials of the Department, these little tin gods you find in every Government Department and every Municipality. You must do it just in their way, and, if it is not done in their way, they will give no support to any Minister in his Job on that Front Bench. Why is it that the services of fifty or one hundred Members of Parliament are not taken in a matter of this kind? It is not because the Home Secretary would be unwilling to take them. It is simply because of the water-tight methods in the Government Departments of this country. If our Ministers are going to be the success which we want them to be, they must teach the Government officials that we are going through a great war, and, just as every other individual has to readapt himself to the circumstances arising out of
  836
  this War, so must Government officials, and they must give up their old traditional water-tight methods.
  This question is just one of those questions which we could do ourselves rather than it should be done under the old Government system. Let the Home Secretary now take Members of the House into his confidence. He knows that many Members have taken an interest in this matter. Let them sit round the Table and discuss with him what could be done to bring the Home Office and the Government Departments more into accord with feeling in this House and public feeling outside. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do when the War began? He saw that the financial position of the country was difficult, and he called in the bankers and other people to discuss with him what was best to be done—with very satisfactory results. Why not call in Members of this House, my right hon. Friend and others, on this question? Why not let them confer with the right hon. Gentleman instead of having this Debate here to-day? Why should not Members of the House who are very anxious about this matter have been consulted long ago? I believe that we do not yet realise how deep this German secret service is. My right hon. Friend mentioned that they had been spending two million pounds a year. I should not be surprised if they are spending a large sum of money now. I believe, so far as I can judge, that this secret service goes deep down into the very life of this nation, and it is impossible for us to treat it too seriously.
  5.0 P.M.
  I do not like, at a time like this, that there should be under our Government in official positions men of German origin and association. The hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) the other day raised a question about persons of German origin occupying responsible positions. That is true, and it is not denied. It worries me considerably. I do not think that the Home Office ought to allow anybody of German origin and association to be in a responsible position where there is private information obtainable. It is not fair to these persons themselves, because they are known to the German secret service. They cannot help meeting members of that service, and they must be almost superhuman if they can escape the influence which this German secret service has upon persons of German origin and association. They are waylaid by Germans in these secret societies

  837
  wherever they go, and information is sought from them. It is not what one man gives away; it is what a group of men give away. The German secret agencies are able to piece the information together. I am informed that two of our most responsible Ministers even to-day—I will not mention any names, though I dare say Members of the House know them—have each a private secretary who is of German origin. The Home Office and the police authorities ought to so advise everybody that that would be impossible. It ought to be impossible. There ought to be some other occupation for people of German origin than that of private secretaries to responsible Ministers. That is what is happening. We know it. It is almost impossible to sit still in this House when these things are happening, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us—we are all very glad that he is in that position—that he is at all events going to clear out the Augean stable, and that we are not going to have these people of German origin and association in any responsible position. Find them some other place. There are plenty of men of ability among the British people to occupy these positions. I hope that he will give the House and the country some assurance that we need not go on niggling and niggling at this question day after day, and week after week, inside and outside this House, because the Government itself is going to take the lead, and that we humble Members of the rank and file of the House can be perfectly satisfied with what the Government are doing. At the present moment I am not satisfied that the Government are doing all they should do, and I hope that the new Home Secretary will show us that he is taking the necessary steps in the matter.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I do not for one moment question either the patriotism or the sincerity which has animated the speeches we have just listened to. I am in full agreement with the speakers that the presence of alien enemies upon our benches of justices of the peace is a scandal, and one which ought to be put an end to as quickly as possible. I am opposed to the wide employment of Germans in many places, and I would gladly see it cease. But with all our patriotism, with all the feeling that such scandals' naturally arouse, there is, I wish to point out, some need for caution when we are discussing this very difficult question. Of
  838
  course I know nothing of what may be in the archives of the Home Secretary or his advisers, or at Scotland Yard, but I can imagine that their difficulties are not lessened but may be considerably increased by discussions which develop an undue examination of the various incidents that have taken place lately in London and throughout the country. I can imagine that difficulties might be created in the path of those who are really responsible for watching these aliens, and for detecting any schemes or plots among them—by any display of the slightest incaution, or by any insistence upon too much confidence being placed by the authorities in this House. If these schemes and plots are to be met and counteracted successfully, the very first essential on the part of the Home Secretary and his advisers is absolute secrecy, and to press them to take us into their confidence, and to tell us what they are doing in particular exigencies and to meet particular dangers, is surely not to display that caution or that carefulness for the public interest which might be expected from Members of this House.
  No doubt there are fears which we all share, fears which reach us from various bodies of our constituents—fears which are reflected in the Press and possibly also in the conversations we hear around us. I confess sometimes in my own experience, when I have investigated those fears, they have proved in some cases to be exaggerated, or not founded on very solid facts. But still I admit there are fears, which I share. I admit also there are dangers. But I say that our first object should be not to calm irritated nerves or excited imaginations but to do what we can to aid the Home Secretary and his advisers, and above all to aid the Criminal Investigation Department, and those engaged in this most difficult task, in their attempts to counteract these schemes. We are doing our best to help them if we ask them to place too much confidence in us or if we invite them to discuss these very difficult questions with all the cards upon the table. It is not that I do not recognise the full sincerity and patriotic motives which animate those who have spoken this afternoon. But I also recognise the difficulties of the position, and I say that those difficulties would not be lessened, but would be rather increased, by such a discussion as we have just listened to, and therefore I deprecate it.

  839
  I feel certain that the Home Secretary and his advisers are doing the best in their power to meet these difficult exigencies. I have confidence in that. If I had not that confidence, then I say it is no use pretending to have it, but I do give the Government my confidence, and I am not disposed to ask them to discuss these matters too openly, or to take hon. Members into their confidence, telling them where precisely danger may exist and what may be the meaning of this or that manifestation of danger in any particular part of the country. It is not from any doubt of the sincerity of their motives or the purity of their patriotism that I appeal to hon. Members to recognise the force of these arguments. I hope the whole House gives the Home Secretary its complete trust, and I for one do not think I ought to make it a condition of that trust that the right hon. Gentleman should give me too much confidence, or expose to me all the plans that may be in his mind or in the minds of his advisers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask a question of the Home Secretary. It is whether he has received a certain manifesto which has been issued? I will only read the letter which accompanied it—it is a letter addressed to myself, but I will hand the document to the right hon. Gentleman. The letter is headed: "The Independent Labour Party, City of London Branch," and it is as follows:
  "I enclose herewith a copy of a resolution adopted at the public meeting held at Exeter Hall, under the auspices of the City of London branch of the Independent Labour Party. I trust yon will use all your influence to secure the carrying into effect of this resolution, so that the wicked and useless slaughter of workers now being carried on in the interests of the profiteering classes may be speedily put a stop to."
  I propose to give the document which demands the terms of peace to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the hon. Baronet entitled to make a speech when he only interrupted in order to put a question?
  The CHAIRMAN: As long as the speech is in order the hon. Baronet is entitled to make it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to make a speech. I will simply read the resolution which accompanied the letter as follows:
  "That this meeting calls on the British Government to declare publicly, and without delay, the basis on which Great Britain and her Allies will be prepared to discuss terms of peace with Germany and Austro-Hungary."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): When the hon. Baronet asked if I had received the document he referred to, the answer, naturally, was that I had not, but an hon. Friend of mine has now passed it to me, and I can assure him it shall be examined, and put in the proper quarters for any necessary action to be taken. I hope that this intervention will not be allowed to colour the Debate, and I trust the hon. Baronet will remember that it is not always the best way to show the real sentiments of the British people to give too great an advertisement to a document which naturally causes indignation in some quarters, and which, I think, should not necessarily be quoted in this House as representative of any great body of opinion. I now come to the points which have been raised in the course of this Debate. I appreciate the friendly way in which they have been raised, and will do my best to reward those friendly speeches with all the candour that I can command.
  First of all the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) raised a question whether those who were in prisons were being sufficiently used to do work connected with the production of munitions of war. Earlier in the day I answered a question on that point, and I am glad now to be able to give the hon. Gentleman information as to the sort of work these people are doing. At Question Time I said all the available labour of the prison was not being used for making munitions of war, or ammunition for the troops, because it was already fully occupied in making other war stores for the Government. I can now say further that 2,000,000 articles have been made in the execution of orders for stores required for war purposes by the Admiralty, the War Office, the Post Office, and other Departments. For example, the prison population has been making ship's fenders, hammocks, coal sacks, cartridge cases, signal cones, and mail bags for the postal service of the Expeditionary Force, and they have orders in hand for another 1,000,000 articles. To enable this multitude of orders to be executed a great deal of special organisation has been created in the prisons, and we are really indebted to the prison staffs for the energy which they have thrown into the work, involving in some cases extra hours of labour which they have willingly given. The House will be satisfied, I hope, that, so far as we properly can, we are using the labour

  841
  available in these institutions for purposes directly connected with the War.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are all the prisoners who are fit to work engaged in this manner?
  Sir J. SIMON: In my answer at Question Time I said that all available prison labour has been used ever since the War began in making war stores for the Government. I do not mean to say that there are not some conceivable exceptions, but if exceptions have been made there is very good reason for it. Broadly speaking, all the labour available in the prisons for the purpose has been made use of. This is essentially a war topic, and nearly every other question raised in this Debate has some connection with the War. Of course that is quite right and proper. But there was one exception, and that was the question raised by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan). The hon. Gentleman discussed a question which has many times before been raised in this House. It was as to how far it would be possible to allow something like trade union organisation for the members of the Metropolitan Police Force. That question has been raised in this House many times—in times of peace as well as to-day—and I would suggest that, whatever else may be said about it, it really is not a question directly connected with the emergency of war in which we stand, and it ought not to be allowed to occupy too much public attention at this particular time. I believe I interpret quite truly the feelings of that splendid and loyal body of men, the constables of the Metropolitan Police, when I say that they would be among the first to admit that no questions should be raised now which would detract in any way from the one overwhelming duty and function of defeating the enemy. There was an observation made by the hon. Gentleman which goes to the root of this matter, and while I hope we shall not have a long controversy about it, I will ask the Committee to observe what the hon. Gentleman himself said. He urged that there should be an unlimited right of meeting, organisation, and everything that involved concerted action for the police just as there is for every other class of workers in the country except, as he said, the Army and the Navy. Why is it that my hon. Friend makes that exception? He makes that exception because, like a man of good sense, he sees at once that the public safety, secured as it is by the Army and Navy, depends upon
  842
  the strict discipline and the prompt obedience of the Army and Navy. He makes the exception in the case of the Army and Navy because, when you have highly disciplined forces of that sort, although they are entitled to claim the fullest and fairest consideration for any grievances they have—what body of men have a better claim?—still, common sense shows you that they cannot, as one of the conditions of their service, be allowed or expected to exercise the right of private combination against their employers, the State, in quite the same way in which the ordinary mass of the workmen, to the great advantage of the State, are constantly doing. The reasons for the exception of the Army and the Navy apply absolutely to the Metropolitan Police. The public safety of London depends upon the strict discipline and prompt obedience of the Metropolitan Police in the same way in which the public safety of the country depends upon the Army and Navy.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Would not that apply to Paris, Norway and Sweden, equally as well?
  Sir J. SIMON: I cannot help thinking that for this purpose we had better, for the moment, consider our own problem. I say quite frankly that I do not know, and I doubt whether anyone in the Committee knows precisely what conditions are to be found in Paris or Norway and Sweden. All we can say is what the conditions are in our own Metropolitan area. All I am venturing to suggest is that while, for my part, there is nobody in this Committee who has a more firm belief in the value to the community of combinations and collective action on behalf of bodies of workmen with common sympathies, at the same time it is clear that the same exception which my hon. Friend willingly applied in the case of members of the Army and Navy is an exception which does suggest itself to reasonable people in the case of a body like the Metropolitan Police. That the matter may be seen in its true aspects, I would ask the Committee to observe these two further facts. In the first place, the most elaborate arrangements are made for securing that a constable—a man in the lowest grade of this fine service—shall have his grievance, even although his grievance be nothing more than a reprimand which has been administered to him, attended to by a proper system of appeal to the proper authority. He may appeal step by step, and he does, in

  843
  proper cases, appeal. I can claim in this matter to know something of the working of such appeals, independently of the new duties I have assumed at the Home Office. I am quite confident, from the way in which these appeals are worked, whether it be by his immediate superiors or whether it be by those in higher positions, like the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner himself, or my predecessor in office, that that system of appeal is one which has worked with the greatest sense of fairness to the individual complaining. The greatest trouble is taken to see if there is ground for his complaint and a full, fair and friendly hearing is given.
  The second point I would submit is this: It is all very well to ask us to consider the position of the police in Paris, Norway, and Sweden. I say quite frankly that I do not know anything about that. But the Committee should remember that the Metropolitan Police here in London stand in a very exceptional position to the House of Commons itself. The Secretary of State is, in a real and immediate sense, answerable for that force. My relation, holding that office, to the London policeman is something quite different from the relation of any Member of the Government to any member of the local and provincial police forces. They have the most direct connection with Parliament. They have, I am very glad to think, many friends in this House. I do not believe there is any Member of the House of Commons who does not count among his real friends those members of the London police force who we constantly know in connection with this building and whose kindness, courtesy and attention are the admiration of every one of us. If ever there was a body of men in this country certain of getting attention to its grievances, not merely by Gentlemen who sit on this Front Bench but by the championing of private Members of this House, it is members of the London police force. We should, indeed, be very ungrateful Members of Parliament if we did not realise that we had that direct connection with and responsibility for them. On these grounds I do not think there is substance in the suggestion that the police of London are put at a disadvantage because this well-known rule is applied to them just as it is applied to the Army and Navy. Unless there be in the middle of a great War some very special and peculiar occasion which requires us to occupy time in considering this problem
  844
  now, I hope my hon. Friend and any who may happen to share his point of view will not think I am trying to shelve the matter in asking them to turn to matters immediately before us.
  The next matter which was mentioned originally by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), and since then developed in speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and other speakers, is the question, the very large, very grave, very urgent question, both of the policy which we adopt in relation to aliens, and more particularly hostile aliens and those who may be associated with them, and the way in which and the extent to which that policy is in practice being carried out. I should like to make it quite plain to the Committee—as they know I am undertaking a new duty, and they will not expect me to have mastered everything at the moment—that I entered upon this part of my task profoundly convinced that it was a grave and serious subject. I still retain enough of the prejudices of a lawyer to think that in ordinary times you should not do anything until you have what lawyers call proof. Although that may be, and I think is, a very valuable rule for action in times of peace when you are dealing with a population which has no reason for being other than friendly, that is not a good rule, and it is not a sensible rule, when you are dealing with a danger such as this, which every sensible man realises. I trust every Member of the Committee will agree when I say that I can never associate myself, whatever be the public clamour, with action in respect of these suspected persons which is, as I know and believe, unjust action. We should show ourselves very poor representatives of Parliamentary tradition if we were not prepared, on a proper occasion, to resist even popular clamour in cases where injustice would otherwise be done. That is quite a different thing from saying that we ought to fold our hands and require strict, precise, elaborate legal proof before any sort of precaution is taken.
  I would suggest that the true rule to apply is this: We must, in the first place, recognise that the public intereset and the national interest come far in front even of inconvenience and even of the risk of misunderstanding in the case of any individual whatever, be he rich or be he poor, be he alien or be he British. In the second place, we should remember that

  845
  everybody who is really devoted to the cause of the country is prepared to undergo certain inconveniences, even, indeed, if the inconvenience consists in your being required to live in one place rather than another, or to register your address and to get leave before you can do this or that. What is that inconvenience compared with the sort of sacrifice which hundreds and thousands of loyal British subjects are making every day? Therefore, I would say to anybody who feels that the rule has been a little harsh in his case—and there may well be such cases—"while you protest that your own sympathies are with this country and that your own attachments are loyal and genuine, it may be so, but we feel it necessary to take precautions before we have reached the point of elaborate legal proof that suspicion against you is justified, and we call upon you to make the sacrifice, if it be a sacrifice, of submitting yourself to these regulations cheerfully and fairly, not because we call everybody who has a foreign-sounding name a traitor—heaven forbid! there are many people with foreign-sounding names who are as loyal and faithful to this country as a man who carries some ancient Saxon appellation—but because loyal people—people who are prepared to say that this country must be protected in this struggle, say they will not mind even if the regulations do turn out in certain cases to be a little hard and pressing in their individual case." That appears to be the commonsense way in which this thing ought to be viewed.
  I would ask the Committee, and, so far as I may, I would ask the public, to observe these two rules: Do not let us allow ourselves to be frightened or blustered into doing unjust things merely because there is a certain amount of public clamour that they should be done; but, subject to that, let us make it quite plain that we think it right that we should do strict things, and sometimes severe things, even though they affect the complete freedom of movement of individuals, so long as it can be fairly said it is a wise precaution to take in view of the immense national interests in our charge. I can imagine that Members of the Committee will say, let us see how these fine-sounding principles are carried out, because it is no good laying them down unless a real effort is made to apply them. As the Committee knows, the Prime Minister explained the policy we propose to adopt. Let the Committee remember, although I
  846
  think that in these discussions it is often forgotten, that we are served in this country with a Special Investigation Department, both a highly trained staff at the War Office and a highly trained staff at Scotland Yard, which I am enough of a Briton to believe cannot be matched in Germany or out of it. It is a small staff, but it is a highly skilled staff, and it has devoted itself with tremendous energy and great assiduity to the work of protecting this country from dangers of this sort. Let the Committee remember that upon the advice of these bodies, at the very beginning of the War, we laid our hands upon every person whom the authorities had any reason to believe was dangerous because of his activities or his correspondence with this country. If you are viewing the matter in fair proportions you must start with that fact.
  After you have done that it is perfectly obvious that you have a very large alien enemy population as to which, for my part, I do not feel the least surprise that public opinion should say, "Your special investigators may be all very proper, your secret inquiries may be all very complete, but still it is desirable that you should adopt definitely the policy that people who are at large as alien enemies in this country should be interned, unless there be special proof to the satisfaction of fair-minded people that in exceptional cases they should be left at large." That was the policy that was announced, and we have pursued that policy, from the moment it was announced, with the greatest energy. It is not a question of asking a number of business men to be good enough to find a place where people may be detained as my hon. Friend (Sir Edwin Cornwall) seems to think. He will not find it quite as easy as he thinks even then, for an energetic War Office and an energetic Admiralty have very properly taken great numbers of appropriate sites for the purpose of training troops. The Crystal Palace is taken by the Admiralty, and all sorts of large areas and buildings have been taken by the War Office. We must not complain, for, after all, they have taken them for very good public purposes. But the real difficulty is to find, promptly, places which will really satisfy the necessary conditions. These people are being shut up against their will; therefore it is not a question of putting them in a building. You must put them in a place which is suitably surrounded and can be suitably guarded.

  847
  There are considerable numbers of men to be put in one place, and it must be a place which is sanitary for such a purpose. It must be a place which is capable of being supplied with water and other necessities for such a purpose, and these things, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, could not be done even if he gave me what he suggests—a hundred business Members of the House of Commons. Even that invaluable form of assistance would not produce that particular thing in five minutes.
  What has happened is this: Immediate steps were taken to find out where further accommodation could be secured. The inhabitants of the Isle of Man, who are patriotic people like other subjects of the King, naturally do not much like the idea that their island should become a place of internment for unlimited quantities of Germans. But on the other hand, like other patriotic subjects of the King, they have shown themselves perfectly willing to play the part which they are called upon to play in view of the position of the island. They are not represented in this House, but I think it would be right that I should call the Committee's attention to the fact that these Manxmen, though they are not represented in this House, have accepted most cheerfully the putting in their island of very large camps, inside which we are putting these interned Germans as fast as ever we can, and that they are co-operating in the extension of these camps, which is going on from day to day; so that there alone, as far as my figures go, we are able to provide additional accommodation for something like a thousand every week as the weeks go by. In addition to that, we have got other places inside the United Kingdom which we are trying to use. The War Office finds a great difficulty in providing armed guards for such purpose, but they have shown throughout a real desire to co-operate, and certainly no one can say that they have not been pressed by the Home Office and by other Departments to do their utmost. I am indebted to the President of the Local Government Board for the very energetic effort which he is making to find further places of accommodation, and by this means, though I say quite frankly it cannot be done in twenty-four hours, we are as a matter of fact, carrying out that policy of interning alien enemies as fast as it can be carried out. An hon. Member
  848
  asked me the other day whether our present rate of progress would be maintained. I would answer him by saying that our present rate of progress will, I believe, be most rapidly increased; and unless some unforeseen difficulties arise, and we do our utmost to prevent it, I am pretty confident that the time which has still to elapse before the carrying out of this policy is over will be found to be a good deal less than the time which might be calculated on the basis of what has already happened.
  That is internment. But of course apart from internment there is the important question of repatriation. It is in every way desirable that we should send out of this country such persons as can safely be sent out and who belong to this class. We can send out of this country a certain number of men who are of no fighting value, either because of age or because of some permanent physical incapacity, and to a certain extent that has already been done. There is another class which I hope the Committee will consider, and consider sympathetically, and that is the class of German and Austrian women. I say quite frankly I think it would be a cruel thing if we were to say that as a matter of course and without question every German and every Austrian woman in this country was to be turned out. It would be a cruel thing to do. For consider: many of them are Germans and Austrians because, though British born, they have married German or Austrian husbands, and it would be really a monstrous thing if we were to take women—in some cases young, in some cases old—and simply because they have married Germans or Austrians, should, as a matter of course, turn them out of this country. I do not say there may not be such cases, because yon may have a wife of a German or an Austrian who has so far associated herself with her husband's relations and associations and interests and prejudices that it is better that she should be treated as having definitely joined in fact, as she has in theory, his Associations rather than maintain her own. But I hope the Committee will agree with me that there are exceptional cases of that sort which must certainly be considered. It is quite a different thing when you are dealing with some other class of women, but the women who are Germans because they are married to Germans must certainly illustrate the necessity of exception.
  Whether you are dealing with the interning of men or with the repatriation of others, mostly women—men of military

  849
  age are interned, and some other men are repatriated as well—you need to have a body which will consider claims for exceptional treatment, and there are such claims in both classes, and very proper claims in some cases. We set up at once advisory bodies to deal with the matter. So far as the rest of the country was concerned, other than Scotland, we have appointed what are in fact two Committees. Each of them is presided over by a High Court judge, and each of them has also two Members of Parliament who act as associates and assessors to the High Court judge. The object is to secure a small body and a fair body, a body which is in touch with Parliamentary and public opinion and which will be able to deal with these cases rapidly. The House may be interested to know how far that has been dealt with. I have the figures here. These two Committees have now dealt with some 2,160 applications for exemption from internment. Of course only a certain number of people applied, because others go either willingly or because they realise that they have no chance whatever of getting excused. Some 618 of these are being inquired into and no decision has been arrived at; but as regards the rest, exemption has been granted in 286 cases and exemption has been refused in 1,256 cases. Of these 1,256 cases where exemption was asked for and refused I am told that 1,104 are Germans and 152 are Austrians or Hungarians. That will show the Committee that that machinery is really working, and I have made some personal inquiry about it, and I am satisfied that as far as that Committee is concerned they are dealing with these applications for exemption at a rapid rate.
  But I should like the Committee to understand that when you are dealing with the internment of an alien it is not necessary that you should wait until his application for exemption has been disposed of before you intern him. After all, the internment camp in this country is made as healthy as it reasonably can be, and there are worse things in the month of June than being interned in the Isle of Man. Therefore we do not follow the practice of saying that no one is to be interned until their application for exemption has been heard. That would obviously mean that everyone would apply for exemption. But we proceed to intern in cases of need as rapidly as we can without regard to that, taking, naturally, those persons first of
  850
  all who are more particularly pointed at as conceivable sources of danger. Then their applications for exemption are dealt with, if they make them, even after they have been interned; and, supposing exemption is granted, they are, of course, let out. But the Committee will see that when you are dealing with repatriation—sending people out of the country—you cannot proceed in that order. You cannot first send someone out of the country, and then, afterwards, get the Committee to consider an application that he or she should not go. That would be on the principle of hanging a man first and hearing the appeal against the verdict and sentence afterwards. It is necessary, therefore, so far as sending people out of the country goes, that you must hear their application before you decide whether they are to go or not. There, again, efforts are being made to carry that on as rapidly as possible, and I shall be able, I hope, in a short time to give the House some figures on that subject too. Then, as regards Scotland—in this, as in other things, Scotland has to be considered as what it is, a great country with traditions of its own—Scotland has its own Committee. Of that Committee I am not in a position to speak to-day, because I really do not know how far, if at all, it has gone. It is presided over by a Scottish legal authority—by Lord Dewar—and the two other Members of Parliament who compose the Committee are my right hon. Friend (Sir J. H. Dalziel), who has taken a great interest in the subject, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. W. Watson), who has also consented to serve. Certainly they can get to work, as far as I am concerned, as soon as they like. They have probably done so already.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: How is Ireland dealt with?
  Sir J. SIMON: Ireland, as a matter of fact, is a country which provides us with very few of these cases. I do not know whether that is one of the wrongs of Ireland. I hope not. Of course we will make special arrangements for dealing with Ireland in case of need, but at present we have found that the two Committees appointed for the whole country, otherwise than Scotland, have been able to deal with any Irish cases.
  Mr. M. HEALY: How is an alien to know whether he can apply for exemption from repatriation or exemption from internment?
  Sir J. SIMON: He is told what his position is. The principle is this. An alien between certain limits of age—eighteen and fifty-five, I think, in the case of a German—will be interned unless he gets exemption. That is men. We do not intern and never should propose to intern women. But the risk of women, and also male aliens who fall outside these limits of age, is the risk of being repatriated.
  Colonel YATE: Cannot good sites for internment be found in Ireland?
  Sir J. SIMON: I shall be very glad to consult the hon. and learned Gentleman if he has any suggestion to make. I can assure him that the United Kingdom has been scoured for places of internment, but you need a great deal more than sites. You need barbed wire, you need water, you need huts, you need supplies, you need guards, you need rifles, you need a commandant, you need a whole apparatus, and it would be the height of folly to go peppering little internment camps all over the country. What you want to do, if you are going to do the thing on businesslike principles, is to have a limited number of big camps. That is the best way in which to use your resources.
  There are two remaining points on this difficult and very important subject that I ought to mention. First of all, it has been pointed out that the question is not exhausted by considering the case of enemy aliens, because you may have to consider, and for my part I think certainly it is reasonable that we should consider and deal with a certain number of cases where the individual is of hostile origin or hostile associations, but is technically not an alien. I do not myself think that you ought to draw a strict line of legal division between persons who are naturalised and persons who are natural born citizens of this country. When a person is naturalised and given a certificate he is, by the terms of that certificate, assured by the State that henceforward he will stand in the same position as a person who is a natural-born British subject. I think we should be acting very foolishly if we did not remember that we had given that promise. The right way to deal with the matter is to say, "I do not care whether a man is natural born or naturalised. There is a rule which, in time of war, we must apply, and that rule is, that when it is fairly shown that an individual is dangerous to the State, because he is at large, whether it be because of his hostile origin or because of
  852
  his hostile associations, then if it is fairly shown, even if he is a British-born subject, he must submit to restraint." The Committee will see that that has this great advantage, that whatever the rule is that you lay down, it is a rule that all of us, natural-born British subjects, admit to be a fair rule to ourselves, if we I come within its provisions, because of our hostile associations or acts. Applying that means that we do not in the least deny the advantages of British citizenship to anybody, but we say as a practical matter of importance, in time of war, that we ought to be able in a proper case to deal with persons, even if they are British subjects by naturalisation or otherwise, provided that they are persons of hostile origin and associations, and that a case is made out for shutting them up, or having some special security in respect of them.
  An hon. Gentleman opposite said we had made no such provision, but an hon. Gentleman on this side differed from him, and the correction was justified, because one of the first things that was done when I took over my new duties as Home Secretary was to devise an Amendment in the Defence of the Realm regulations by which it may be possible with proper safeguards—of course, it should not be done without the most careful safeguards—that a British citizen may be required to live in a particular place, or to notify his movements, or submit to other necessary conditions for the safety of the State. What are the safeguards? In the first place, such a person must be reported to the Secretary of State, either by the naval or military authorities, or by one of these advisory committees, of which I have already spoken. In the second place, I thought it right that the Home Secretary, who is answerable in this House, should not be able to shield himself in connection with these acts behind the recommendation of the naval or military authorities. I thought it plainly right, in the interests of British subjects, that I should have to answer if an unreasonable one was made of this most exceptional power. Therefore, the regulation is so drawn as to secure that. In the third place, any Order that is made under these new regulations can only be made for the defence of the realm and the security of the public from danger, and it must contain express provision which will secure that the person to be dealt with shall have any representation he wants to make, as to any mistake having been made, or as to other

  853
  matters in his favour, fully and properly considered. The Order must, contain provision that such representation shall come before the Advisory Committee and be fully and fairly considered and dealt with by them. We ask our fellow countrymen—because, after all, these naturalised persons have taken an obligation to this country—to recognise that a rule like that—I trust it will not have to be applied in many cases—is a sensible rule, laid down in order to secure that our protection from this danger shall be as complete as possible.
  There is the question of the method now being followed in respect of naturalising Germans or Austrians. I have looked into that, and I can say with complete confidence—because, of course, responsibility for naturalisation rests with the Home Secretary—that we do not, and for my part I have not the slightest intention of making any alteration, naturalise enemies during the War, except in one or two very limited classes of cases, which I am sure the Committee will regard as reasonable and necessary. We do on occasion naturalise a woman who is the widow of a German or Austrian, or other enemy husband. We naturalise such woman if she was of British origin. She may have been as a girl an ordinary English, Scotch, Welsh, or Irish girl. She marries a German or an Austrian. Her husband has died. The effect of marriage is to change the nationality of the woman, not only during the time of marriage, but even after the marriage has been dissolved by the death of the husband. Therefore she is in law still a German, or an Austrian lady. It is a very hard thing that the woman whose family connections are all British, and who, by the fact of marrying a German has acquired a German name, should have to go on with the stigma of a German name and associations—because at this time that is a stigma for a British subject—without so much as a certificate of re-naturalisation. Therefore the Home Office have, in proper cases, and we shall continue to do so, recognised that, and we have given certificates of naturalisation to women of British origin and British family whose only reason for being enemies alien at this time is that they are the widows of German or other enemy husbands.
  The only other case that I can call to mind is a very rare case: it is the case where the person to be naturalised is a
  854
  person whose services are, for some special reason, really needed in connection with work that is being done in this country, and who cannot, do that work except under these terms. There have been cases of that sort. I look at these cases myself with a very jealous eye. So far as I know there have been no such cases during the time I have been at the Home Office. I trust the Committee will agree that we ought to adhere strictly to rule, and that there should be no certificate of naturalisation granted to enemies during this War, save in such very exceptional cases as I have indicated.
  I have done my best to give the House my views as frankly and as fully as I can of these important matters, and I hope I shall be excused if I deal more summarily with a number of incidental points which were mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy asked a question about the registration of aliens in hotels. I agree that if that is the only thing it will not be worth very much, because obviously it is not possible to apply very strict and careful tests. A dishonest person is always under the temptation of telling a lie, but this method of registration is of some value. It enables the police, for example, to follow up a man who is under their eye, and of whose movements they might be suspicious. By this means they are enabled to follow him from hotel to hotel. I can speak from experience in my former office as Attorney-General that certainly the registration of aliens in hotels has been of real assistance in that regard, even if we look at it as a thing by itself. But I would like the Committee to understand this: you must look at the question in respect of aliens as a whole if you are going to judge fairly whether the Administration has taken proper steps to deal with the matter. We require aliens to be registered, whether they are enemy aliens or friendly aliens. We require an American, a Dutchman, or a Swede to register, just as much as we require any other alien. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan) complains because a Belgian has been arrested and prosecuted at Newcastle. With great respect, I maintain that that was quite right. The reason was this: Newcastle is in a prohibited area, and it is not right, it is not safe, it is not proper that you should allow aliens of any sort to go moving about in prohibited areas without the police knowing that they are there. It was perfectly right to prosecute this man. I do not know whether he was

  855
  punished or not, but it was certainly right to restrain him from doing what was very dangerous, namely, claiming, because he was a friendly alien, to go where he liked without so much as a "by your leave." The next thing is that we require aliens, especially enemy aliens, before they remove from where they are to give notice where they are going. I know it causes inconvenience, and I have had letters from people who complain, for instance, because a governess, or some other person, cannot move freely up and down the country. Well, they must put up with these inconveniences, which are really nothing compared with the importance of having a reasonably strict supervision over aliens.
  Then I would ask the Committee to realise this, we only allow aliens, even friendly aliens, to pass in and out of this country through a very limited number of ports. For example, hon. Members from Ireland may have observed in travelling backwards and forwards that there is only one port at which we allow aliens of any nationality to pass between England and Ireland, and that is Holyhead. No alien, not even an American, can go to Ireland by Fishguard or Stranraer. However friendly they may be, they must pass between Ireland and England through that particular channel, Holyhead. Why do we do that? Because if you want to detect, and in a proper case to put your hands upon a man who is really assisting the enemy under the guise of being a friendly alien, it is a matter of the greatest importance that we should know that there are only a very limited number of ports through which he can possibly move. Hon. Members will remember that there was the case of a spy who professed to be an American, and who hanged himself the other day in prison. How was he caught? He was caught because, writing a letter in Liverpool, he spoke of going to Ireland, and the authorities knew, owing to this system of the Home Office, that if an American was going from England to Ireland there was only one way for him to go. Therefore, by inquiry from the Aliens Department at Holyhead, it was possible to detect where he had gone when he had gone and when he was coming back, and he was in a fair way of being arrested as he was in a London and North-Western Railway carriage passing from Holyhead to Euston. If hon. Members want to judge how far the control of
  856
  aliens in this country is being carried on, and whether the whole alien problem is being fairly tackled with good sense, I would remind them that we must not confine ourselves to a single item, such as registration of aliens in hotels, but we must look at the thing as a whole, and though I am very far from saying that the system now in vogue cannot be improved—and I shall be very glad of any suggestions from any hon. Members—it may be fairly remarked that a great deal of effort and a great deal of organisation has been put forth in trying to solve the problem.
  Several hon. Gentlemen mentioned the occurrence of fires. It is obviously an easy thing to make mistakes. You may make a mistake in supposing that every fire that happens in time of war is an inciendiary fire, caused by an enemy of this country. That is, perhaps, partly because people do not notice what a lot of fires there are in times of peace. If you live in London you hear of, or see, fires every week; but in times of peace no one says that that is due to a German. In times of war there is always that temptation, and I do not complain of it, but let us be quite certain that there is not some cause for the fire which is due to an accidental origin. The sort of mistake I have pointed out, namely, supposing these fires are of enemy origin, we must bear in mind. The other mistake, which is just as bad, is for the authorities to pooh-pooh the whole thing and say it is not worth inquiring into, and that there is nothing in it. I have no sympathy with that point of view at all, and I have made it my business since I went to the Home Office to secure, as far as I can, that the very best methods are adopted in any case where there is possible ground of suspicions that there was an incendiary origin for any fires that occur. Take the case of the fire at Park Royal. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Nield) speaks with more special knowledge of that case, because it is very near his constituency.
  Mr. NIELD: I pointed out that the special feature of it was that the fire took place as these motor vans were ready to go out.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir J. SIMON: That is an element which ought to be considered. All I can be expected to say is that I know that the most careful inquiries have been made by the Commissioner of Police, and the

  857
  answer I gave to-day was the result of the inquiries that were made. We certainly will not shut our eyes to any information which will lead to the discovery of the true cause, remembering always that we must expect a certain number of fires even in time of war. But I was assured by the Commissioner of Police that in the London Docks, the place in which you would think incendiary fires were more likely than elsewhere, it is not true to say that since the War began the number of fires has been greater than the average, and it so happens, though this is a pure accident, that the severity of those fires on the whole has been rather less than in the corresponding time of peace. I am sure that we are all very glad that that is so, but that is no reason why the thing should not be very carefully watched and closely studied. So far as I am able to do so, I shall do my best to secure this result.
  An hon. Gentleman opposite said that we have got too many people in the police force and that we should let more go to join the Army. Certainly the police do not deserve to be reproached because of any unwillingness to serve their country in positions of the greatest danger. At the beginning of the War hundreds of them who were Reservists all joined the very next morning, and since that time, for various reasons, a certain additional number has been released, and at this moment the number of the Metropolitan Police is a great deal below our ordinary standard number in time of peace. To some extent the work is supplemented by the most valuable and greatly appreciated work of the special constables. Certainly we who live in London—and, indeed, the people of the whole country—have the greatest reason to be grateful to the special constables in the Metropolitan area and elsewhere. But I would ask the Committee to remember that the problem of securing the safety of London in time of war is not, after all, a problem which can be entirely overlooked. It is quite obvious that events might happen in London in which a great strain would be put upon the police force and the special constables to keep order; it might be, conceivably, to stop rioting, or to help to put out fires, or to do other things of that sort. The Commissioner of Police tells me that his force has been so depleted by Reservists having joined the Colours and others also having gone, that, while he deeply appreciates
  858
  the services of the special constables, in his judgment it would not be safe to allow any further withdrawals from the ranks of the police for such patriotic work. At an ordinary time you have something like three married policemen to one unmarried policeman. The proportion of married policemen has now increased, because it has been the young unmarried policeman more particularly who, for one reason or another, has left the police force in order to join the Army.
  Mr. NIELD: The right hon. Gentleman is not forgetting the Emergency Corps?
  Sir J. SIMON: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not. In nothing that I have said is there any suggestion that we are not deeply grateful to them. In these matters the Home Secretary must be guided by the very experienced Commissioner of Police, upon whose shoulders falls the great burden of preparation for the preservation of order and the defence of London in the event of an emergency. I can do nothing more than report to the House the view, which I myself share, that it is really not safe to allow any more of the police to leave the force in order to join the Army. I trust that I have dealt with the points which have been mentioned, and I apologise to the Committee for detaining them so long. I would only say, in conclusion, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir M. Wilson), whose statement I did not in the least misunderstand, said some things which were meant, I know, in the most friendly way, and spoke a little contemptuously about the official way. I can assure him that neither I nor the officials of this Department in the least misunderstand the spirit in which he makes that sort of criticism. I have been in my present office only for a very few weeks, but I am quite sure that from whatever else the country suffers it does not suffer from any want of efficiency or of devotion on the part of officials of that Department. That is quite impossible.
  I am new to departmental life, but I am perfectly certain that the country is being served with all the strength, all the intelligence, and all the devotion of the officials of that great Department which it could ever hope or expect to receive. Nothing could exceed the labour that has been put into the special problems which arise in war time, and I can assure my hon. Friend, as far as I have seen them, that it would be the exact opposite to the truth to say

  859
  that they were going on in time of war as though they were in time of peace. There is not a single department in the office which has not got its own work directly connected with the problems of the War, and whatever may be the shortcomings that have to be pointed out and the improvements that may be called for, I am sure that the Committee will be willing to recognise the great devotion with which the officials have worked inside this Department ever since the War began in reference to these most difficult subjects. I conclude by thanking the Committee most sincerely for the kind references which have been made to my new work. I know very well that it is work of great responsibility and importance. I make no other comment about it except this, that it will be my most constant endeavour to show, not merely in word but in deed, that I am anxious to consult and get the advantage of the assistance of Members of this House.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am sure that the Committee will agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the admirable manner in which the officials of whom he spoke have engaged in all matters connected with this War since it broke out, and certainly the last thing which I would desire is to offer anything whatever in the nature of hostile criticism, especially on the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has had to speak on behalf of the new office, to which I am sure everyone in the House is ready to welcome him, and I will say for myself, personally, that I am heartily glad that the opportunity has arisen. But considering the great dangers which he has himself just pointed out might probably happen to London at a time like the present, considering the time which has elapsed since the War broke out and the great apprehensions which were so widely felt, and have been referred to repeatedly this afternoon with regard to further Zeppelin raids in London, remembering the great number of fires, which I confess I thought unusually high, which have recently occurred in various parts of the country, and in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there are many fires at other times, only we do not pay the same attention to them—I am sure we were all glad to hear, and I know that he will do it, that he will watch these outbreaks of fire in London with the utmost care in future—but considering all these things, I hope that I shall not be suspected of any wish to say
  860
  anything whatever hostile if I do say that I am a little disappointed that on some three or four points which I will mention directly we have not had all the information which I should have been glad to have, if it had been possible for him to give it.
  Originally we were told, I think, that there were something like 40,000 alien enemies of one kind or another in the country, and even to-day, if I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that there was a very large enemy population in the country at the present time. What, then, I would like to know, if possible, is how many alien enemies are there still in the country? How many have been deported? How many have been interned? And how many are still at large in the country? The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that exceptions have been made in the case of some women and others, and I should very heartedly and readily agree with him in that. He also dealt with the question of British subjects, in regard to whom some of us think a case for action could be made out. I was glad to hear him deal with them in the way in which he did. Certainly no treatment can be too severe for British subjects who are guilty of such crimes as are suggested. In my humble opinion, they are not only a great deal worse, but from their knowledge and opportunity they are more dangerous than alien, enemies. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the accommodation required was not always very easy to obtain. That I can perfectly well understand. I was glad to hear what he told us about the Isle of Man, and I thought it extremely interesting. The right hon. Gentleman said, and it is perfectly true, that accommodation for all cannot possibly be provided in five minutes. But it is more than, nine months now since the War began. There has been a great deal of time to provide accommodation in a matter of this kind, if it had been taken up with the care and forethought to which I think it was certainly entitled. The right hon. Gentleman told us that at the present moment room was being found for 100 a week in the Isle of Man. A thousand people a week for nine months is 36,000 people, and if this question had been dealt with a little earlier it seems to me that there might have been far fewer alien enemies at large in the country during the last week or two. By this time none of them would have been at large in the country if this question had been

  861
  dealt with earlier in the day. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that out of 2,162 cases of application for exemption only 200 had been exempted and 1,200 had been refused, but he did not go on to tell us, which I hoped he would have done, where these 1,200 were at the present time. Are they interned?
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: All of them?
  Sir J. SIMON: I speak subject to correction, but I think so.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That is very satisfactory, and all that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman now is to give some other opportunity, if he cannot answer them now, of having answered a little more fully the four questions which I have asked in the few remarks that I have made this afternoon.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: I am sure I may be allowed to join with other Members of the Committee in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman, with all good wishes, in the new office to which he has been appointed With his usual skill and ability he has certainly maintained his record this afternoon in the discharge of his duties, for the first time, in that particular office It may seem a little presumptuous on the part of a layman to attempt to criticise the right hon. Gentleman in reference to his reply to my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who, as the Committee remembers, raised the question of the right of the Metropolitan Police to organise themselves in a trade union. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the parallel, quoting from the speech of my hon. Friend, of the Army and Navy, but I would respectfully remind the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, very carefully pointed out the very close analogy between the Civil Service and the Post Office and members of the Metropolitan Police. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the real explanation why the Metropolitan Police are meeting with such strong opposition from the Home Office in their demand to assert what I submit is an elementary right that they ought to be allowed to enjoy, is nothing more and nothing less than the same spirit that has opposed the onward growth of the trade union movement in the country.
  As the hon. Member for Barrow pointed out, even in very recent times we were
  862
  accustomed to meet with the same argument from the Front Bench when the plea was being put forth on behalf of the Post Office employés to be allowed to exercise their civil rights. One other comment I would make on that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and it is this: It is presupposed that the order and discipline that are essential to the efficiency of the Metropolitan Police Force would be impaired if, in a moment of weakness, or from some other cause, this House was to sanction, or the Home Office approve, of the police being entitled to organise as a trade union. I would suggest that the eloquent tribute that has been given to-day, not for the first time, to the value of the trade union movement affords good ground for believing that even from the standpoint of discipline and order those qualities would be exemplified if the Metropolitan Police Force were allowed to organise as a trade union. I respectfully suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Brace) that there is very useful and necessary work that I hope he will succeed in performing, and that is to educate, not only his Department, but his chief, in those fundamental principles which, if applied even to the Metropolitan Police Force, would not be inimical or opposed to the interests of the great Metropolis, but would add to their security, good will, and best interests of the community as a whole.
  I have risen more particularly to call the attention of the Home Office to the fact that some considerable time ago a Royal Commission reported to this House on the question of the inspection of mines, with special reference to metalliferous mines and quarries. I had occasion, some little time ago, on a report from Cumberland, to make representations to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman upon the importance and urgent necessity of adopting the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I do not think I need quote the Report of that Commission; in fact, from a letter I received from the late Home Secretary, the predecessor of the present occupier of that high office, it is admitted that the Royal Commission did make a very strong and very definite recommendation. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office knows more fully and completely than I do, so far as the miners are concerned, that they have been urging this question upon the attention of the House for a very considerable time. In the reply that I received from the Department the

  863
  reason given for not proceeding to the appointment of these inspectors, as in many other matters that are raised in this House, is the national emergency through which we are passing. I want to meet by anticipation that argument. Roughly speaking, a quarter of a million miners have joined the Colours, and the point to which I desire to call attention is that months ago the authorities issued orders that there was to be no recruiting so far as the miners in those particular metalliferous mines were concerned, for the very obvious reason that the War authorities were very much in need of steel.
  I want the Committee to keep that fact before their minds, and this further fact that the iron ore mines, speaking generally, are not only working full time, but more than full time, in the sense that, as the result of negotiations—I am not complaining in the least: I think it is very essential in certain limits—the miners in Cumberland, as a matter of fact, are working at least one more day per week. Not only that, but there are cases where they are drawing ore for sixteen hours as against eight hours. The point of my argument is that the answer we receive sometimes, when putting forward claims that involve additional expenditure, namely, the national emergency, and the fact that 250,000 miners or thereabouts have been withdrawn from the mines and are now with the Colours, is a reply which I hope will not be advanced upon this occasion. I trust it will be borne in mind that the output from the metalliferous mines, especially in the Cumberland district, is substantially larger, and I want the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of safety to see that the time has absolutely arrived when that very important recommendation of the Royal Commission, when that very urgent reform that has been fought for and demanded during so many years, ought to be conceded in the interests of the miners and their dependents.
  One other point, with which I will conclude. I have already drawn the attention of the Department to the fact that the chief inspector in the particular district to which I refer, and which I have the honour to represent, has received another appointment, and has been transferred to the Newcastle district, and it is reported that the idea of the Home Office is, under present conditions, not to appoint a successor in the Cumberland district. I have
  864
  reason to believe that policy has been or is being carried out. I need not remind the House of the terrible loss of life in mines that goes on not only in peace time but in war time, especially in those mines in that part of the country around Whitehaven that I have the honour to represent, with its tragic history and record. I submit to the Committee and to the Home Office that if it be true that it is not intended as the result of members of the inspecting profession having enlisted, to make a further appointment and that they are going to take advantage of this national crisis as a reason and excuse why they should relinquish and relax even the far from satisfactory mining inspection which exists in this country, then that is decidedly a reactionary policy and one that ought not to receive the endorsement of this Committee.
  Hon. Gentlemen will recollect that the promise has been made to appoint a substantial number of additional working men mines' inspectors, and, although it is difficult to argue in support of, or to press any claim in this time of war, yet if it be true that the policy of the Home Office is not to make further appointments, I submit that this is an additional reason why at least they should proceed to the appointment of additional assistant working men mines' inspectors. I would only add, and I am sure I will carry with me the assent and approval of the Committee, that the mining industry is one of the most important of the staple industries of this country. We are all conscious of the tragic and daily sacrifice of human life that goes on in the mines, and I submit that even this great national crisis through which we are passing ought not to be advanced as any justification or excuse for the relaxing, even in the mildest form, of any efforts put forward to protect and safeguard the interests of the miners and give security to their wives and to their children.
  Mr. M. HEALY: I desire to call attention to another subject, which is of importance. I am informed that the Home Office is responsible for the acts of the Sugar Commission, and I wish to raise that matter, which is one of very serious importance to the city of Cork.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Before the hon. Member proceeds, I should like to know from the representative of the Home Office whether it is the

  865
  case that they are responsible for the action of the Committee on this question of sugar?
  Mr. M. HEALY: I made inquiry of the Board of Trade, supposing that they would deal with it, but I was informed that the Home Office are responsible for it.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am advised that the Home Office is not responsible for this question, but if my hon. Friend will wait for the Secretary of State's return he can put his question officially, and the right hon. Gentleman will inform him whether or not the Home Office is responsible.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: May I state, from the knowledge I possess, that I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Minister who had this particular subject under his investigation when he was at the Home Office, and probably when the hon. Gentleman applied to the Board of Trade he was referred to the Home Office owing to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer having been at the Home Office.
  Mr. DENNISS: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary whether he will seriously consider the application which I made some little time ago in the form of a question with regard to the supply of distinctive uniforms for special constables in the Metropolitan area? The present Home Secretary replied that in the office they were considering a form of headgear for those officials, but that no further uniform was at present contemplated. I wish to urge upon him that he should supply, at least, in addition a tunic. There is a very urgent and insistent demand by the special constables, who are rendering great and inestimable services, that they should have some distinctive uniform which would give them a little more claim to distinction and to authority, and thus increase their efficiency. I put it to the hon. Gentleman as a matter which is really pressing and asked for and wanted by those constables, who are giving so much time and energy and zeal to a duty which is of the highest public importance to the Metropolis with the insufficiency of the police force under existing circumstances. Surely they should be considered when they make a universal demand that they should have something which would clothe them with the outward semblance of
  866
  authority so that they should not be mistaken on so many occasions, as they are now, for ordinary civilians, with their authority and efficiency thereby diminished. I do not wish to labour what is a very simple proposition, but I do urge very strongly the necessity of furnishing the members of the voluntary police force with a tunic in addition to a helmet or headgear. Many of them would be very glad to bear the expense themselves, and they desire it for the purpose of more efficiently carrying out the duties.
  Mr. RENDALL: I wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to one portion of the administrative work which the Home Office performs, and that is in regard to lunacy matters. The Home Office has been charged with the control of those matters for a great number of years, and has control over the Lunacy Commissioners, and carries out the Mental Deficiency Act passed a year or two ago. The Home Office, as soon as people realised the immense injury in the upsetting of the mental balance caused by high explosives and shells at the front, tried to do something to deal with it, and to deal with soldiers coming back in that condition. The Home Office introduced a Bill, the Mental Treatment Bill, but opposition having been displayed to that Bill, it was withdrawn. What was sought in that Bill was to get power to place the various persons concerned, chiefly soldiers, inside the walls of asylums for the purpose of treating those cases of want of mental balance which were transient and on the border line and without their being certified. The Bill having been withdrawn owing to objection, the consequence has been that the War Office, which of course has got complete military control over all soldiers, has now for some weeks, or perhaps months, been practically carrying out the same operation by virtue of the absolute power which they have over the soldiers, and the War Office has been doing what the Home Office sought to do by law, but which it did not persist in after it was shown that it was an undesirable method. My only reason now for bringing the matter up again is that the Home Office has been looked to by everybody in this country as the body charged with the protection of all persons of unsound mind. The Home Office is eventually the Court of Appeal on all questions with regard to asylums and the carrying out of the Lunacy Acts and the supervision of those institutions. It

  867
  seems to me that the Home Office, by taking up the line which it at present seems to take, having introduced a Bill and, having found opposition to that Bill, withdrawing it, is in fact abrogating its functions, and is therefore throwing the duty of carrying out those functions upon the War Office. The War Office has a great deal to do and has no staff specially trained for dealing with these questions. It is sorely in need of doctors and has a great deal of work to give those doctors quite apart from this very new question.
  It appears to me to be more than a shame and to be a calamity that, as I am assured, thousands of men who are now returning from the front with their mental balance temporarily deranged should be placed under the control of the War Office. I have not a word to say, and it would be a wrong place to say it, against the intention and motives of the War Office in dealing with this class of case, but they are dealing with this class of case by getting hold of various asylums in the country which I should have thought were under the administration of the Home Office. They are getting those asylums from the Home Office and turning them into what they call hospitals, and they are putting into those so-called hospitals, which are really asylums, under the control of the doctors who were in those asylums, those soldiers who ought to have the most careful modern treatment and who ought to be under the control of first-rate general practitioners in the condition in which they are, and who ought not to be placed under the control of the Lunacy Acts. It does seem to me that the Home Office now should introduce some other Bill or make some other proposal to treat this large class of persons—and the number may be very large if the War is prolonged—which would prevent them from falling under the control of the War Office. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman it would be a very sad thing if thousands, and it may be tens of thousands, who are at present under the entire control of the War Office, were placed in those hospitals. The soldier has no power of appeal such as that which exists in the case of the civilian, and I venture to think that some new proposal ought to be formulated by the Home Office with a view to protecting this large class of persons.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: If I had the opportunity of speaking rather earlier in this Debate I think I should have had a
  868
  good deal to say about the remarkable speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), and which most of us on this side, I think, listened to with very great satisfaction. We have been accustomed to hear from him on this question principles with which most of us have been in keen agreement. He will not think I am underrating the importance of his speech if I say that we listened with very much greater satisfaction, because it was not quite so expected, to the speech of the Home Secretary. I think if we had had such a speech at an earlier stage of the War from the Home Secretary that the public and the House would have viewed the whole management of this question with very much less misgiving than I hope we shall be able to do in the future. It was extremely satisfactory to us to hear from the right hon. Gentleman at the outset of his speech that he regarded this matter as one of grave and urgent importance—that is, the whole question of dealing with aliens in the country at the present time. I do not think we should be doing any injustice to the past management of the question if we say that up to now we have seen very little sign of its being treated as a matter of really "grave and urgent importance." The Home Secretary laid down principles which I think the country will be very ready to accept. He stated, in the first place, that we ought not to allow ourselves, in dealing with aliens in the country, to be hustled or guided by clamour from any quarter. I think that is a principle which we may all accept. But he also laid down what is more novel, I think, coming from an authoritative quarter, as to a point on which some of us have been trying to insist for some time past. He laid it down, in considering the question of the internment of aliens, that he would not consider himself necessarily confined to the production of absolute legal proofs before he took action, and I viewed this principle with even more satisfaction, when he said that for the future, at all events, there is to be no hard and fast dividing line between those who are alien enemies and those who are of British nationality, technically speaking, if they can be shown to have alien origin or association. We owe that phrase, which I think really is a valuable one, to the order which has been recently issued by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is very satisfactory tens to know that we have now added to the regulations issued under the Defence

  869
  of the Realm Act a provision which enables the right hon. Gentleman to place under restriction and to intern those who whether of enemy nationality or British nationality, come under the description of having hostile origin or association.
  I have said that we should have welcomed this attitude at an earlier stage of the War; but in one particular we must admit that it would have been more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor at the very outset to have taken the action which we look to the Home Secretary to take to-day. The whole situation has, in one respect, been altered by our experience of the last ten months. When the calamity of this War fell upon us we all imagined that we were going to have to deal with a civilised enemy, and we hoped it might prove to be a gallant and chivalrous enemy. We now know that it was a question of dealing not merely with a powerful military enemy, but with a vile and odious race. That consciousness has now coloured the whole attitude of our people towards those members of that race who are living amongst ourselves. Take such a point, for example, as that touched upon by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, upon which I think the Home Secretary said nothing. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the exercise of their functions by German magistrates at the present time. That is just a point which, although of minor importance, does very much touch the sentiment of the people of this country, and very legitimately so. If we had been dealing with an honourable and chivalrous enemy there might have been no objection whatever to men of German names and origin, who have been promoted to the bench, exercising their functions at the present moment. But, having regard to all the circumstances and the people with whom we have to deal, the horrible stories of their outrages and abominations which fall upon our ears every day, I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that it is due to the sentiment of the people of this country and due to decency that a British criminal, guilty perhaps of some paltry offence, should not, criminal though he be, have to submit to the humiliation of hearing his sentence pronounced in the broken English of a German alien. The matter does not come under the jurisdiction of the Home Office; therefore I cannot go into it at any length. I would merely say in passing that not only do I think, in the name of decency, that these gentlemen of
  870
  German origin, names, and speech, should not exercise judicial functions at the present moment, but I think that they ought to be removed from the commission of the peace. I earnestly hope that the Home Secretary will use his influence with his colleagues responsible in this matter, and that we shall be saved during the remainder of the War from what I think is the scandal to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite called attention.
  The Home Secretary has said, and no doubt it is true, that the whole of this question rests upon the principles by which we are guided in granting naturalisation to aliens. I hope that when the proper time comes, after the War, we shall have a completely new policy with regard to naturalisation. I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does appreciate the feeling of the country in this respect, though I doubt whether all in authority have grasped it as yet. We are not now concerned merely with the question of danger, the question whether this or that individual is rightly suspected of evil designs against our people, or whether or not there is some alien enemy who may be guilty of an incendiary fire. All that is of the first importance; but what we want the people in authority to understand is that, not merely during the War, but after the War, we want to make a clean sweep, so far as we possibly can, of this odious race, and have England for the English in a way we have never had it up to the present time. So far as the present moment is concerned, I do not know that we have any ground for complaint with the principles upon which the right hon. Gentleman says he grants letters of naturalisation. There is only one thing that he said which I heard with some doubt, though I was glad to hear that he himself considered it to be a matter to be treated in a watchful spirit. I refer to his statement that he would grant naturalisation in exceptional cases to aliens whose work was of importance to this country at the present time. I do not know that there is any individual instance of naturalisation which has excited more misgiving in this country, and perhaps given rise more to the feeling of want of confidence in the Government in the early stages of the War, than the naturalisation of Baron Schroeder. That is an example, I think, of the principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It was with indignation, and I think humiliation, that the House listened to a Member of the Government some time ago saying that

  871
  the naturalisation of this gentleman was necessary in order to protect the credit of the City of London. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if similar cases come before him in the future, will not think that the credit of the City of London can depend upon the naturalisation of a German enemy, and a German enemy of a particularly poisonous type. I do not think there can be any examples of necessary and essential work in this country dependent upon the presence of alien enemies. I am very glad indeed, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman himself says that he will approach all such cases in a very watchful spirit.
  The whole of the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman are, I think, admirable, but it depends to a great extent on how they are carried out. The right hon. Gentleman told us, for example, that there was only one route by which aliens could travel from this country to Ireland, and that that restriction was a very great safeguard. He gave an example of how he had improved that safeguard. My own experience leads me to think that the administration in this respect requires a good deal of tuning up. I have myself at different times crossed between this country and Ireland, generally by the route mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The only sort of supervision exercised was that two gangways instead of one were provided, and as the passengers crowded along there was a man at the top sending British citizens one way and aliens the other. Any person could easily have walked down either of the gangways. There was no investigation whether those who passed down the British citizens' gangway were British citizens.
  Sir J. SIMON: I will personally inquire into this question. The point may or may not be a good one, but it would be a mistake to speak of this as the only check. As I have said, we must look at the thing all round. Every registered alien, before he moves from where he has been living, has to tell the police where he is going. The police know therefore the journey he is going on. In the case put by the hon. Gentleman, if an attempt to cross were made by an alien who had not obeyed the demands about the gangway he would certainly be found out, because the authorities have a list. What is now referred to is only a check in order to see that everybody is behaving as we can make them behave
  872
  on the information we possess. It does not depend on the voluntary action of the individual alien. We know when the alien moves and we take care that the alien officer at the port knows too.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I can only hope that the system is as water-tight as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. Whether that is so or not, I am not in a position to judge. We hear not infrequently of aliens who, notwithstanding the restrictions under which they are supposed to live, do move away from their places of abode without giving any notice at all. If an alien did that, say at Carlisle or some other place in the north, although he would be open to prosecution for doing it, as far as I know the machinery at work, he would have no difficulty in effecting a passage to Ireland if he so desired. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of the difficulties of carrying out the Internment Order announced by the Prime Minister a short time ago. I do not know that any of us are in a position to suggest any exact method of hastening the process; but I must say that it causes a good deal of disquiet when we learn of the very large number of persons to be interned and the comparatively slow rate at which the process can be carried out. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy told us that there were 14,000 of military age in London alone. If that is true, it is surely a very disquieting circumstance. We have practically an infantry division of Germans of military age in London. We do not know what organisation they may be under from Germany itself, but we may feel perfectly certain that they are animated by the most hostile feelings towards this country. We have reached a stage of the War when aircraft raids are becoming more insistent. We cannot for a moment put out of our minds the possibilty of an attempted invasion. We are living in a time of really grave national peril. Under these circumstances, to be told that there are no less than 14,000 Germans of military age still at large in London, in addition to those of other ages, and that it is only possible to intern 1,000 a week, shows us that we have to look forward to a very long time before the process of internment becomes anything like complete.
  7.0. P.M.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is dependent upon the accommodation provided by the military authorities. We can quite understand the difficulties with, which he is confronted when he has to find suitable sites, and to provide for

  873
  their protection and their supply. Recognising all that, I think the country will not be entirely satisfied with a mere statement of the difficulties unless some evidence is shown that the utmost possible is being done to hasten the process of internment. There are an enormous number of public buildings of all sorts in this country. I do not believe that the whole of them are being used to the full measure of their accommodation. There are workhouses, ayslums, town halls, and hotels in various places. I cannot help thinking that if the real importance of finishing this business of internment at the earliest possible moment were recognised, the resources of the country could provide a greater amount of accommodation than the Home Secretary has mentioned, and that he would be able to intern a larger number of aliens than he is doing at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has told us the policy of the Government in regard to alien women. In principle I have nothing to object to in what the right hon. Gentleman said. I entirely agree with him that it would be wrong, unjust, and cruel to intern, or to repatriate, as a matter of course, all women who come under the description of "hostile origin or association." I do not think that any of us would dream of suggesting such a thing as that. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman repeated a phrase which we heard either from his predecessor or from the Under-Secretary, on a former occasion, when he remarked, it never has been our policy to intern women. Both Members of the Government, I noticed, used that phrase, as if it was almost a maxim that women should not be interned, and that there would be something absolutely un-chivalrous and wrong in pursuing that policy. I must say I cannot see that.
  There is not the slightest doubt that if danger arises in this country from espionage, or from any other activities of aliens, we may apprehend quite as much danger from women as from men. I think, therefore, that in the interests of the country it is quite as important, always having regard to justice and humanity—possibly within the limits as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman—that women should be kept under supervision quite as closely as men. The right hon. Gentleman, and the Prime Minister before him, has told us that there is to be repatriation of women, certain cases always excepted. With that I think we may be content, but just as in
  874
  the case of the internment, so with repatriation, I do hope that no time will be lost, and that no resources will be neglected which will hasten the day when we shall have got rid out of this country, with the exceptions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, of all hostile women, as well as of all hostile men.
  Attention has been called by an hon. Member to a matter upon which I put a question to the Home Secretary within the last few days. I refer to the prevalent habit at the present time of people of German names advertising a change to an English surname. When I put that question to the right hon. Gentleman he could not resist—I do not complain of it!—the opportunity of making a smart remark in reply to my question. He did so at a time, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when it was not possible for the questioner to argue. He told me that the very last thing that people who wanted to escape the attention of the police would do would be to advertise in the public Press a change of name. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is the last thing they would do. It is perfectly possible, I think, and not at all unlikely that they would do it, for there is no very great publicity in their action. These people have no reason to suppose that the police are scanning the advertisement columns of the "Times," the "Morning Post," the "Daily News," or the "Daily Telegraph."
  If a man wants to escape the odium which attaches, and attaches very strongly at the present time, to going about in English society with a German name, if a man knows that he is under suspicion and that he will not make his case any worse by advertising a change of name, it is not at all impossible that he will do as suggested, and in the course of a few days his identity will be very largely lost sight of—unless he continues to reside where he has been known. There is a very large population in this country constantly moving about, and if a man is known as Kruppstein living in one particular place, moves to another part of the country and calls himself John Howard, his identity is very soon forgotten; and even if the police do their best to keep him under supervision, he escapes at all events the very keen supervision which he might otherwise undergo at the hands of his neighbours. The matter, therefore, is a matter of some importance.

  875
  I venture again to press upon the right hon. Gentleman—because he did not answer my question, he only told me that there was a law at present prohibiting a change of name by those who were alien enemies he did not tell me whether—that is what I ask him—those who are not alien enemies but, to use his own phrase, are persons of "hostile origin or association," if they change their names, will be kept under the close supervision of the police? Nor did he tell me whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter. I do not know whether it would require legislation or not, or whether it should be executive action to make it impossible for these gentlemen to escape the supervision of their neighbours in the way which they do by this change of name.
  Again also, I think it is a matter rather of the legitimate satisfaction of public sentiment in this country. English people object to seeing these men who have been living in this country under German names changing them. Although it may be natural for them to do it, the very fact of their anxiety to choose such a time as this to assume well-known Anglo-Saxon names is an offence against the legitimate sentiments of the people of this country. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman, either by legislation or by executive action, ought to put a stop to this practice as soon as possible. I might finish as I began, by expressing my great satisfaction with the principles which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, and to express very earnestly the hope, that in the administration of the office that he now adorns, he will show by his action—he has told the House what he feels in regard to it—that he has got to deal with a grave and urgent matter, about which the people of this country feel extremely strongly, and will feel more strongly if his advent to office does not introduce a new policy in action, as it has done in principle.
  Mr. WING: I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have been made respecting the new position of the right hon. Gentleman, and also that of the Under-Secretary, and also to express my satisfaction, together with others, as to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman upon the question which has been the chief topic of discussion this afternoon. However, I rise really for the purpose of supporting the hon. Member for Whitehaven, who has called attention to the
  876
  security of life and limb in our coal mines. The War has brought about a rather complex situation. It has taken from the mines the pick—perhaps that is too comprehensive a phrase—but a very large number of its best men to take part in the War, and whilst it has taken a quarter of a million of men from the pits, there have been about 50,000 new-comers. To lose a large number of the old workers, hewers and others, with the incoming of a large number of new men, rather increases the danger that previously existed in our coal mines, and I trust that the Home Office will not allow the present situation in any sense to bring about a relaxation of attention to security in our mines. There is a great deal of talk just now about relaxation of this rule and another; I hope that this principle will not be applied to our coal mines. On account of the reduction of the men in the mines there is a good deal of talk just now about the unemployment of deputies and overmen. May I suggest that you might decrease the number of men under their oversight, and lessen the area that they have to overlook, with a view to their being still maintained in their employment, thus adding to the general security of the mines?
  There is another matter which is causing a good deal of unrest in the mining areas, especially the area of the county of Durham, a constituency of which I have the honour to represent. It is rather intense there, because such a large number of men—between 30,000 and 35,000 of them—have enlisted. At the commencement of the War they were promised, and granted, that by becoming members of His Majesty's Forces they would have, for those dependent upon them, a continuance of their houses and coal free, whilst in some instances sums of money from the proprietors were paid to the families left behind. Owing to the very large number that have enlisted, the conditions have been revised. The money has been reduced in some instances, the coal has been stopped, and a small money payment made in place of it. In other instances the question of the House has come up for reconsideration. In addition, some—indeed, a very large number of them—are now threatened with eviction to make way for the new men who have come to the pit. The point of the miners is this: That, if there is to be any inconvenience, the newcomers must suffer it, and not the wives and children of the men who have left the pit, with a very largely reduced income,

  877
  and have gone to the front; that they shall not in any way be sacrificed to the convenience of the new-comers. I ask the Home Office that they will see that there is no relaxation in the oversight of the mines, that they should give attention to the deputies' question I have mentioned, and that the case of the women and children of the miners who have gone to the front shall have the attention of the Home Office; that the Courts Emergency Act should be brought to their aid that they may feel secure in their homes, so that the anxiety of the home life shall not be added to the anxiety of the miners who are at the War; that the miner should feel that the Home Office is protecting his wife and family whilst he is abroad actively protecting his country.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: We have already had a very full Debate upon the alien question. On that I should only like to say that I associate myself with all the remarks which have been made as to the admirable speech of the Home Secretary, which I am sure has conveyed to the House the assurance that he will adopt a firm and just policy, and that he will protect the interests of this country to the very best of his ability against the very real danger in our midst. In regard to the mining industry, I think the Committee will agree that that industry, at all times an important one, was never more so than at the present juncture. Not only has it contributed a very large proportion of men to serve as troops at the front, but it has carried on work at home which is essential for the protection of our country at the present time. Therefore I make no apology to the Committee for dealing with one or two points briefly relating to mining matters. There has been a Committee appointed recently by the Home Secretary in relation to the conditions prevailing in the coal mining industry. It would be out of order to deal with a number of points which are raised and are of very great importance, but which do not strictly come under the administration of the Home Office. I should like, however, to ask the Under-Secretary—whom I take the opportunity of congratulating upon his well-deserved promotion and upon his qualifications for the post he now holds—whether the Home Office proposes to do something following this Report which has been issued. It would be a satisfaction to many, I am sure, to have an assurance that the Home Office is prepared to take some definite action
  878
  to bring about some of the results contemplated in the Report.
  It will be noticed in the Report that it is desired to bring about
  "co-operation between employers and employed through the medium of the organisations on bothsides, thoroughly representative of the parties."
  I cannot conceive anything better at this time than that we should have an effort made to sink all controversial questions on either side, and that both employers and employed should come together to assist the nation in its time of need. I am bound to say there have been indications on both sides that that is the desire and temper which prevails at the present moment, but I hope the Home Office may be enabled to take some definite action to bring about meetings between the parties, representing all the interests concerned, in order to arrive at some definite result. I am glad that in this Report no reference is made to any drastic action being taken with regard to the suspension of the Eight Hours Act. That is essentially a matter, I think, that ought to be left to conference between the parties interested. Speaking for a large industrial constituency where there are a very large number of miners, I believe the temper of the men is to give the best possible service to the country at this time, and I am sure they would be prepared to take any action they might think proper or appropriate to meet the necessity of the hour. Further, it is suggested in the Report that there might be some internal reorganisation in the mines. That is a matter upon which, I think, the Home Office might give some considerable assistance. Matters such as concentration of the work of coal getting and the means of expediting the underground haulage of coal are matters surely in which their mining experts and inspectors might offer some assistance. Then, again, we have the suggestion in the Report in regard to recruiting. I do not suppose it would be in order to deal with that on this Vote, except that I might say that at the present moment it is the case that many mining districts have been depleted on account of the great public spirit and patriotism shown by the miners, and it is very desirable in future recruiting movements that some limitation should be placed on the numbers recruited from those districts which have already given such a large number of miners. I trust that will be kept in view, and the attention of the War Office directed to it.

  879
  There is only one other point I desire to raise. It relates to this question of output in the constituency which I represent, and it has recently been the subject of some difficulty and dispute. The Under-Secretary is aware, I understand, of the facts of the case relating to the colliery of Blairmuckhill, where, owing to an ignition of gas which resulted in loss of life, safety lamps have been adopted throughout the whole seam. The point I should like to put to my hon. Friend is that the circumstances under which this explosion took place were of a, very special character. After looking at the whole facts of the case, I venture to submit it is a case in which an exemption may be given under Clause 32, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. The remainder of the seam, with the exception of the small portion in which the explosion took place, has never been known to generate gas. The gas occurred in a cavity some 6 feet above the level of the roof at a point quite close to the up-take, and in a very special circumstances. The danger is now completely removed owing to the roof having been built up and the cavity filled in. The Under-Secretary is aware, I believe, of what has been done by the owners of the mine to avoid danger in future. He is also aware of the strong desire expressed by the men who, since this explosion occurred, have refused to work with the coal-cutters in the seam, owing to their real belief in the danger which threatens them through falls in the roofs and sides if safety lamps are used, and if the ordinary naked light is not available.
  My hon. Friend is aware that this is a real danger. In many of our mines in Scotland, where you have a treacherous roof, the danger from explosion is very much less than that from falls of roofs and sides, and I might quote figures with which he is probably conversant. In 1913 in Scotland we had seven fatal accidents due to explosions of firedamp or coal-dust and ninety-six non-fatal accidents, as against sixty-nine fatal accidents from falls from roofs or sides, and 6,310 non-fatal accidents from the same cause. My hon. Friend is well aware of the feeling among miners themselves of the danger to which they are exposed from these treacherous roofs in the use of safety lamps, which make it more difficult to go about the work. The result of what has taken place in this particular colliery is that there are now
  880
  only seventy-three men working and only 55 tons of coal being raised daily in this seam and practically the whole colliery is at a standstill. I hope my hon. Friend will keep in mind at this particular juncture that it is of enormous importance that nothing should be done to prevent the working of a productive seam if a satisfactory arrangement can be made to safeguard the interest of the miners and to protect them from possible explosion in the future. This has been done in the seam. I might also remind my hon. Friend that last year we had twenty-four exemptions in Scotland, under Clause 32 (1) (b), where personal injury had taken place owing to explosion. The exemptions were made upon certain conditions, and I would ask my hon. Friend if he would take an opportunity of considering this case very carefully, send down an inspector to report to him as to what has been done by the owners of the mine, and endeavour to come to some arrangement to enable this important seam to be worked satisfactorily and a larger output produced.
  With regard to rescue work in Scotland, we have had a considerable advance during the past year in the formation of two new rescue stations, but I hope we may see this part of the work more fully developed in the immediate future. It is of enormous importance. Might I incidentally inform the Committee that at these rescue stations miners are being trained to fight the poisonous gases which are being used against our troops at the front, and many of them have volunteered for service at the front owing to their special knowledge of breathing apparatus and respirators. I hope the War Office will avail itself more of their services in the immediate future. I trust the Home Secretary will be able to give me some assurance with regard to the Blairmuckhill case that further inquiry will be made, and that steps will be taken to develop still further the policy of rescue stations.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I know it is sometimes thought that one Government Department is very anxious to grab the work of another Government Department. I candidly admit that when I was at the Board of Education I did think it was to the interest of the children that they should be placed under one Government Department rather than under the care of a large number of different Government Departments. As regards children of

  881
  school age, not only is the Education Department responsible, but for the inspection of children the Home Office is also responsible, while the Local Government Board is responsible for pauper children, the Admiralty is responsible for young children of school age in connection with work in training ships, and the Board of Trade is partially responsible for some work in connection with the children's lives. This afternoon I want to call the attention of the new Home Secretary to a matter which has engaged his attention in the past and which I know has secured his warm sympathy. It is the question of the children of school age who are employed in the streets and towns of this country to their great detriment. They are employed in many of our towns out of school hours early and late in selling newspapers and in carrying on trade one way or another. The information which reached us at the Board of Education through the schoolmasters and school mistresses, through the inspectors and inspectresses who visit these schools, is that this kind of work is very detrimental to the young children of this country. It has reached in many of our towns a disgraceful extent. A short time ago I alluded to the conditions which exist in Salford and Manchester, and I could have given to the House many other instances where children are employed for an enormous number of hours every week, and at the same time they are expected to be able to attend school, to be in a healthy condition, to be physically strong, and to derive benefit from the course of education now given them in the elementary schools of this country. All I have risen to ask is that, now that we have a new Home Secretary, he will look into this matter and will do his utmost to see that local authorities have reasonable and up-to-date by-laws in connection with the employment of children, and that he will do his utmost to see that those regulations are satisfactorily carried out. I think it is an important point, and that its importance cannot be overrated.
  Mr. BRACE: I feel like apologising to the House for having to speak on behalf of the Home Office after an association of about two weeks. In listening to the Debate it has been brought upon me very clearly what a very cosmopolitan Department the Home Office is. I am sure my right hon. Friend will take into consideration the suggestion of the late President of the Board of Education. The special interest that the right
  882
  hon. Gentleman took in the welfare of the children, apart from anything else, would warrant the Home Secretary giving strict attention to the recommendation made by the right hon. Gentleman. With that very clearly in my mind it will not be too much for me to ask that if they will give my right hon. Friend and myself and the officials of the Department a reasonable opportunity to survey the problem, we shall be prepared to give it sympathetic consideration. With regard to the question raised about the inspectors, I may say that the chief inspector or the general divisional inspector has not been removed from Cumberland at all. He was appointed to meet the demand for a higher standard of inspector, and the Home Department did make an arrangement to advance the position of this inspector. He is one of the chief inspectors of His Majesty. He is now living in the Cumberland area, and there is no intention to remove him.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSON: Is it intended to fill the vacancy which has been created?
  Mr. BRACE: There are a number of vacancies caused because some of the mining inspectors have decided to risk their lives for their country in this War. My hon. Friend very properly said that a quarter of a million miners had gone to the War, and I think it would not be either fair or proper for us to attempt to restaff the inspectorate when all these men are away at the War, because that would prevent them from entering into competition for inspectors' positions. I associate myself very fully with that view, but I must not be taken to declare the Home Office will be content with anything less than a full and competent staff of inspectors to do the work properly and correctly in the absence of the regular inspectors, and in the interval which must naturally elapse before the Department will be in a position to appoint inspectors permanently. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) I am not so sure that they are matters for the Home Department. If they are, all I can say is that it is almost unnecessary to ask me to do all I can to protect the women whose husbands are fighting the battle of the nation. I should be very sorry indeed to come to the conclusion that colliery owners were so forgetful of their obligations in these matters as to penalise the women. If, however, there are cases such as the hon. Member has forecasted and

  883
  he will bring them to the notice of my right hon. Friend or myself, I have the Home Secretary's assurance that the Home Department will do all they can in the matter.
  Another question which has been raised is that of the men who have lost their reason in consequence of the hardships of this War, and the Government were criticised because the War Office has been selected as the authority for looking after these afflicted people. It is thought both by the Home Office and by the War Office that that is by far the better arrangement. If the soldiers who lost their reason in consequence of the hardships of the War were put in the ordinary asylums of the country, in the judgment of those who have a right to speak on this matter it would be one of those experiences which the soldiers, after their recovery, would not thank this nation for. The Army authorities have much greater latitude in regard to this question, for they can send the men to hospitals, and when cured they will come out without any of the stigma which might attach to them if they had been confined in the asylums of the land. On the whole, the weight of argument is distinctly in favour of allowing the War Department to deal with these unhappy cases, and we ask hon. Members to agree with us that that is the best way of dealing with them.
  The hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Millar) called the attention of the House to the important Report which the Departmental Committee, presided over by the chief inspector of mines, has produced, which was published last week. It is a very valuable and very remarkable Report. What is more, it is a unanimous Report receiving the endorsement of the representatives of the Government, the employers, and the representatives of the workmen. The Home Office has been, and is still, in communication with the employers and workmen with a view to arranging ways and means for carrying out the whole of those recommendations. The basis of the Report is one which I am sure this House will agree with. It is a declaration on behalf of the great mining industry that the best way to deal with these great problems is upon a basis of mutual co-operation between employers and employed. My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the coal owners and the workmen, and later on he will be able to report to the
  884
  House what has been accomplished, and I feel sure that something of a definite character will be the result. When the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire asks that we should allow naked lights to be introduced into the Blairmuckhill colliery, he is asking for something of a rather serious character. The short facts are that there was an explosion at this colliery. The manager went in and he himself lighted the gas, and two men were killed. As a result of that the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations Act were brought into operation and safety lamps were introduced instead of naked lights. I assume that no one will contend that that was not a proper course for the Home Department to take; in fact, had the Home Office, through its inspectorate, not insisted upon safety lamps it would have been impeached by some hon. Members for a dereliction of duty. I know the hon. Gentleman now says that the gas has disappeared, that the colliery has reached a normal condition, and safety lamps may be dispensed with.
  Mr. MILLAR: The cavity has now been filled up.
  Mr. BRACE: There is no guarantee that gas will not be found in some other cavity, and therefore it does seem to me that where life has been lost in consequence of an explosion, be it large or small, the Home Office is bound to have regard to that fact and should be very jealous indeed before it agrees to the withdrawal of safety lamps. There may be substance in the point that a safety lamp gives less light than a naked light, but there is no reason why electric lamps should not be introduced, for they give a better light without the danger of an exposed light. An electric lamp could be used in a colliery such as that where there is not much gas about without any of the dangers to life and limb that a naked light would cause. My hon. Friend asks that an inspector should be allowed to go down this mine and make an inspection. I see no reason why he should not be asked to go down and make a Report to the Home Office, but I would ask my hon. Friend not to build too much upon that, because I should take a great deal of convincing before I could be persuaded that naked lights ought to be allowed in a colliery where lives have been lost.
  Mr. MILLAR: What I am asking is that there should be an inquiry into the whole

  885
  circumstances through an inspector or otherwise. I am not asking for anything further at the present stage.
  Mr. BRACE: The Home Secretary says the inspector will go down, conduct an inquiry, and make a Report, but my hon. Friend must not be disappointed if safety lamps have still to be used in that colliery. With regard to the question of rescue appliances in Scotland, they are making substantial progress. It is rather difficult to go on with these rescue stations during the War, but a new station has just been erected which will largely serve Lanarkshire. This will form a great centre for Lanarkshire, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Home Office are very anxious indeed that not only in Lanarkshire, but in the rest of Scotland and all over the Kingdom there shall be no unavoidable delay in establishing rescue stations which are so necessary to protect men's lives. The hon. Member for Oldham has asked that the special constables shall be given a complete uniform which will distinguish them as being public officers on duty. I understand, and I am advised, that it has been arranged that the special constables are to have a distinct headgear of their own. To provide them with a complete uniform would necessitate legislation because the police rate is now at its maximum. The House would have no power without legislation to provide anything of that kind. The Home Office at the present time do not see their way to completely equip the special constables with uniform, and for the present we must ask them to be content with the headgear which has been arranged.
  Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman describe the headgear?
  Mr. BRACE: I really could not venture to do that. That is one of the things which I must leave to my right hon. Friend. I am informed that the War Office have already asked that orders for ordinary police uniforms should not be proceeded with because of the difficulty in equipping the Army. Having in a fragmentary manner endeavoured to give the point of view of the Home Office as the Under-Secretary of that Department. I can only ask the House now to give us our Vote.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Like other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon on the alien question, I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for some of
  886
  the very satisfactory assurances which he has given us. Personally, I propose to show my gratitude in the usual manner by asking for more, because there is one point which has not been touched upon in that connection to-day, and which, in my humble opinion, is very important. It was brought very forcibly to my notice only five days ago. I was at a country village about 50 miles from London through which runs one of our great railway arteries with four main lines. I do not wish, for obvious reasons, to mention the name of the place, though, of course, it is entirely at the service of the right hon. Gentleman. At intervals of minutes there were great trains laden with munitions of war, with troops, with wounded, and with everything necessary for use at this juncture to carry on the War. Fifty feet above this railway where this great war traffic was going on were situated several villas, and two were occupied by able-bodied alien enemies. I submit that is a very grave danger. I do not for a moment say that the Home Office have not investigated cases of that kind. They may have done so. These individuals may in the opinion of the Home Office be quite harmless, but, as the Under-Secretary of State for War said in this House a few days ago with regard to another subject, the psychology of individuals is a very recondite matter, and I do not think any official of the Home Office or of any other office, no matter how capable he may be, can look into the mind and heart of an alien enemy and feel sure that under no condition will that man be tempted at a critical moment to do something that would be of assistance to his country. Therefore, I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not give us the further assurance to-night that he will take into prompt and earnest consideration all cases where alien enemies are living in places where they may be, if they are so disposed, unusually dangerous.
  Sir J. SIMON: Of course, this is a matter which is always most carefully considered, but it is rather difficult to deal with cases of this kind when the hon. Member has not communicated with the Home Office or given me notice that he was going to raise it, and when, as he says himself very naturally, he does not wish to say where it is.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I was not sure that I would speak this afternoon or that I should have the opportunity, but I

  887
  will certainly supply the right hon. Gentleman with the particulars. I raise the question because I fully sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in the difficulties which he has to confront, and I fully realise that it may take considerable time—I will not attempt to specify the time, or make any calculation—before all the alien enemies are interned. During the interregnum between now and that ultimate time when all aliens are interned, grave things may happen, and such men may be in a position to do us very serious injuries. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman not only for the assurance that he will take into account the case I am going to supply to him privately, but that he will give instructions that the residence of any alien enemies in places in which they may be particularly and unusually dangerous will be prohibited, and, even if there is no camp at which they can be interned, that they will be ordered to go and reside in other places where they will be less dangerous.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I desire on behalf of an hon. Friend to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a question connected with a matter which has been dealt with already by the Under-Secretary. At present the Home Office makes grants to special constables for overcoats and so forth, providing that they say they are necessitous. That is an exceedingly objectionable way of doing business. The Home Office, if they take the matter up at all, should say that anybody can have a uniform who chooses to ask for it, or that anybody can have one who chooses to ask for it upon any ground they like to name. The present regulations are exceedingly offensive, as I am sure the House will agree. These regulations are sent out from the Home Office to the commander of the divisions:—
  "The Secretary of State has authorised expenditure for clothing for certain special constables on the following conditions: The expenditure per man shall not exceed £3 …."
  There is no objection to that.
  "Satisfactory evidence shall be given of the purchase of the articles, and the price paid for them …."
  There is no objection to that.
  "Adequate measure shall be taken to ensure that the grant is only given to special constables who are really necessitous and intend to act as special constables so long as their services are required."
  Then the regulations go on:—
  "It is left to the discretion of each divisional commander to decide (a) what garments are required by individual special constables, and (b) which constables are qualified as being necessitous to receive them. It is
  888
  not expected that the authorised maximum will be paid in all cases, or that every necessitous constable shall need all the garments. If this anticipation is fulfilled, the amount so saved would be available for additional men. Garments are to be purchased locally by the men themselves on an order signed by the divisional commander. A supply of these order forms is sent herewith. The order is to be given to the tradesman, who will attach it to his account, and send both documents to the divisional commander."
  Then, later on, there is a certificate, the form of which is as follows:—
  "I have satisfied myself that these garments have been supplied only to special constables who are really necessitous and intend to continue to act as special constables so long as their services are required."
  I am sure, now that I call his attention to it, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is an objectionable form. The difficulty will be got out of by adopting the suggestion made by my hon. Friend of granting uniforms to all special constables who require them or choose to ask for them. The obligation at present resting on a man who really wants a uniform to keep himself warm these cold nights is certainly objectionable. I am not quite satisfied with the reason which the Under-Secretary gave. He said that the police rate was at its maximum. I am not dealing with rates at the present moment. This request may seem to come oddly from one who is a champion of economy as a rule.
  Sir J. SIMON: It is quite true that the Home Office is responsible for the Metropolitan Police, but that does not mean that there is no police rate paid by the citizens. The police are paid in part by means of a police rate, of which we all probably have some gloomy recollection. That police rate is at its maximum, and we should require legislation in order to raise the additional money to pay for these uniforms.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If that is so, where do you get the money you are at present paying to the extent of £12,000?
  Sir J. SIMON: If you are going to provide uniforms for 25,000 men—that is the sort of number of special constables which there are in London—obviously, at £2 per head, it would cost £50,000. That is a very large sum and would exhaust any available balance. We are just up to the maximum as things are. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put himself into communication with me, I shall be very glad to go into the matter with him.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and, even if I do not do so myself, I will communicate what the right hon. Gentleman

  889
  says to my hon. Friend. May I heartily congratulate the Under-Secretary upon dealing with another point in a way with which I thoroughly agree. It was the question of dealing with soldiers who are for some reason unwell. The hon. Member who brought it forward had evidently not read the Bill. It was an exceedingly bad Bill and was very wisely dropped. I am in agreement with every word which the Under-Secretary uttered in defence of their action, and it is very greatly to their credit that they had the courage to drop the Bill, and I hope that they will not be tempted to introduce another Bill on the same lines.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: I wish to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to a matter which is possibly not without some importance at this moment. I refer to the question of women taxi-cab drivers. There are a large number of men of military age driving taxi-cabs, and many of them, no doubt, would be glad to join His Majesty's Forces if they were not persuaded from doing so by their employers, who naturally wish to keep their cabs at work. There are many occupations now open to women which were never open to them before. We have women running lifts; we have postwomen; we have women driving motor vans in London; and we have volunteer women chauffeurs, and they are doing their work in a manner which it is no exaggeration to describe as heroic. We know that many women are most skilled and careful drivers of private motor cars, and I cannot see why a woman who passes the same examination and is in every respect as well qualified as a man to drive a taxi-cab should not have a licence issued to her at the present time. I raised this point at Question Time, and the late Home Secretary, in replying, said that there were more men with licences than there were cabs to drive at the present time. I venture to think that he was under a misapprehension. I have made such inquiries as were open to me, and in every case I found that there were cabs in the yard which were not being taken out for want of drivers. The late Home Secretary reminded me also that the Chief Commissioner of Police could not see his way at present to grant these licences. I shall be very glad if my right hon. Friend will explain to me, either now or at some more convenient time, what is the legal position in the matter, whether the decision rests entirely with the Chief
  890
  Commissioner of Police, or whether it does not rest with the Home Secretary himself.
  Sir J. SIMON: It does rest with the Home Secretary, but it is one of the things which in practice is really left to the Commissioner. If my hon. Friend will allow me to show him how the matter stands, as a result of consultation, I think that will be the best way. I could not deal with the question at the moment, and without being prepared, in any other than a very prefunctory way.
  Sir H. NORMAN: If the matter rests entirely with the Chief Commissioner of Police surely the opinion and advice or suggestion of the Home Secretary would weigh very much with that official, and I hope my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to the matter.
  Colonel YATE: I wish to say a word about the treatment of soldiers sent home suffering from nerve shock. The Under-Secretary has informed the House that the best possible is done under all the circumstances. I would ask, however, that the matter be reconsidered. We have been told how men come back suffering from nerve shock brought about, probably, by the tremendous bombardments to which they have been subjected; many of them, we hope, are only temporarily affected. But they have been sent to various asylums under the Home Office, taken over by the War Office. It was promised—
  The CHAIRMAN: That was no doubt done, but the practice has been stopped. It was done in a certain few cases by the War Office and not by the Home Office, and the latter Department is not, therefore, responsible.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am sorry the Home Secretary has left the House, as I wished to impress upon him that, while he is considering the question of clothing the special police suitably in London, he should not neglect the case of those in the provinces. I represent a part of the country which is really within the war zone—the North-East Coast. We have had Zeppelin raids there, and the police are out night after night. If any expense is going to be incurred in this matter it ought not to fall on the local ratepayers, because these constables are really serving the nation. The money should therefore come from the Exchequer.
  The CHAIRMAN: This question is one for the Exchequer.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: There is a grant from the Exchequer to the local police, a body which is really, more or less, under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Vote, and any proposal for an increased contribution to the local police must be raised in connection with the Exchequer Vote, and not the Home Office Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOARD OF CONTROL (MENTAL DEFICIENCY), ENGLAND.—Class II.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £45,603, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England."

  POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.—Class III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £58,396, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and Expenses in connection with Special Constables and the Police Reserve."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Would not the circular to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) and upon which he based his protest apply to the whole country?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am afraid not; it was issued from Scotland Yard.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PRISONS, ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES.—Class III.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £357,990, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,
  892
  1916, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant in aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class III.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £161,824, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."

  CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUMS, ENGLAND.—Class III.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,120, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Criminal Lunatic Asylums of Broadmoor and Rampton."
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next (21st June): Committee to sit again on Monday next.

SUPPLY [9TH JUNE].—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1914–15.

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,030, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in aid of Piers or Quays."
    Resolution read a second time,
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I desire to get from the Secretary for Scotland some statement as to the present position of the fishing industry in that country. Everybody knows that that is one of the most important industries we have there, and

    893
    it must be realised that it is enormously to the advantage of the country that it should be carried on under proper conditions. We ought therefore all to unite in doing everything we can for the benefit of those who are engaged in it. We must remember that they carry on their industry under circumstances of very great difficulty and hardship. They pursue their calling in weather of all kinds. The fishing population is the nursery for our mercantile marine, and it is also a valuable adjunct to the reserve of His Majesty's Navy. Everything possible should therefore be done to strengthen and encourage the fishing population who suffer under so many hardships and yet do work so valuable for the nation and Empire at large. The fishing industry of Scotland has, it must be known, been seriously affected by the War, and many men have lost their lives through the action of the enemy. Therefore anything that we are able to do to mitigate the hardships of their lot and to protect them against such dangers should be done. The House will be extremely glad to hear from the Secretary for Scotland what steps are being taken for their protection against the dangers to which they are subjected by reason of the War. We shall also be glad to be informed of the details of the insurance proposals which are put forward in the interests of the fishermen.
    The money of the Fishery Board for Scotland is exceedingly well spent, and my only object in raising the question is that we should get from the Secretary for Scotland a full statement of the matters affecting the industry. If further sums are required, the right hon. Gentleman will find that Scottish Members, and I have no doubt that English Members also, will be extremely glad to add to the Vote. I should be glad if hon. Members would bear in mind always how extremely dependent the fishing population of Scotland is upon the assistance which they can get from the House of Commons. In addition to the dangers and difficulties of the War, from which they are suffering, there has been a very large interference with the mail service in the West of Scotland. It may be supposed that the mail service cannot have much to do with the interests of the fishing industry, but the goods traffic and the mail and passenger service depend on the same lines. I understand that in the interests of economy which have to be met at the present time, it would either be necessary
    894
    to reduce the sailings of the steamers, or ask for a larger sum, or diminish the number of steamers. It must be evident that if that is done it will seriously interfere with the trade, and if the cost of getting goods into the market is increased it will largely do away with the profits. The Board having inherited the money of the Congested Districts Board, it is incumbent upon them in every way that they should assist by every means in their power the strengthening and improvement of all public communications in the West of Scotland. Not only the whole of the fishing population, but also the whole of the population of Scotland, will be largely interested in hearing what the Secretary for Scotland can tell us as to what he is going to do for the fishing industry.
    Mr. MORTON: It seems unfortunate that we were not able to bring this matter up last Wednesday. Not one of the Scottish Members thought that this matter would come on to-night, consequently they are not here to take part in the discussion of such an important matter to Scotland as the fishing industry. I regret it, but it is not our fault, and I am sorry that somebody did not take means which would have allowed an opportunity to tell hon. Members that it was coming on to-night. With regard to the Fishery Board, I cannot understand why we have not yet got the Report for 1914. The latest Report is that for 1913. I believe the Report is carried up to the 31st December. I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland has seen it, but we have not seen it; therefore we are not in a position fairly and properly to discuss the question. I hope that in future the Secretary for Scotland will see that the Report is out before the Vote is brought on. The Government brought the Vote on last week knowing that the Report we were supposed to discuss had not been issued. I should like to have some explanation and proper excuse why the Report was not issued before the Vote was brought on. The Secretary for Scotland refused to answer a number of questions I put to him with regard to another matter last week, and I have had serious complaints because they were not answered. I hope that tonight the Secretary for Scotland will be in a better humour. With regard to the salted herrings which we are anxious should go to Russia, I should like to know whether the Secretary for Scotland has any information of what has been done

    895
    and whether fishermen have been in any way compensated for the loss, if there was a loss, in connection therewith.
    There is another exceedingly important matter, and that is the Committee that sat for some years and reported about two years ago in regard to North Sea fishing. I have not heard, and I should like to hear, that any steps have been taken by the Secretary for Scotland, or any Department of any sort whatever, to carry into effect any of the recommendations which that Committee might have made in a useful direction. I know they did not make any recommendation of any good to anyone—in fact, the Report is made up of their visiting various places. They made some recommendations in regard to a Fishery Board which would have amounted to an increased cost. I do not know whether they have the increased cost, but certainly we have had none of the other reforms which we hope to see effected. One of the principal ones was that we were in favour of Government loans being granted to fishermen for the purchase or building of boats. The minority of that Departmental Committee were in favour of something being done, but the majority were not, I believe, in favour of Government loans being granted for the building or purchase of boats. I should like to know whether anything has been done on that Report or whether it has been further considered by the Secretary for Scotland and what has been the result, or if there is going to be any result. I am as perfectly well aware of the difficulty of the Secretary for Scotland as I am of our own at present, as under the late Government we had a truce and under the new Government we have a Coalition, and we are so anxious not to interfere with the Government in carrying out the War, which we hope they will bring to a successful conclusion soon, that we have no opportunity of forcing our views upon the Government as we should under other circumstances. But I am aware of a further difficulty that the Secretary for Scotland has, and it wants an exceedingly strong man to deal with it—that is, the Boards which are sitting in Edinburgh and elsewhere. It is they very often which stand in the way of the reforms being carried out, and I am anxious, as I am sure all my colleagues are, to help them in that direction to master those permanent officials who at present dictate what is to be done. It is they, with
    896
    regard to these fishery matters, who dictate the policy apparently and say there shall or shall not be anything done.
    I am sure the Secretary for Scotland realises, as I do, that this is a matter which very much effects the county of Sutherland, which I have tried to represent, but I am sure the Secretary for Scotland is aware of the importance of the fishery industry in Scotland, and the Government ought to assist in every direction in carrying that out, not only for the employment of the people, but for the sake of the food that is produced by the industry for the benefit of the people of this country. I hope it will be realised by the Secretary for Scotland that we are anxious for something to be done. We acknowledge the importance of the industry and we are aware, too, that it produces a large class of men who have pretty well all joined the Naval Reserve and are away now fighting for our protection. We are also aware, and I deplore it, that so many of the fishermen engaged generally in trawling operations have lost their lives in a scandalous and barbaric way by the action of the Kaiser and his friends. I know that has interfered with the industry to a great extent. I am very sorry for it, and I desire to sympathise with the families of those who have lost their lives in working for their country. Better times we hope may come presently, and meantime we ought to help all industries like this, which employ some 50,000 or 60,000 men and women, not by way of charity, but so as to get the greatest benefit we can out of the fishing industry or any other industry on which they may be employed. I second this Amendment as a matter of form, but we are not going to a Division. I would go to a Division if we did not get a satisfactory reply, but we are anxious to help the Government in another direction in regard to carrying on this cruel War, and, therefore, we will not interfere with them in any way whatever. I am further convinced that it is right and proper for us to carry out that policy, and therefore we do not want to go to a Division, but we expect that, notwithstanding the War and its results, the Secretary for Scotland and all the Departments which are his masters, though they should be under his control, will do their best to help on this immense fishing industry of Scotland.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to a matter which I brought before

    897
    the House when the Vote for the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was being considered. I asked a question as to how it was that under the English Vote for the Board of Fishery no amount appeared for the North Sea Fishery International Investigation, whilst in referring the Scottish Department for a similar Grant for the North Sea Fishery International Investigation, Scotland shows a Vote there of £5,579, and I asked the hon. Member representing the Board of Agriculture if he could give me any explanation as to why it was that that amount had disappeared under the English Vote. The answer was because by its disappearance the amount, so far as Scotland was concerned, appeared to be considerably greater than should have been the case, and since then I have received a letter from the Department in these words:—
    "With regard to the Vote in respect of fisheries, you drew attention to the absence of any figures under Sub-head E. The reason for this is that from 21st April, 1914, with the concurrence of the Treasury, the temporary scientific staff employed upon this investigation have been placed upon a regular footing, a proportion being brought on to the permanent and pensionable establishment. The result is that the provision hitherto made under Sub-head E, amounting to £7,530, has been now transferred to Sub-heads A, B, and Q."
    So that these officials who were formerly considered as belonging to the temporary staff have, under the English Board, been transferred to the permanent Department and do not appear under this Fishery Board Vote. It seems to me that when the Treasury was considering the question of altering the status of these officials they should at the same time have considered the addition of the officials so far as Scotland is concerned. It was scarcely fair to make any difference between the men who are employed, say, under the English Board of Fisheries in contradistinction to those employed by the Scottish. Whilst it appears as if the division of this amount is entirely confined to Scotland, that is really not the case, because I think they come down as far as Newcastle with the Scottish Vote. If that amount were taken out we should then appear in a worse position than we do now so far as having a big reduction of Grant for Scotland is concerned under the two Votes. I was very curious in looking at this Vote to find that thirty years ago there was actually a Vote for the Board of Fisheries to the extent of something like £3,000 more than was voted last year, and compared with this year it was something like £5,000 more than we have at the present time. I think that this fact is unique in financial experience, even in connection with Scottish
    898
    Estimates. I am taking the Fishery Vote as a whole. Another great difficulty in realising what is the total amount of money we get for the Fishery Board in Scotland is when you look up the Development Grant, which, I am sorry to say, is not directly under the control of this House. We vote a total amount of money, and the Board is left free to make Grants as it thinks fit. Under the Fishery Board Vote for England you show relatively not so big an amount of Grant as you should do, and you have difficulty in comparing the whole service given, because they are given under different Votes. If you take the Development Grant, I find, for instance, in the four years 1912–16 the Development Fund Grant given to the English Board of Agriculture and Fishery was £43,910, whilst, so far as Scotland is concerned we have only received £1,812. That is a tremendous difference in the two Grants. Bearing in mind that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Board of Fisheries is an earning Department as well as a spending Department, I think we have a reason to expect that the Department would receive better consideration than it has received.
    Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is raised in the letter I received from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. They compare the landing of fish in England with the landing of fish in Scotland, but everyone knows that Yarmouth and other English ports on the East Coast are frequently used for the landing of fish which are raised and gathered by the Scottish fishermen, so that that comparison is scarcely fair. I sould be glad if the Secretary for Scotland could give me some assurance on the two points I have raised. The first is in regard to Scottish fishery men being treated in precisely the same manner as the corresponding men in England; that they should be put on the permanent staff, so that they would get pensions. The second point upon which I desire assurance is in regard to the great disparity as to fisheries under the Development Vote.
    Mr. WATT: Like my hon. Friends who have spoken, I do not represent a fishing constituency. The only way in which my Constituents are interested in fish is in the way of consumption, but I have been asked by the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs (Sir A. Williamson)—whose absence we all deplore, and especially the cause of it—to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to two points in connection with

    899
    the fishing industry. The hon. Member is under the impression that the Secretary for Scotland has not done sufficient in the way of alleviating distress in the fishing industry, which distress is admitted on all hands to be very deep. The Government have sought to alleviate distress in other trades. The Stock Exchange was relieved from its difficulties, the bankers were assisted, and the bill brokers were helped. But a line was drawn apparently by the late Government against assisting the fishing industry. My hon. Friend is inclined to think that the Secretary for Scotland might have moved his fellow members in the Cabinet to interest themselves in the sad condition of the fishing industry, and he hopes that the time is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to take some action in that direction.
    The second point which the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs desired me to call attention to is the question of the feeding of prisoners of war in this country by the product of the fishing industry, namely, cured herrings. If any branch of the fishing industry is depressed more than another it is the branch connected with the curing of herrings, because the export of those herrings practically has been entirely stopped by the War. Very large quantities of cured herrings were sent regularly to Germany and Russia, but the export to both these countries has been stopped, and it has been largely stopped at the initiation of the Government, who are under the impression that a large percentage of the exported fish is finding its way to Germany. My hon. Friend has said again and again that opportunities should be taken of using this fish for consumption by prisoners of war in this country, who, when they are at home in Germany or Austria, were in the habit of consuming this cured fish. The Under-Secretary of State for War, in answer to a question, said that experiments were being made with a view to getting the prisoners to consume as an article of diet the cured fish which they were in the habit of consuming at home, but we have since been informed by the Under-Secretary for War that it was a failure, and that the German prisoners would not when resident here consume the same food that they have consumed on the other side of the Channel. It is a question whether the food was provided to them in the same way as they were in the habit of getting it at home. No doubt the English
    900
    and Scottish cooks who had the culinary work to do for these spoiled prisoners did not do it in a satisfactory manner, but I think if the Secretary for Scotland was persistent in seeking to get this fish consumed by the German prisoners that a way would be found and he would succeed. I should like to call attention also to a characteristic of the Fishery Board, namely, the fact that a practical fisherman has not a seat on that Board. For many years there has been an outcry because a practical fisherman has not had a place on the Board, but it seems reasonable that that should be the case. My right hon. Friend has been very drastic in some things he has brought about, but, unfortunately, he has not devoted his attention to that particular matter. I think the Fishery Board to-day is constituted in precisely the same way as it was when he took office. If he could see his way, with his democratic principles, to put a representative fisherman on the Board, I think it would meet with the approval of the whole of the fishing community.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland dwelt with much force on the fact that the value of the Scottish fishing industry is not measured by the interests of those concerned in it but is a national interest, because you are dealing there with one of the greatest sources of food supply of the country, and I am sure that we must all agree with him in lamenting that the circumstances of war have rendered it necessary on the part of the British Government to restrict the area of fishing, partly in the interests of the fishermen themselves and partly in the interest of the safe conduct of naval warfare, and I am also sure that all the Scottish Members will agree that we are bound to bow to the decision of the Admiralty and that they must be the judges of what areas are safe and what are unsafe. At the same time I am bound to say that in my opinion the Fishery Board has rendered most valuable services in advising the Admiralty and in securing as far as possible that, though great interference necessarily take place, yet wherever it is practicable the fishing should be allowed. I am sure that we all share the indignation expressed by my hon. Friend at the cruel breach of the immemorial rules of naval war which protected the fishermen and which have been violated by the German Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland

    901
    complained that all his questions were not answered the other day. If that is so, I apologise to him; I thought that I had answered them all.
    Mr. MORTON: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I made a complaint that no attempt was made to reply to any one of the questions which I put with regard to another matter.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am very sorry. I have forgotten for the moment what the other questions were, but I will try to answer the questions which the hon. Member put to-day. First of all, about the Report. It was not a report by me but to me by the Fishery Board. I inquired of the Fishery Board some weeks ago about this Report. Their explanation amounts to this, that circumstances were so abnormal and they have been occupied with matters so different from the ordinary work that they really had not been able to produce the Report in time, but they will have it ready soon. The next point raised by my hon. Friend was as to the export of herrings to Russia. I believe that the figures with regard to the export to Russia are as follows: The quantity exported to Russia up to the outbreak of the War, in the season, was 150,000 barrels. Since the beginning of the War we were most anxious that as far as possible there should be a large export to Russia. The Government did not desire to see the herrings go to enemy countries but were anxious that they should go to our Allies for their benefit and for the benefit of the fish curers in Scotland. Nearly 100,000 barrels have gone to Russia. I believe that the quantity is 97,000 barrels, while 77,000 barrels have gone to America and about 88,000 barrels have gone to Norway and to Scandinavian countries. At the beginning of the War there was a large stock of about 310,000 barrels. I am very glad to say that, if that is not all disposed of, it is very materially reduced. The bulk of it has gone and I am told that there are now only about 47,000 barrels in Scotland.
    My hon. Friend raised a question which has been raised a good many times, appropriately, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, as to the giving of herrings to German prisoners of war. He said, quite truly, that in Germany these herrings were a customary food. I can only say that the persistence with which we, representing Scotland, and the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries also, have pressed the consumption of herrings upon the War
    902
    Office would, I think, satisfy even my hon. Friend if he was aware of what we have done. I cannot add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War. They have not succeeded in supplying large quantities. I do not know that it is a case of bad cooking, because I believe that these gentlemen eat the herrings raw. In any case we have not succeeded in getting any large quantities supplied. A certain amount goes over to allied countries for the feeding of German prisoners of war there. With regard to the question of distress in the fishing industry, undoubtedly that industry has been interfered with in a very serious way indeed, and the supply of food and of fish for a large trade to the Colonies and of foreign countries undoubtedly has been greatly diminished. I think that the Admiralty have tried, in consultation with the Fishery Board, to leave as much scope for fishing as they thought safe. I think that they honestly tried to do that but, as I said before, they must be the ultimate judges. No doubt the interference with the trade of fish curers has been very serious indeed. The people employed in the trade have, however, found other occupations. There is no evidence of any serious distress among those who were employed in the trade. Thousands of them have entered Government employment in various capacities. Some have entered the Services; others are employed in various ways in connection with the Services, and I do not think that any great distress arises, so far as they are concerned, through the interference with the fishing industries—at least, I have no information of it, and I do not believe that it exists.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: What about the case of the women?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Other occupations have been found for the women. In one of the western islands it was supposed that large numbers of women accustoned to working in the herring trade would be out of employment. Speaking from memory, I think that we were told that a thousand of them could be employed, but the total number that we could get was twelve. There is no doubt that in a great many cases the separation allowance has brought in a great deal of money and, so far as money is concerned, has left the people in much better circumstances than is usually the case. There is no doubt, also, that there is occupation for all the women—in fact, at the present

    903
    moment, there is occupation in one way or another for everybody in the country who is willing to work. But, on the other hand, there is no doubt that a number of the fish curers must be very hard hit by the circumstances of this last season, and by the circumstances of the next season, because they will, in many cases, find it quite impossible to supply the needs of their ordinary trade or to use up the stock which they may have in hand, and no doubt there will be a great deal of distress caused in that way. It is, however, not the case that nothing has been done for them. Several things have been done by the Government. For example, the Board of Trade has drawn up a scheme for the insurance at moderate premiums of the effects of fishermen as well as other people lost at sea. And, again, provisions have been passed by the Government which apply to this trade as well as to other trades. There is, for example, the Courts Emergency Act, which enables people to obtain relief, when they are unable to pay debts owing to circumstances arising out of the War. There is, also, the work done by the Foreign Trade Debts Committee, which enables people which have debts abroad to obtain advances on those debts through the bankers. We have called the attention of the trade to this fact, but, so far as I know, not much use has been made of it by the fish-curing trade. Of course in many cases the fish were not sold but were consigned, but the Committee were prepared to adapt the scheme to that circumstance as far as possible.
    Mr. MORTON: Are the owners of the trawlers compensated when their vessels are destroyed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The owners of the trawlers are insured, but if the trawler is in the service of the Admiralty, in that case, of course, the Admiralty is responsible. My hon. Friend for Edinburgh asked me about the scientific staff. There were circumstances which led to the English system being set up without any consideration of what existed in Scotland, but the Fishery Board are considering the question. This, however, is not a very happy time to go to the Treasury for improving salaries or status. I do not want to hold out any rosy hopes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have the matter under consideration. The
    904
    hon. Gentleman also referred to the reduction of the Maintenance Vote. That is not so bad as it appears, because, as a matter of fact, our fishery cruisers have been taken over by the Admiralty for patrol work, and the expense of those cruisers is being borne by the Admiralty. That, therefore, accounts entirely, completely, and absolutely for the difference to which my hon. Friend has called attention. I think I have answered all the questions of my hon. Friend for Sutherland.
    Mr. MORTON: What about the Departmental Committee and the loans to fishermen?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As to the loans to fishermen, I think my hon. Friend answered himself very completely, because he pointed out that the Committee has reported against granting loans, and we have acted on the Report of the Committee. I am sure that no one will seriously suggest that this is a time for the Treasury to give loans for building boats.
    Mr. MORTON: Have you increased the salaries?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of any increases in the past year. In regard to the alteration in the constitution of the Fishery Board, I do not think that anything will be done so long as the War lasts, and it is not a matter so important that it should be pressed.
    Mr. MORTON: I quite agree. I only wanted to know as to whether the salaries were increased.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Then my hon. Friend is satisfied on that point.
    Mr. PRICE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the great disparity between the amount allowed to the Fishery Board of Scotland and that allowed in the case of England? I would point out that the English Board has had £43,910 and the Scottish Board only £812.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will not be so rash as to take up figures thrown out in Debate in this casual manner and pretend to explain every item. It is a question of what takes place with regard to English business and Scottish business, and the figures cannot be taken without any investigation of the facts. In some cases

    905
    in Scotland we have Grants for harbours, whereas in England they have not had those Grants. I can only assure my hon. Friend that whatever Grants in England there are for services similar to those in Scotland which are not otherwise provided for, I am always careful to see that a proper proportion is applied for in the case of Scotland. I never fail in my duty in that respect.
    Mr. MORTON: When shall we have the Report for 1914?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can only say that I asked for it some weeks ago, and hope to have it soon. Of course, there was very little this year to report upon.
    Mr. MORTON: Then we ought to have had it earlier instead of later.
    Question put, and agreed to.

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

    NATIONAL GALLERIES, SCOTLAND.—Class IV.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,278, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and the Museum of Antiquities."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. PRICE: I understood that this Vote was not coming on to-night, and that the only Vote to be considered was the Fishery Board Vote in regard to which there was some misunderstanding in Committee, and it was therefore arranged that it should be taken to-night. These Votes are coming on rather unexpectedly.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would point out that these Votes have been granted
    906
    by the Committee, and that this is the Report stage, and that the usual course is being followed.
    Mr. PRICE: I understood that only the Fishery Board Vote was to come under discussion. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) on the last occasion pointed out that as there had been some mistake on both sides we should have the other Votes on another occasion, and that this Fishery Board Vote was the only one to be taken.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The only other Votes which were left open were the Local Government Board Vote and the Board of Agriculture Vote, and the Local Government Board Vote was left open, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh desired that course to be pursued in view of a pending deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh desired to raise the question of Income Tax on sewers, but, as a matter of fact, I think he is now satisfied that it cannot be raised on the Local Government Board Vote, but it must be raised on the Treasury Vote, and those are the only two Votes left open.
    Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

    SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.—Class II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,421, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which

    907
    will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899."

    LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.—Class III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £52,476, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
    SCOTTISH LAND COURT.—Class III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,084, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Scottish Land Court."

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

    PRISONS, SCOTLAND.—Class III.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,135, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics, Defectives, and Inmates of the State Inebriate Reformatory, and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. PRICE: I should like to call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to a question which arises under this Vote, and perhaps he may find himself able to adopt a suggestion. The question is with regard to the treatment of first offenders in Scotland. I am sorry to find that in the number of persons charged with first offences there is a considerably larger proportion in Scotland than in England or Wales. The Commissioners have, for a number of years, in their Reports, called attention to the fact that a good many magistrates are committing those people to prison, without due consideration for the Acts which have recently been passed to enable prisoners to pay their fines or to deal with them in other ways, so that they will not so readily commit first offenders to prison as they have been in the habit of doing. I think it would help to materially reduce the number of those commitments if the right hon. Gentleman would issue a circular letter to all the magistrates and judges in Scotland calling attention to the fact that there has been so much legislation of late passed in favour of those first offenders, and if he would point out how very desirable it is to keep them from being sent to prison. This, in my judgment, is a very serious matter, and it is rather a reflection on Scotland There are, I am told, more than double the commitments to prison in proportion to population than in England and Wales. I think a good deal of it arises from the fact that many magistrates have not taken advantage of the powers conferred upon them. If the right hon. Gentlemn can do something to call attention to these cases, I am quite sure he will render a very distinct service to Scotland.
    Mr. WATT: In the circular which has been mentioned the right hon. Gentleman might suggest to the magistrates that the fines can be paid by instalment, as was done by Lord Gladstone when he was Home Secretary.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that the proportion of cases is larger in Scotland than in England. It is a practice that ought to be discouraged, and I will take into sympathetic consideration my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY [10TH JUNE].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Resolutions reported,
    BOARD OF TRADE.—Class II.
    "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."
    MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.—Class II.
    "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 Match, 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."
    BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.—Class II.
    "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."
    LABOUR EXCHANGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.—Class VII.
    "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."

    HARBOURS UNDER THE BOARD OF TRADE.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,087, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge
    910
    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."

    INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.—Class VI.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in connection with International Exhibitions."
    Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY [5TH MAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.—Class II.
    Resolutions reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £141,648, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

    SURVEYS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £49,920, 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 Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
    Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY [13TH MAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.

    TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.—Class II.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £70,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
    Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [28TH APRIL].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.

    POST OFFICE.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,336,380, 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 Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones. [NOTE.—£11,500,000 has been voted on account.]
    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [15TH APRIL].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
    Resolutions reported,
    ROYAL PALACES.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid." [NOTE.—£27,000 has been voted on account.]
    OSBORNE.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,650, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne." [NOTE.—£7,000 has been voted on account.]
    ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.—Class II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £69,400, 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 Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
    ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £24,440, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    REVENUE BUILDINGS.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £538,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."
    INSURANCE AND LABOUR EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £141,800, 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, in respect of Insurance and Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain."

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £456,600, 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

    913
    day of March, 1916, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."

    OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.—Class II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £92,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [15TH JUNE].
    Resolution reported,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, the sum of £269,888,662 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Montagu.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No 3) BILL.
    "To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next, 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:—
    THURSDAY.
    Race Meetings,—Petition from London, for extension beyond Newmarket.
WAR.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  VALUATION STAFF.
  VALUATION STAFF.
  RECRUITING (IRELAND).
  RECRUITING (IRELAND).
  SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO TROOPS.
  SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO TROOPS.
  ROYAL NAVY (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  ROYAL NAVY (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  ROYAL MARINE FORCES.
  ROYAL MARINE FORCES.
BRITISH AND GERMAN MILITARY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  EXCHANGE ARRANGED.
  EXCHANGE ARRANGED.
  SPIES WITH BRITISH FORCES.
  SPIES WITH BRITISH FORCES.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  SPECIAL RESERVE BATTALIONS.
  SPECIAL RESERVE BATTALIONS.
  REGIMENTAL PAY.
  REGIMENTAL PAY.
  WHEAT CROP (INDIA).
  WHEAT CROP (INDIA).
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT.
  DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT.
  Income Tax by Instalments.
  Income Tax by Instalments.
  Kidnapping Case (Ireland).
  Kidnapping Case (Ireland).
  Infantile Mortality.
  Infantile Mortality.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Children Act (Certificates).
  Children Act (Certificates).
  Juvenile Offenders.
  Juvenile Offenders.
  Statements in Custody.
  Statements in Custody.
MASSY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a; agreed to: frill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.