Sitting of 1 March 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Metropolitan District Railway Bill.
Great Central Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 and 1907.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 171, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an Infected Area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887. (EVICTION NOTICES).
Copy presented of Return of the number of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Draft Rule proposed to be made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Draft Rule proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Prison Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Plymouth Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Draft Order proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, making variations in the Table of Court Fees in the First Schedule to that Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5125 to 5428 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 19th December, 1914, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Drug Accounts Committee) Regulations (Scotland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]
EUROPEAN WAR.
Copy presented of Papers relating to Scales of Pensions and Allowances of Officers and Men of the oversea Contingents and their Dependants [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Reports Nos. 835 (St. Vincent, Report for 1913–14) and 836 (St. Lucia, Report for 1913–14) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONTRABAND OF WAR (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue as a White Paper the Orders in Council of 20th August and 29th October, 1914, relating to contraband of War, and all Orders in Council issued since the commencement of the War dealing with this subject, the rights of neutrals, and the prohibition of export of articles from the United Kingdom?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): The facilities for obtaining copies of the Orders in Council referred to are such that there does not appear to me to be any need for the issue of a White Paper such as the hon. Member suggests. The Orders in Council are purchaseable either singly (price 4d.), or, collected together in book form with other legislation passed and made in consequence of the War, in the "Manual of Emergency Legislation," published under the authority of His Majesty's Stationery Office (price with supplement, covering period up to December 5th, 5s.).
    Mr. PETO: Up to what date are these now complete?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: Up to the 5th December.
    Mr. PETO: Have any changes been made since that date?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I will make inquiries.

    RUSSIAN DUMA.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether six Socialist members of the Russian Duma have been sentenced by courts-martial to terms of imprisonment
    532
    for advocating Socialist principles; and whether he will make representations to the Russian Government on this matter, in view of the advisability at the present time of securing as cordial relations as possible between the two nations?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: According to information that has reached me, five Social Democrat members of the Duma have been arrested and will shortly be sent for trial. They were found at a secret meeting held by members of Socialist organisations with a view to starting a secret anti-war propaganda. Papers have been seized which are said to support this charge, and a proposal to protest against this arrest of its members has been refused by the Duma; but in any case I must remind the hon. member that His Majesty's Government cannot concern themselves, especially at this moment, with internal affairs of other countries.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, in what counties there has been a rise in she wages of agricultural labourers since July last; and what is the average percentage of the rise and the present average wage in those counties?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I regret that precise information of the nature desired by my hon. Friend is not in the Board's, possession.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Has the Board any means at its disposal for obtaining more accurate information with regard to individual counties?
    Sir H. VERNEY: It is rather a difficult matter, as the increases in wages are not confined to one county, or to one part of a county. I will see what can be done to meet my hon. Friend.

    CIVIL SERVICE (HOME AND INDIAN EXAMINATIONS).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether most of the men who would in the

    533
    ordinary course have been preparing for the Home and Indian Civil Service examinations are now engaged on military duty and will therefore be unable to compete in 1915, and probably in 1916; and if, under these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of approaching the proper authority with a view of preparing a scheme of selection, in consultation with the university authorities and others having special knowledge, whereby men who had intended to enter the Civil service, and who still wish to do so, shall not be prejudiced by reason of their present employment on military duty and consequent inability to prepare for competitive examinations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The question, so far as it concerns the Home Civil Service, should be addressed to the representatives of the Treasury. As regards the Indian Civil Service, the hon. Member's suggestion to substitute selection for the open competitive examination would require the amendment of the Government of India Act of 1858. The Secretary of State is not prepared to propose this in present circumstances. He has, however, granted concessions as to age to candidates undertaking service with the Forces which he believes meet the case as it now presents itself. The concessions have been made with the advice and assistance of the Civil Service Commissioners.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a concession merely on the point of age will still prejudice those candidates who are now serving their country by reason of the fact that they will not be able to join the Civil Service until they are two years older than other candidates who have not served with the Colours?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will submit that representation to the Secretary of State.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LETTERS).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Postmaster-General whether a large percentage of letters passing through the hands of the military censors with the Expeditionary Force are delivered to the addressees in England with the envelope unsealed; and whether he will give instructions to the censors to see that the letters
    534
    are properly sealed after having been censored, so as to prevent private communications from the soldiers to wives and relatives from being read by persons for whom they are not intended?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My attention had already been drawn to this matter, and instructions have been issued which will, I hope, prevent its recurrence.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (BOARD OF TRADE AGREEMENT).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whethere there has been any variation in the original terms of the agreement between the Board of Trade and the railway companies by which a guarantee was given by the Government that pre-War rates of profits would be maintained, if necessary, by subsidies from the Treasury?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Some variation of the original agreement is now under discussion with the railway companies.

    ANILINE DYE INDUSTRY.
    Sir W. BULLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the negotiations with Messrs. Reid, Holliday and Company, any suggestion was made to the proprietors to follow the usual course in such cases and accept part at least of the purchase money in the shares of the new undertaking?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that the course suggested would have been either practicable or convenient, in view of the facts that when the option was obtained the scheme for the new company was in embryo, that the new company is, and has always been, intended to be primarily an association of consumers rather than of producers of dyes, and that the dividend on ordinary shares is limited as long as the Government advance if outstanding.
    Mr. HEWINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in fact a course like that mentioned in the question was suggested or not?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does the hon. Member mean to suggest by us or by the vendors?
    Mr. HEWINS: By the Government.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I believe it was discussed as between the company and the Committee who were promoting the scheme, and the Committee who were promoting the scheme did not desire to give the vendors any shares.
    Sir W. BULLasked what proportion of the profits earned by Messrs. Reid, Holliday and Company as a manufacturing concern, and taken into account for computing the purchase price of that concern, was estimated to be earned on the manufacture of synthetic drugs and aniline dyes, respectively?
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the revenue of Messrs. Read, Holliday, and Sons, Limited, upon which the purchase price by British Dyes, Limited, is based, has been derived solely from the manufacture in England of the products which they sell, or whether a portion has teen derived, directly or indirectly, from profits or commission on the sale of goods manufactured abroad?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: An option has been acquired to purchase the undertaking of Messrs. Read, Holliday and Sons, Limited, on certain terms, but it will be entirely for the directors of the new Dyes Company, when formed, to decide at their discretion whether that option shall be exercised. In these circumstances, I do not think it would be proper for me to give the details asked for.
    Mr. HEWINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has given, and is prepared to give, further licences to British firms to import aniline dyes, including aniline dyes from enemy countries; what are the special circumstances which have determined the Board of Trade in this policy; and whether it is intended to apply to all users of dyes who make application for corresponding facilities?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Licences to import aniline dyes of enemy origin have been granted in a number of cases, in view of the existing shortage of artificial dyes and their importance to the textile and other industries. The licences may be revoked at any time, should that course appear expedient; but I do not think that the present situation is such as to justify the
    536
    discontinuance of the practice. Every application for a licence is considered on its merits.
    Mr. HEWINS: Does that answer mean that private dye users may make then own arrangements through neutral countries to import aniline dyes from Germany?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It means that they can only import enemy dyes into this country provided they have a licence. Without having that licence it will be illegal for them to do so.
    Mr. HEWINS: Does that licence give permission to import dyes from Germany?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The licence is for no other purpose but for licensing the importation of enemy goods, if such are necessary, into this country.
    Mr. HEWINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every sovereign Germany gets for aniline dyes is spent in making bullets for our men?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That may be perfectly true, but it is also necessary that our own industries should exist under certain conditions. Every licence is considered on its merits. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to suggest that there should be no licences issued in any circumstances, then he must put that question to the Prime Minister and not to me.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question on the Paper. We have well over 100 questions on the Paper now.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked whether non-users of dyes will be precluded from becoming shareholders in the proposed National Dye Company; and whether dyes produced by the company will be sold to all British dye users who are not shareholders in the National Dye Company at the same price as they will be sold to the shareholders?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that applications for shares in the proposed new company will be invited not only from users of dyes but from others willing to assist in providing a supply thereof. The prices to be charged by the company for its products will be a matter for the determination of the directors, subject to the provision against undue preference which is one of the conditions of Government assistance.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulties of the Hampton Urban District Council in obtaining supplies of coal for their sewage disposal works, and to the possibility of the works stopping and the sewage overflow polluting the water supply of London; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the requirements of the Hampton Urban District Council of coal have been receiving attention from the Railway Executive Committee, and I understand that arrangements have been made for the immediate delivery of an adequate supply of coal to the council.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. F. B. Cameron and Company trade under the following names: The Colliery Owners' Association, the Co-operative Coal Company, the Newcastle Colliery Owners, the Great Northern Coal Company, the Midland Coal Company, and the Great Western Coal Company; if he is aware that, in consequence of the coal which is being delivered in London at about 12s. per ton over and above the price of February, 1914, gas companies, factory owners, corporations, and private consumers of coal are paying an extra rate of about £154,000 per week; if he is aware that a number of generating stations in London are finding a difficulty to obtain coal for generating purposes; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that F. B. Cameron and Company, Limited, own a controlling interest in the Newcastle Colliery Owners, Limited. The other companies named do not appear to be registered under the Companies Acts, and I have no information with regard to them. I am not in a position to say exactly how much more in the aggregate is being paid for coal at the present moment by the various classes of consumers mentioned, as compared with a year ago. The question of the rise in the retail price of household coal is being investigated by the Retail Coal Prices Committee. As regards coal for gas and electricity undertakings, the Government have arranged for the interned enemy steamers in the United Kingdom to carry coal to London largely
    538
    for the use of undertakings of this kind and of other public utility bodies.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee set up to consider the coal question will have power by their remit to consider the advisability of stopping all export of coal during the War; and, if not, will the Government consider this point, in view of the present price of coal both for domestic and manufacturing consumption and of the shortage of ship ping tonnage?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. There is nothing in the terms of reference to the Retail Coal Prices Committee which would preclude them from considering this point, if and in so far as it appeared to them to bear on the subject of their inquiry.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that coal freights from the Tyne to London hive recently been raised to 17s. 6d. per ton; and whether, in making the present arrangement of intrusting the management of and the fixing of freights for the thirty-four interned German steamers recently made available for coasting traffic to a committee of shipowners interested in maintaining freights, any steps were taken to prevent such an arrangement having the effect of keeping up and raising freights on food-stuffs and coal required by the population of London?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. No such rate of freight as that mentioned by the hon. Member has been paid in respect of any interned steamer, nor its it true that the management of and fixing of freights for these steamers have been, entrusted, as alleged in the question, to a committee of shipowners interested in maintaining freights.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister who are the members of the committee appointed to consider the difficulties connected with the getting, loading, carrying, unloading, and distribution of the coal supplies of the nation; whether that committee comprises adequate representation of the mass of the consumers of the country; and what progress the committee has made in the prevention of delays and the relief of congestion in traffic with a view to the more speedy delivery of the coal supplies, and the consequent diminution of cost to the consumers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The composition of the committee and the terms of reference were stated in a reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent on Thursday last. I am not yet in a position to say what progress the committee have made in their investigations, but I am sure that they are fully impressed with the urgency of the problem referred to them.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Mr. Waugh, the Kingsclere trainer, had three Austrian stable lads under the age of seventeen, and that these lads have been interned as dangerous; if he is aware that the discipline of a training stable is strict, and that Mr. Waugh is willing to re-employ these lads; if alien lads of the same class and age have been allowed to return to trainers at New-market (although there are many troops in the neighbourhood) by leave of the Home Office; and if he can give the authority on whose recommendation Mr. Waugh's lads were interned?
    Mr. TENNANT: After consultation with the police authorities concerned, it was considered to be inadvisable to release the three boys in question, although they would be subject to some supervision at Kingsclere, where, it was understood, they would be given employment. The ages of these lads are given as eighteen, seventeen, and eighteen. An Austrian aged twenty-four was released to resume employment in a training stable at Newmarket, the police having stated that there was no objection to this being done. The Kingsclere lads were interned in accordance with the general instructions issued to the police in October.
    Mr. FALLE: Will these men be now interned?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to tell that, but I should say Yes.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether an opportunity will be given to merchants and traders in the Isle of Wight to tender for supplies required for the services of the alien prisoners at present interned in ships stationed in the Solent?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Under the arrangements made by the Admiralty these supplies are made by the owners of the vessels concerned. I may say, however, that the ships will very shortly be moved from the neighbourhood of the Isle of Wight.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir CUTHBERT QUILTERasked whether an offer has been received from Mr. R. C. Marsh to give employment to 100 Belgian refugees at Hawkedon, Suffolk; whether such offer has been refused; and, if so, the reason for such refusal?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No such offer has been made to me, and I had not heard of the matter, but on inquiry of the Board of Trade I learn that some time in November Mr. Marsh applied to the Labour Exchange for a supply of from 12 to 100 Belgian men or lads to work at threshing mills or sand pits. He was told that the labour could not be supplied, as the proposed place of employment was in one of the prohibited areas to which refugees are not sent.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. FELLasked if there are any figures available in the Labour Exchange offices showing the total number of agricultural labourers on their books seeking similar occupation at the present time?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The total number of agricultural workers registered at the Labour Exchanges as desiring agricultural work, for the week ending Friday, 19th February, was 559 (434 being men and 125 women).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are these confined to any particular district?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I can get details for the hon. Member if he gives me notice.
    Mr. FELL: These are the whole?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes.

    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION (CRYSTAL PALACE).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the fourteen medical men attached to the Royal Naval Division at the Crystal Palace have, since the outbreak of meningitis, been drafted, with the battalions to which they are attached, to Blandford; how many more will shortly be drafted; and how many will be left at the Crystal Palace?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Nine of the medical officers attached to the Royal Naval Division at the Crystal Palace have been drafted with their battalions—two have been sent in lieu, thus leaving seven medical officers for about 5,000 men. It is not contemplated that any more should be drafted at present.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the bacteriologist who had been specially appointed to inquire into the causes of the outbreak of meningitis was not specially appointed at all, but was one of the ordinary doctors attached to the Naval Division; and whether he has since been drafted to Blandford?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The bacteriologist specially appointed to inquire into the outbreak is not one of the ordinary doctors attached to the Naval Division, nor has he been in any way connected with the Division, but is the Professor of Clinical Pathology at the Naval Medical School at Greenwich Naturally he has not been drafted to Blandford.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether two officers of the Royal Naval Division died of meningitis last week at their own homes; whether any further cases have occurred; and how many men are still at the Crystal Palace?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: One case, not two, of cerebro-spinal meningitis from the Royal Naval Division at the Crystal Palace has died at his own home. Up to to-day there have been eighteen cases in all, with thirteen deaths. There are about 5,000 men still at the Crystal Palace.

    SEAMEN ON LEAVE (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that some of the seamen of His
    542
    Majesty's ship "Magnificent" who were given two or three days' leave from Chatham have had to pay their railway fares to their respective homes and back; whether he is aware that some of the men have had to travel a considerable distance; and whether the Admiralty will see that the men are paid their railway fares when proceeding on leave to and from their homes in similar cases in future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men referred to were sent to their depot at Chatham after paying off from His Majesty's ship "Magnificent," and were given leave from Chatham. Special concessions have been granted to seamen whose ships put into ports, other than their home ports, in such circumstances, but this concession does not apply to men given leave from their depots. Further consideration is being given to the conditions under which free warrants may be issued.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain why it is that the wife of a naval man receives less separation allowance than the wife of a soldier of equivalent rank?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The difference between the various rates of Navy separation allowance and those applicable to corresponding ranks in the Army is based on the fact that pay and prospects of promotion are better in the Navy than in the Army. I would refer the Noble Lord to the White Paper, Cd. 7619, of the 22nd September last, in which the considerations bearing on this question are fully explained. I have sent the Noble Lord a copy.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the introductory Note to Cd. 7762 also covers the Special Report from the Select Committee on Pensions and Grants; if so, whether he will lay Papers showing how the Admiralty Orders and Regulations affect allowances and pensions; and whether all future Admiralty Orders and Regulations applicable to allowances and pensions will also be laid before they come into force?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not think that it would be

    543
    practicable to comply with the suggestion contained in the latter part, but I may point out that every Order in Council relating to sailors' pensions approved by His Majesty has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether sailors on board yachts in His Majesty's service who have joined the Royal Naval Reserve for the period of the War are entitled to separation allowances for their wives; and, if not, will he state the reason?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The wives of Royal Naval Reservists are eligible for separation allowance provided their husbands are borne on the books of one of His Majesty's ships, are paid at naval rates of pay, and declare the requisite minimum allotment of 20s. a month in their favour. If these conditions were satisfied, the fact that the husband was serving in one of His Majesty's yachts would not affect the issue of an allowance. It should be observed that separation allowance is not payable in respect of men who have signed an engagement to serve at a mercantile rate of pay. Some men of this class are serving in His Majesty's yachts.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Is the mercantile rate of pay the same pay that these men were drawing when the yachts were on pleasure bound, and if these men are now offering their lives for their country are not their dependants entitled to some recognition from the country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member probably knows that the mercantile rates of pay are generally higher than those of the Navy.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the position of a woman having a husband serving in the Army and a son serving in the Navy; and whether she would be entitled to separation allowance from both husband and son?
    Mr. MACNAMARA: Under existing regulations it is not possible to pay Navy separation allowance to a woman in respect of a son on whom she was partially dependent if she is in receipt of an Army separation allowance in respect of her husband. The question of abolishing this limitation has been placed before the Select Committee.
    Sir W. BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can see any way to mitigate the hardship caused to-the soldier's wife by her being sent in error by the paymaster a larger sum than that to which she is entitled, which is subsequently deducted from her weekly allowance, a case which is constantly occurring?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): Instructions are in force that such recoveries, when necessary, shall be made by small instalments spread over a considerable period.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether men who, on joining the Forces, state that they have no one dependent on them, but subsequently through death or other causes become the supporter in whole or in part of a near relation, are allowed to allot a portion of their pay to this relation; and whether the person thus becoming dependent on them will receive the usual allowances?
    Mr. BAKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now give the date from which wives married after August, 1914, who have not been receiving separation allowances will be entitled to claim arrears; whether the full arrears will be paid; and whether they will be paid in a lump sum or in instalments over a period?
    Mr. BAKER: As I stated on 24th February, effect will be given to this and other new regulations recommended by the Select Committee as from 1st February.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, approximately, the present weekly cost of separation allowances?
    Mr. BAKER: The present weekly expenditure is approximately £600,000.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the introductory note to Cd. 7662 also covers the Special Report from the Select Committee on Pensions and Grants; if so, whether he will lay Papers showing how the Army orders and regulations affect allowances and pensions; and whether all

    545
    future Army Orders and Regulations applicable to allowances and pensions will also be laid before they come into force?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. The introductory note applies to the Select Committee's Report. Every order as to pensions of soldiers made by His Majesty has to be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament under Section 2 of the Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Act of 1884, and I will arrange for copies of the Royal Warrant and Army Order to be placed in the Vote Office, but it is not practicable to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question.

    ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET SIR A. K. WILSON.
    Mr. NIELDasked if Admiral of the Fleet Sir Arthur Knyvet Wilson now holds any appointment, or occupies any and, if so, what position at the Admiralty; and is he empowered to exercise authority over the admirals of the Navy now in command at sea?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Sir Arthur Wilson is, I am glad to say, closely associated with the Board in an advisory capacity.

    TEMPORARY SURGEONS (ROYAL NAVY).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement with regard to the position of temporary surgeons in the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question has been carefully considered, but it has not been found possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty referred to by the Noble Lord in his question of the 18th of February
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As the Noble Lord knows, complicated questions of relative rank are involved, and we do not see our way out of the difficulty at present. I shall be very glad to confer with the Noble Lord upon the matter.

    ADMIRAL SIR D. BEATTY'S DISPATCHES.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he proposes to lay Admiral Sir D. Beatty's dispatches upon the Table of the House; and on what date?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The dispatch will be gazetted very shortly.

    MESSRS. LYONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED (MEAT CONTRACT, CRYSTAL PALACE).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether Messrs. Lyons and Company, Ltd., have a meat contract with the Admiralty to supply naval men who are stationed at the Crystal Palace?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Messrs. Lyons and Company have a contract for supplying meals (including meat) to the officers and men of the Royal Naval Division quartered at the Crystal Palace. The firm had for many years been established as the sole caterers at the Crystal Palace, and had thus accumulated extensive plant, fixtures, furniture and requisities, both for cooking and for serving meals there. When, therefore, it was decided, in September, 1914, at short notice, to quarter about 2,000 to 3,000 men of the Royal Naval Division at the Palace, Messrs. Lyons were in a much better position than any other firm to undertake the catering for them. I may add that they have carried out the catering quite satisfactorily, and I am not aware that there have been any complaints.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the journal entitled "Eye-Witness" of last week, and see what they say about this particular contract and others?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member desires I will read the journal called "Eye-Witness."

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (BONUS).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked what bonus, if any, the Royal Naval Reserve men are entitled to receive on the completion of their term of service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In ordinary circumstances the gratuity paid to Royal Naval Reserve men on completion of twenty years' service is £50. If, however, the question relates to war service, I may add that while serving during hostilities Royal Naval Reserve men are credited with a war retainer of £1 a month, one-half of which must be banked for their benefit after their discharge. If a man is discharged before completing ten months' war service, he receives a minimum sum of £5 in respect of that portion of the retainer which is banked for him. If he is retained for more than twelve months he receives, in addition to his war retainer, thirty days' pay on discharge. During war service a man, if invalided, becomes entitled to the pension or gratuity applicable to active service men.

    OSBORNE COLLEGE (SICKNESS).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether sickness is still rampant at Osborne College; what is the number of cadets that are at present on the sick list, and the nature, if any, of the different illnesses; and what steps the Admiralty are taking for moving the cadets to more healthy surroundings?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of cases on the sick list at Osborne on Saturday was 133, namely, influenza, 106; measles 12; conjunctivitis, 10; pneumonia, 5; mumps, 2; tonsilitis, 1. Steps have been taken, pending the rearrangement of the college, to transfer the cadets of one extra term to Dartmouth, where extra accommodation is available and more is about to be constructed.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to get this place evacuated? The cadets have been ill ever since they have been in the place. It was hastily done up, and there is a great deal of consternation among the parents?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the Noble Lord knows that Osborne has been under our consideration for some considerable time past. For the moment we are keeping five terms there instead of six, which will assist in some degree.

    WHITE FEATHERS (INSULTING CONDUCT).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that persons employed directly or indirectly in the service of the State are subjected to insolence and provocation at the hands of some advertising young women presenting them with white feathers; and if he will give orders to the police to arrest such persons for acting in a manner likely to create a breach of the peace?
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking the practice very objectionable and not likely to assist recruiting, but I am informed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police that no complaint in the matter has reached the police, and I do not think the risk of the practice leading to breach of the peace is so great as to justify the action which my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. C. WASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he is unable to assist in the manner indicated, he would make it easier for badges to be issued to persons employed?
    Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to the naval and military authorities.

    GERMAN EMBASSY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether permission has been given to any officer of the late German Embassy to visit London since War was declared?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that any such permission has been given. I have not granted a permit to enter the United Kingdom to any such person.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of any such permission having been granted to any person throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I know of no case. I think I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There is no more substantial ground in that particular case than for any of the other stories which have come to us.

    DAMAGE BY GERMAN RAIDS.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government as to compensation to householders and others whose property has been injured by raids of enemy aircraft or warships; whether the special Committee which has been appointed will consider the damage in each case upon its merits but upon a general understanding that the cost of such damage, being a result of a state of war, should be borne by the community as a whole; whether the Government are yet in a position to state when the Report on the damage caused by and the compensation to be paid as a result of the raid on Scarborough, Whitby, and the Hartlepools will be issued by the special Committee; and whether previous declarations by the Government as to the payment of compensation in connection with damage caused by subsequent raids, e.g., the air raid over Norfolk, will apply to the air raid damage at Braintree, Coggeshall, Marks Tey, and Colchester?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I have already stated in the House, each case as it arises will be considered on its merits. I am informed that Lord Par-moor's Committee have held repeated sittings, and have made arrangements which will enable them to deal with all cases of damage to persons and property within the area of their reference. They are proceeding in the first instance to assess the figures in respect of the poorer class of property, in which it is necessary that repairs should be made at once, and are presenting an interim report in regard to Whitby.
    Relief will be granted in the case of damage caused by the recent air raid in Essex on the same lines as in the cases now being examined by the Committee.

    BELGIUM (GERMAN ARMY AND CIVIL POPULATION).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Committee appointed by the Government to
    550
    inquire into the treatment of the civil population of Belgium by the German army is now ready; and, if so, whether it can be laid upon the Table?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Committee appointed to advise on the evidence collected on behalf of the Government as to outrages by German troops, cases of maltreatment of civilians and breaches of the laws of war has not yet reported, but I hope they will be able to do so soon.

    GERMAN PAMPHLET.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to a pamphlet entitled "Facts About Germany and the War," in which is reproduced an article or speech by a Member of this House; whether he is aware that this document has been circulated abroad by German agents; and whether any and, if so, what steps have been or will be taken to counteract the effect of such statements in foreign countries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention had not previously been called to this particular pamphlet, which apparently was published in Germany, and, therefore, no doubt had some circulation there. The true facts have been published in the White Paper laid before Parliament and in the French and Russian official publications, and can leave no doubt in any impartial mind that the responsibility for this War does not rest upon this country.

    WOMEN AS DRIVERS OF LICENSED VEHICLES.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of vacancies due to enlistment which some large companies are willing to fill with women, he will authorise their being licensed as drivers of public vehicles, seeing that many women are already licensed to drive private vehicles and have proved their capacity as skilled chauffeurs?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am anxious that the services of women should be utilised in every possible way to set men free to fight for their country in this crisis, but I doubt if the public would have confidence in women drivers of taxicabs and motor

    551
    omnibuses. Moreover, I learn from the Commissioner of Police, that, though a large number of drivers are now on service, the number of licensed drivers is still considerably in excess of the number of licensed vehicles.

    MINING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the terms of reference of the committee recently appointed to consider the existing conditions in the coal-mining industry have given rise to the impression that coal miners have been backward in joining the forces and that the main object of the committee is to find a remedy; and, if so, if he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. I am informed that such an impression has arisen, and I regret that the drafting of the terms of reference should have led to any such misunderstanding. It is hardly necessary for me to inform the House that the coal miners have made a ready and generous response to their country's call in the present emergency, and I have no doubt that when the recruiting figures are published, the mining industry will occupy a very high place, on the list. Indeed, it is because the enlistment in some districts has been so great that it has become necessary to consider what steps should be taken to ensure the supply of coal necessary for the public service, and it will be the business of the committee to inquire into the whole position. With the concurrence of the committee the terms of reference have been amended to remove the misapprehension, and I propose to circulate them with this answer.

    IMPRISONMENT OF SOLDIER'S WIFE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Brierley, the wife of a soldier who was sentenced to a month's imprisonment in London for collecting money on behalf of a firm for providing Belgian soldiers with warm clothing; and, as no evidence was produced to dispute her statement and as there was no evidence, as asserted by Detective Dyer, that she was addicted to drink, will he make inquiries into the case with a view to the remission of the sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received no application from or on behalf of the person mentioned. Her sentence expired on Saturday last and she was released in the ordinary course.

    REPORTED OUTBREAK OF TROOPS (SINGAPORE).
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any further information about the reported outbreak among the troops at Singapore; to what cause is it attributed; and what kind of inquiry will be ordered?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I cannot at present supplement the announcement that has been given to the Press. The nature of the inquiry to be instituted is now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, who are in communication with the Governor on the subject.

    COMPANIES BORROWING.
    Sir GEORGE POLLARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury Minute as regards companies borrowing money applies to a private loan secured by debentures?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): The Treasury notice referred to applies to all fresh issues of securities.

    BULFORD CAMP.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will cause inquiries to be made respecting the number of men sleeping in tents at Bulford Camp; how many men have to find accommodation in each tent; and whether the men who have to sleep in tents have to eat their breakfast in a hut in which already forty men have to live and sleep and eat?
    Mr. TENNANT: The number of men in tents at Bulford Camp is 410 of whom 302 mess in huts where other men have slept. The average number of men sleeping in one tent is seven. As the huts are well aired before breakfast, there is no sanitary objection to the men feeding in them. It is understood that the units prefer these arrangements to being placed in billets.

    IRISH GUARDS (REINSTATEMENT).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Cyril Edgar Morris, a young Irish guardsman, who appeared before the Oxted (Surrey) magistrates charged with being a convict on licence who has been discharged from the Army, and remanded by the magistrates; and, if so, whether, in view of the exemplary character of Morris while in the Army since he enlisted in July, 1914, the War Office authorities will take steps with a view of reinstating Morris in some capacity in the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: This case was brought to the notice of the War Office by the justices of Godstone, before whom the man was charged. The Officer Commanding, Irish Guards, having agreed to Morris being reinstated in his regiment, orders are being issued for his discharge from the Army to be cancelled.

    HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT (MATTRESSES).
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has made further inquiries regarding the shortage of mattresses for the 3rd battalion of the Hampshire Regiment, stationed in the Isle of Wight during the autumn months; and if he can state the result of his inquiries?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have made further inquiries and find that the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 23rd November was inaccurate. Instead of having 875 mattresses on the 14th August, the regiment had 595 on that date, and the number was gradually increased until the total of 875 was reached on the 30th September. The regiment had received its full complement of mattresses and palliasses on the 10th November. The issue of a second blanket per man was completed by the 9th October, and of a third blanket by the 8th November, not the 12th September and 13th October, respectively, as originally stated. During the months of September and October over 19,000 palliasses were issued from store, which shows the rapidity with which the indents received from the
    554
    various units were met. While expressing my regret for having given an inaccurate answer to the hon. Gentleman, I should like him to realise that the provision of the information he asked for necessitated the search through some thousands of vouchers.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire who was responsible for these troops being without any mattresses or blankets at all for over a month?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will make the inquiry.

    INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked what was the average death-rate, from typhoid per 1,000 strength in the Indian Army in the years 1895 to 1900 and in the year 1903?
    Mr. TENNANT: The average death-rate from typhoid per 1,000 strength among the British troops in India for the years mentioned are as follows:

    1895

    …

    5.61 per 1,000 strength.

    1896

    …

    6.31 per 1,000 strength.

    1897

    …

    8.62 per 1,000 strength.

    1898

    …

    10.04 per 1,000 strength.

    1899

    …

    5.14 per 1,000 strength.

    1900

    …

    4.77 per 1,000 strength.

    1903

    …

    4.19 per 1,000 strength.

    Mr. CHANCELLORasked at what date inoculation or vaccination against typhoid fever was introduced into the Indian Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: The earliest known inoculation against typhoid fever in the British Army in India was in 1898. This was an initial attempt which was discontinued after the South African war, and it was reintroduced in 1905.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked how many of the 1,508 cases of pneumonia and sixty-two cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis which have occurred since 1st August, 1914, among the British troops in the United Kingdom were preceded by anti-typhoid inoculation or vaccination?
    Mr. TENNANT: As the compilation of these statistics would entail a considerable amount of labour, I regret that in the present pressure of work I do not feel justified in placing this additional strain upon the medical officers of my Department.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked how many cases of and how many deaths from typhoid per 1,000 strength occurred in the American Army in the years 1898 and 1900 respectively; and to what cause or causes he assigns the difference?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret I am unable to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend, as the American text book available does not mention the figures for the years named.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked how many were inoculated and uninoculated, respectively, of the 262 cases and 47 deaths from typhoid among British troops in the United Kingdom from 1st August, 1914, to 31st January, 1915?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of the 262 cases twenty-five were inoculated and 237 uninoculated. Of the forty-seven deaths two were inoculated and forty-five uninoculated.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will instruct military sanitary officers, in recording all future cases of typhoid fever in the Army, whether at home or abroad, to report not only on the one factor, inoculation, but on all important factors, particularly the condition as to purity or pollution of food and water consumed by the patient before the attack, and the state of sanitation, so that scientific statistics of this disease may be compiled from which the truth can be learned?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; this is already carried out.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the forty-seven deaths from typhoid fever in 262 cases amongst the British troops in the United Kingdom from 1st August, 1914, to 31st January, 1915, represent a case fatality rate of 17.9 per cent., whereas the forty-nine deaths in 625 cases amongst the Expeditionary Force from 1st August, 1914, to 11th February, 1915, only represent a case fatality rate of 7.8 per cent.; and can he explain why the case fatality rate at Home is more than double that at the seat of war, seeing the better conditions which prevail in the United Kingdom and the better facilities for the performance of inoculation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret I am unable to explain this apparent anomaly.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked why officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps draw their pay one month in arrear, whereas other officers in the Army draw their pay one month in advance, by regulation; and if the practice throughout the Army will be made uniform in this respect?
    Mr. BAKER: Officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps are not peculiar in this respect. They are paid in arrear in common with all Staff and Departmental officers. Only regimental officers draw in advance. This is in accordance with a long standing custom which it is not proposed to disturb.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether officers of the Indian Army serving in France are subject to deductions for rations, forage, and hire of chargers, but draw no extra field allowance, while British officers draw allowances amounting to about 4s. a day in all in addition to their pay, so that Cavalry captains and subalterns of the British service actually receive more in the aggregate than their Indian brother officers of the same rank and position, though the latter are, unlike the former, rarely possessed of private means; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to take any action in this matter?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 9th February to a similar question. I am not yet in a position to add anything to that answer.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, while wounded officers who are prisoners of war in Germany draw lodging and field allowances, wounded officers on sick furlough draw lodging allowance for nine days only and no field allowances; and, if so, whether it is proposed to equalise the pay and allowances of the two classes?
    Mr. BAKER: The allowances for prisoners of war are a continuation of those specially approved for the Expeditionary Force. Officers invalided to this country do not get field allowance, as the conditions for field allowance do not arise, but they draw lodging allowance for ninety-one days after leaving hospital.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is

    557
    aware of the following grievances suffered by officers who were serving in England before the war whose regiments are now on active service, namely, that officers of a battalion serving in France who came with it from India draw their Indian rate of consolidated pay, whereas officers who came from England of a battalion serving in France under the same conditions draw the English rate of pay, the difference being that between £33 and £28 a month; that officers of the latter who are promoted into the former battalion but continue to serve in the latter battalion draw Indian pay, while other officers of the like rank, their seniors, continue to draw the lesser English rates; and whether any steps will be taken to regularise this situation so that officers serving under similar conditions may draw similar rates of pay and allowances?
    Mr. BAKER: The anomaly pointed out by the hon. Member results from the bringing together from different parts of the Empire officers of the same regiment who are drawing different rates of pay; and I fear that there is no way of removing this without creating other and greater anomalies, but I would point out that, if I have interpreted the hon. Member's language rightly, the statement that the officer previously serving in the latter battalion obtains the rate of pay of the former is incorrect. That is what happens to the officer who was previously serving in the former battalion but subsequently in the latter.

    DONINGTON PARK.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give particulars of the money expended, or to be expended, at Donington Park in adapting and furnishing the residence for the reception of prisoners of war; and under which Vote in the Army Estimates this expenditure will be accounted for?
    Mr. TENNANT: The cost of adaptation is estimated at:—£1,750 for structural alterations, additions and repairs to the house; £2,500 for reconstruction, extension and repair of sanitation; £2,100 for hutting; £1,950 for electric lighting and power house; £450 for fencing and gates—a total of £8,800 chargeable to Army Vote 10, all buildings, fittings and fixtures being removable at or before the expiration of the tenancy. The cost of furnishing is
    558
    estimated at £4,200, chargeable to Army Vote 8. The general scale is that of a sergeants' mess. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman a list of the articles of the sergeants' mess.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For how many people is accommodation provided?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already stated that 320 officers and flighty soldier prisoners, servants.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For £8,500?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is £4,200 for furniture. The rest is for structural alterations, in order to make the building habitable.
    Mr. M'NEILL: Is it customary to provide billiard rooms for the sergeants' mess?
    Mr. TENNANT: I believe that has been done. I am not quite aware of the custom.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many more country houses are the War Office going to rebuild for the comfort of German prisoners?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course that all depends. If we could get other premises we should like it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this house has been for a long time untenanted, and whether the alterations which the Government propose to carry out are not any more than are absolutely necessary in order to make it fit for habitation?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is my belief. I have not had the opportunity, as I have had other things to do, of going down to see this place. Am I right in understanding that the Noble Lord has visited it?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have not.
    Mr. TENNANT: I had hoped that he would have been able to give first-hand information. When you think of making an untenanted house into a place fit to receive 400 people, which is a very large number, I do not really think that it is an outrageous suggestion.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that British officers who are prisoners in Germany are afforded similar quarters?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks, in consequence of the extraordinary treatment which they are receiving, these gentlemen will ever want to go back to Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: We are a very hospitable nation. I am unable to speak with authority on the question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He knows that we are taking every kind of measure we can to ascertain the nature of the treatment of our own fellow subjects in Germany, and I shall be glad to afford him the information, which he knows we are endeavouring to get, at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the German prisoners of war at Donington Park were taken by motor car from Derby in order to save them the hardship of marching a few miles on foot; whether the British soldiers sent to Donington to guard the prisoners received the same consideration; whether a number of interned German waiters have been sent to Donington to serve as valets to the imprisoned officers; and if he can say whether British officers imprisoned in Germany are receiving similar treatment?
    Mr. TENNANT: Motor transport was provided for the prisoners, guard and baggage from Derby to Donington Hall. Some German soldier prisoners—in the proportion of one to every four officers, and a few additional for general purposes—have been sent to Donington Hall for duty. It is understood that soldier prisoners are told off as servants to officers interned in Germany.
    Mr. M'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the distance which the motors had to take these gentlemen?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that it is far. I do not know how far.
    Mr. M'NEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any reason why they should not be marched by road.
    Mr. TENNANT: It is considered more desirable to adopt this course.

    HORSES PURCHASED BY WAR OFFICE.
    Sir W. BYLESasked what proportion of the horses purchased by the Government for the present War have
    560
    been cast because found unsuitable; and what has been the percentage of deaths among the horses still retained in this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: The proportion of horses cast as unsuitable has been under 1 per cent. The loss from deaths and destructions of horses retained in this country amounts to less than 2 per cent. per month, and having regard to the large numbers now being imported and sent overseas, and to the fact that all sick horses are left in this country, the percentage is not considered high.

    TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS (NEW ARMY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can give the number of men on the waiting list for commissions in the New Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: The number of suitable candidates for temporary commissions varies from day to day, and depends upon the number of applications received and the vacancies and training facilities available from time to time.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these applicants, varying from day to day, have any training compared with men who are being refused commissions because they cannot get their colonel's certificate?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

    KEDINGTON WORKHOUSE (SOLDIERS' HOSPITAL).
    Sir C. QUILTERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it is proposed to take over the workhouse institution at Kedington, near Haverhill, as a hospital for soldiers suffering from a contagious disease; whether he is aware of the objection to this course taken by the guardians of the Risbridge Union; and whether, in these circumstances, he will arrange for other accommodation to be obtained?
    Mr. TENNANT: It was proposed to take over this institution as a hospital, but as the local authorities objected other accommodation has been arranged.

    RED CROSS HOSPITAL, ASCOT.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the Red Cross Hospital established in the grand stand at Ascot is to be removed in order that it may not interfere with the arrangements for the Ascot race meeting?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of this proposal.

    CANADIAN HORSES (HOGGED MANES).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can state for what reason most of the Canadian horses have their manes hogged; is he aware that the absence of a mane is a great disadvantage to a man mounting and dismounting; and can he issue instructions that no more troop horses are to have their manes cut off?
    Mr. TENNANT: Except where horses have been bought with manes already hogged, or have had their manes so treated in view of skin trouble, only those horses are hogged in cases in which the competent military authorities consider it desirable.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost all the Canadian horses have their manes hogged, and can he not do something to prevent that practice from being continued?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot make any promise as to what will be done. The hon. Gentleman must understand that those horses were brought over already in a hogged condition.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that their manes are hogged in this country, as I know to my certain knowledge; and is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there is, in this practice, great danger to men who have to get on and off their horses quickly, and would it not be a perfectly simple, matter to issue, orders that manes are not to be hogged?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that horses manes are hogged in this country; that is not my information.
    Mr. HUNT: They are.

    OFFICERS' EQUIPMENT.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary for War if it has been decided to discard the leather Sam Browne belt and the sword in the equipment of officers going to the front; if the service cap used at the front is to be different from the one now in use at Home; and if he will give a reason for these changes?
    Mr. TENNANT: Officers of Field and Divisional Signal Companies, Royal Engineers, and officers of Infantry on active service in the field will be equipped with the same accoutrements as the rank and file, instead of with the Sam Browne belt and sword. A cap for winter use has been supplied to the troops in the field in place of that in use at Home. This winter cap is a soft one and of warm material. The changes referred to have been made in accordance with recommendations received from the Expeditionary Force.

    ARMY CHAPLAINS.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state what systematic provision is being made for supplying the new Army with chaplains, especially as the local clergy and ministers in the neighbourhood of the existing camps are in many instances already fully occupied?
    Mr. TENNANT: Provision is made at the large camps by appointing Army chaplains. Where the troops are split up into smaller units, it is nearly always found that a capable local clergyman is able and willing to supply the duty. In the rare cases where this is not possible, an Army chaplain is appointed.

    MILITARY CAMPS (WASTE OF FOOD).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware of the waste of food, not only at our own military camps, but also at camps and places where enemies are interned; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent it?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has already been drawn to this matter, and the question is being considered of preventing avoidable waste by improved kitchen administration, and in other ways.

    HERM (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say if the public are still refused access to the Island of Herm; if it is proposed to allow an alien enemy to occupy this place; and if he will consider if it would be for the public interest to utilise the island either for the purpose of interning alien enemies or for furthering the proposals of the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division by building cottages for the Belgians who are still homeless and suffering?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. All alien enemies have been removed from the island, which is now in the occupation of the military authorities. The public are only admitted by special permission of the military authorities I am advised that the island would not be suitable for either of the purposes suggested in the question.
    Sir W. BULL: Has the lease been abrogated altogether?
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

    CITY OF LONDON NATIONAL GUARD.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for War whether any uniform has been sanctioned for the City of London National Guard?
    Mr. TENNANT: No sanction has been given by the War Office. Provided any uniformity of dress which a corps may adopt does not conflict with the instructions on the subject issued by the War Office, the matter is left to the discretion of the corps.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to give notice that I will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining the matter on the Adjournment.

    BRITISH OFFICERS FROM INDIA.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that British officers fighting in France who have come from India are not provided with food by the Government, whilst officers
    564
    from the United Kingdom are, and whether he will take steps to have this inequality altered?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Nottingham East on the 9th February, of which I will send him a copy.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether officers of the British Army who were on leave from India, on being appointed to the New Armies or to the Expeditionary Force, have been obliged to provide at their own expense uniforms and kit equipment suitable for campaigning in Europe; whether officers of the Indian Army similarly positioned have been given an outfit allowance of £30; and, if so, whether he can see his way to grant equal treatment to the officers of both Armies in this respect?
    Mr. BAKER: Officers of the British Army, whether in India or elsewhere, are liable for service in any part of the world, and maintain their uniform at their own expense.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can say whether the officers of the Royal Engineers and of the Royal Flying Corps have had their pay increased, whilst officers of other branches of the Army have had their pay raised; and, if not, will he say what is the reason?
    Mr. BAKER: The pay of certain ranks in the Royal Engineers has been increased. No increase was necessary in the case of the Royal Flying Corps.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the officers teaching in the Royal Flying Corps only get 12s. a day, and are those fair conditions for men who practically risk their lives?
    Mr. BAKER: The pay of the Royal Flying Corps was very carefully considered and fixed at a comparatively high rate. I do not wish to minimise the risk to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    AFFILIATION ORDERS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether bastardy orders are now made applicable to men

    565
    of the Territorial Force in the same way as they are to men in the Regular Army and the money deducted from their pay?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on this subject on the 10th February to the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

    REMOUNT CAMPS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of this House the Report on remount camps which was recently made to the War Office by the hon. Member for the Widnes Division of Lancashire?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not in the public interest to publish the Report referred to, but I shall be glad to arrange for the hon. Member to be furnished confidentially with the information which he requires, if he will call and see the Director of Remounts at the War Office.

    CHILD LABOUR (RURAL DISTRICTS).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that in a number of agricultural districts the education authority has practically suspended the provisions of the by-laws under the Education Act in order to enable farmers to employ children between the ages of eleven and fourteen years to make good the alleged deficiency in the supply of labour caused by recruiting; and whether, as a protection for these children against further encroachments on their legal educational rights, he will order recruiting agents not to seek further enlistments in those districts, and thus follow the example already set in other trades?
    Mr. TENNANT: No official information has reached the War Office of the kind referred to in the first part of the question. I regret I am unable to take the action which the hon. Member suggests of stopping recruiting in agricultural distrists.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to advise the Government to suspend the Game Laws so that the gamekeepers can go to work on the land?

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that numbers of members of the National Reserve who have since joined the Colours were unaware before the War that it was necessary to sign an obligation to serve during a period of imminent national peril in order to earn the Government gratuity or through inadvertence neglected to do so; and whether, in view of these facts, and also because the men who join or have joined the Colours since the War have done so with a full knowledge of the risk they run, while many who undertook to join before did so without anticipating that a great emergency would arise, he can see his way to treat all those persons who were members of the National Reserve before the War and have since joined the Colours alike in the matter of gratuities on enlistment?
    Mr. BAKER: These payments were made in consideration of the men having undertaken beforehand certain definite obligations, and cannot be extended to those who did not undertake them.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether contracts have been given since the outbreak of war to Messrs. Siemens Brothers and Company; whether he is aware that the constitution of the board is as follows: George von Chauvin, managing director, Arnold von Siemens, of Siemensstadt, Berlin, chairman, Alexander Siemens, of Caxton House, Westminster, Carl von Siemens and Wilheim von Siemens, both of Siemensstadt, Berlin, and John J. Easton, of Grange Road, Sutton, directors; and whether he will see that the contracts hitherto given to Messrs. Siemens shall be given to British firms?
    Mr. BAKER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The firm employs a very large staff of British employés, and has given an undertaking that no part of any payments received under War Office contracts will be transmitted to enemy shareholders. I am informed that there are no British-owned firms not already engaged on Government work who are capable of undertaking

    567
    the contracts entrusted to Messrs. Siemens. In the circumstances, I do not think it would be in the public interest to dispense with this firm's services.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is it advisable to give a contract to a firm which has so many Germans connected with it?
    Mr. BAKER: There is no British firm capable of doing the work, and we have employed this firm, which we believe to be a perfectly trustworthy one, and we had no choice between doing so or going without the materiel altogether.

    FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, since the outbreak of War, the War Office has purchased considerable quantities of Minimax fire extinguishers; whether he is aware that an action for libel was brought in the Berlin Courts against a firm by the Minimax Company for alleging that this company was an English concern, in which action the plaintiffs were successful in proving that the invention, foundation, management, manufacture, and capital of the Minimax Company were German; and whether he will take steps to obtain fire extinguishers from a British firm?
    Mr. BAKER: Considerable quantities of fire extinguishers have been purchased for the Army since the outbreak of War from various firms, including Minimax, Limited. I am not aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question, but I am informed that the English company is entirely separate from all other Minimax companies, and that in December last it successfully brought an action against certain persons who asserted that it was German. With regard to the third part, only a small portion of the shares in Minimax, Limited, is held by other than British subjects; their staff is stated to be entirely British; and they have given an undertaking that no dividends will be remitted to their enemy shareholders during the continuance of the War. In the circumstances I see no reason for refusing to deal with this company.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this German paper I have here, and in which the facts stated in the
    568
    question are confirmed, and will he consider the advisability, since there is no question in this case of there being no British firm, of giving this contract to a British firm?
    Mr. BAKER: This firm is entirely British. The facts mentioned by the hon. Gentleman refer to a German firm.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm were agents for the German firm?

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (UNIFORM ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the amount of uniform allowance granted to Officers of Officers' Training Corps; and what further allowance is granted to them on their obtaining a commission in the Army?
    Mr. BAKER: The grant is £20. The question of making a further allowance when a first commission in the Army is taken is under consideration.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the late Quartermaster-sergeant Blake, Royal Garrison Artillery, died of pneumonia, contracted while discharging the duties of clerk to the officer commanding Section 1 of the Portsmouth defences in December last; whether he is aware, that Blake had retired previous to the War with over fourteen years and nine months' service as a civil subordinate clerk, Royal Garrison Artillery, but rejoined on the outbreak of War; and whether he will explain why his widow, who was entirely dependent upon him, has received no pension or allowance from the Army but only a cheque for £10 from the Compassionate Fund?
    Mr. BAKER: Mr. Blake, at the time of his death, was serving as a civil subordinate. Under the Acts of Parliament regulating such matters, his widow was not entitled to any payment, but in view of the circumstances of the case a sum of £10 was given from the small Compassionate Fund at the disposal of the Army Council. I am glad to know that she received a sum of money under a life policy.

    INFANTRY CAPTAINS (PAY).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, under the Army Order dated 24th November, 1914, a captain in the Infantry with twelve years' service and three years as captain receives pay at the daily rate, of 14s. 7d., which is 1d. a day less than under the old scale of pay; whether he will state the reasons for this change; and whether, in view of the length of service, the Army Council can see their way to provide that senior captains in the Infantry shall be paid at the rate of 15s. 6d. per day?
    Mr. BAKER: The apparent reduction was more than compensated for by a remission of charges for furniture. The Army Council does not propose to make the further increase suggested.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask what the revision of those charges amounted to?
    Mr. BAKER: I think it was between twopence and threepence.

    ISLE OF WIGHT MAILS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that inconvenience has been caused to merchants and traders in the Isle of Wight owing to the delays that take place in delivery of the morning mails, and that such firms as Messrs. J. S. White and Company have suffered inconvenience in complying with Admiralty orders and directions which come by post owing to these delays; and whether, in these circumstances, he can see his way to give instructions that the overnight mails for Cowes and other important parts in the Isle of Wight should be dispatched by early morning boat either from Southampton or Stokes Bay?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): As I explained to the hon. Member a short time ago, a better service by way of Southampton cannot be arranged. No steamer service has been running between Stokes Bay and Ryde for some time.

    IRISH RAILWAY COMPANIES (WORKMEN'S REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, as a result of negotiations between the English, Scotch, and Welsh railway
    570
    companies and representatives of trade unions, an amicable agreement has been arrived at which ensures the smooth working during the national crises of the railway systems in these countries; whether he is aware that efforts have been made to bring about similar meetings with the Irish railway companies, but which have been refused by those companies; and having regard to the wishes of His Majesty's Government, that all industrial disputes should as far as possible be satisfactorily settled, will he use his good offices to bring about the meeting with the Irish managers with a view to an amicable settlement being arrived at?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that a settlement has been effected on the railways of Great Britain. As regards Irish railways, which, as my hon. Friend is aware, have not been taken over by the Government under the Act of 1871, I have no official information, but I trust that the Irish companies will give full consideration to any reasonable representations which they may have received from their employés. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any negotiations which may have taken place I will consider whether any action on my part is likely to lead to any useful result.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the chairmen of the Irish railway companies have not complained, though they have suffered very much, not only by the War but by the conditions created by the War, they have received none of the help which the English companies have received; and have any such complaints been made to the Government?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such complaints have reached me, and looking through the traffic returns I am afraid I could not accept that statement.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the traffic returns of the South-Eastern Railway (Ireland)?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen the traffic returns of all Irish railways.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman make that statement about the the South-Eastern Railway (Ireland)?

    BANTAM BATTALIONS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the raising of a battalion of less height than the

    571
    regulations permit, namely, 5 feet 3 inches, has been sanctioned for several towns in England, including Manchester, Leeds, Birkenhead and Bury; whether this permission has been refused to the large Scottish towns, including Glasgow and Edinburgh; if so, will he say why this distinction has been made; and is he now prepared to put the two countries on an equal basis so far as the raising of bantam battalions is concerned?
    Mr. TENNANT: Permission to raise so-called "bantam" battalions in the English towns mentioned has been given, and similar permission has now been extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

    DELHI CONSPIRACY CASE.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in the Delhi Conspiracy case, the Appeal Court was debarred by the Indian Criminal Procedure Code from taking any fresh evidence, and sentenced one of the accused to be hanged without having any of the witnesses before them; whether any of the accused have petitioned the Viceroy for a commutation of their sentences; and, if so, whether he can inform the House of the result?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: There is nothing in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code to debar the Chief Court from taking fresh evidence in a case such as that referred to. In such cases it is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Court whether it shall or shall not summon witnesses to appear. As I have not yet seen the proceedings of the Chief Court in the Delhi conspiracy trial, I cannot say which course it elected to adopt. But as regards the prisoner whose sentence was enhanced from one of transportation to one of death, the Chief Court was bound, as a Court of Revision, to give him an opportunity of being heard, either personally or by pleader, in his defence, before making any order to his prejudice. I understand that the persons condemned to death in this case either have presented, or are about to present, petitions to the Governor-General in Council, and these will, of course, be fully considered before any sentence is carried out.
    Sir W. BYLES: Are any steps being taken to reform Indian criminal procedure?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think it can be said that steps are being taken to reform the criminal procedure.
    Sir W. BYLES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the murder of a police inspector at Calcutta?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Not without notice.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it a fact that the petition of mercy in this case lies to the local government and not to the Governor-General?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In this case I think the petition of mercy does lie to the Governor-General in Council.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether evidence was heard in the case of the man whose sentence was enhanced to sentence of death?
    Mr. ROBERTS: So far as the newspaper reports go it is plain that he was heard in his own defence.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether an application has been made to the Secretary of State for India to postpone the execution of the sentence of death passed in the Delhi conspiracy case pending the arrival in England of the transcript of evidence and proceedings, and whether he is aware that a petition for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the conviction has been lodged, and if that fact has been made known to the Government of India?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to each of these questions is, "Yes."
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the result—will the Secretary of State have the execution postponed. Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the execution of the sentence is postponed until the evidence is received?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I answered the question put to me whether application has been made to the Secretary of State for India to postpone—that application has been made.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can my hon. Friend tell me what is the result of the application? Will the sentence be postponed—that is the object.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether I am aware that a petition for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council has been lodged—that is so, and the Secretary of State does not propose to take any action until that point has been decided by the Judicial Committee.

    REPRISALS AGAINST GERMANY.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement on the question of the reprisals to be undertaken by His Majesty's Government in consequence of the measures taken by the Germans against merchant shipping?
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the fact that the German Government have now declared a war of piracy, he will consider the advisability of His Majesty's Government giving orders to treat as pirates all caught in the act of sinking undefended vessels without any attempt to rescue life and publicly hang them, according to the universal practice; (2) whether he is now in a position to make any announcement as to the modification of the Declaration of London, in view of the recent German declaration that the German Government intend to disregard the laws, customs, and international obligations connected with the sea; and (3) whether he can now make a statement relative to a Joint Note from the Allies being presented to Germany stating that they intend to take action against the German piratical policy of attacking and destroying British, allied, and neutral unarmed merchant vessels without warning and without any attempt to save the lives of the civilians and innocent crews?
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister when stronger measures will be taken against goods in neutral ships intended for Germany; and can he give an assurance that no bargain will be made with Germany in order to prevent American ships from being torpedoed by accident or otherwise?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to these questions, I must refer to the statement I am about to make this afternoon.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will give a specific answer to question No. 53?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am going to make a statement later on.
    Mr. HUNT: Will it be a specific statement?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must wait and see what is in the statement.

  Westminster Hall Roof Restoration.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the total value of contracts entered into for iron and other materials in connection with the restoration of the Westminster Hall roof?
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): The contracts entered into are not lump sum contracts, but contracts on priced schedules, and no definite total value can be given, but the sum exceeds £40,000.

  Marconi Contract.
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-General what work has been carried out under the provisions of the contract with the Marconi Company; and what is the present position with regard to this matter between the Post Office and this company?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A considerable amount of work has been carried out in connection with the English and Egyptian stations. The question of proceeding further with the construction of the wireless chain is, in view of the altered situation arising from the War, now under consideration.

  Prevention of Insanity.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Report on the Prevention of Insanity has been published in accordance with his promise that he made to a deputation which waited upon him on Thursday, 16th July, 1914; if he is aware that over 300 Members of the House of Commons and about 236 of the medical profession signed a petition against the principles contained in Part V. of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill; and if the Government intend taking any action in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The outbreak of war prevented any action being taken at the time. I have lately given fresh consideration to the question, but have come to the conclusion that an expert inquiry must precede any definite action. I propose to appoint a committee for this purpose when circumstances permit.

  British Guiana.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in British Guiana there are only two King's Counsel, one being the Attorney-General; whether he will consider the advisability of also appointing a barrister member of the subject races; and whether in this connection, he will consider the claims of Mr. P. N. Browne to the honour?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. I will inquire of the Governor of British Guiana whether he recommends that an additional King's Counsel should be appointed. As regards the second part of the question the matter is one for the Governor.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the officer administering the Government of British Guiana has as yet submitted the name of anyone for recommendation for appointment as executive councillor in succession to the late Dr. D. M. Hutson; and whether, before any appointment is made, due regard will be had to the fact that Mr. Hutson was, by his personal associations, looked upon as a representative of labour interests and that his successor ought to be one who is in close touch with the working sections of the community?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Two vacancies have lately occurred in the executive council of British Guiana, and only one has yet been filled. I propose to await the Governor's recommendation in regard to the remaining vacancy, but I will bring the hon. Member's question to the Governor's notice.

  Beer Tax.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the reduced hours during which public-houses are now open and the increased tax on beer, he can see his way to permit licence-holders, whose licences amount to less than £20, to pay the amount of licence in instalments?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will consider the suggestion, the adoption of which would necessitate further legislation. I may remind the hon. Member that no liquor licence duties which are not already payable by instalments will become due before the end of May next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT (1914–15)— £37,000,000.
  VOTE OF CREDIT (1915–16)—£250,000,000.

REPLY TO GERMAN BLOCKADE.
  PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

    SUCCESS OF ALLIES ASSURED.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1915, for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of food-stuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The first of the two Votes which appear on the Paper, the one which you have just read, provides only for the financial year which is now expiring, and is a Supplementary Vote of Credit. The second, which follows, is a Vote of Credit for the ensuing financial year, 1915–16. I think it will probably be convenient in submitting the first Vote to the Committee, not to distinguish between the two but to make a general statement with regard to the whole matter. Dealing with the first for
    590
    the moment, the Supplementary Vote of Credit, I would remind the Committee of how the matter actually stands. On the 6th August of last year, the House voted the first Vote of Credit for £100,000,000, and on the 15th November (1914) the House passed a Supplementary Vote of Credit for £225,000,000, raising the total Votes of Credit for the now expiring financial year to £325,000,000. It was found, however, that this amount would not suffice for the expenditure being incurred to the 31st March. We are, therefore, asking the Committee for a further Vote of £37,000,000 to carry on the public Services till that date. If the Committee assent to our proposal, it will raise the total amount granted by Votes of Credit for the year 1914–15 to £362,000,000.
    I need not say anything as to the terms in which, or the purposes for which, this Vote is required. They are the same as upon the last occasion. But I ought to draw attention to one feature in which the Supplementary Vote differs from the Vote to be subsequently proposed for the services of the year 1915–16. At the outbreak of the War the ordinary Supply on a peace basis had been voted by the House, and consequently the Votes of Credit for the now current financial year, like those on all previous occasions, have been taken in order to provide the amounts necessary for naval and military operations, in addition to the ordinary Grants of Parliament. It consequently follows that the expenditure charged or chargeable to Votes of Credit for this financial year represent, broadly speaking, the difference between the expenditure of the country on a peace footing and that expenditure upon a war footing. The total on that basis, if this Supplementary Vote be asserted to, will be £362,000,000.
    For reasons the validity of which the Committee has recognised on previous occasions, I do not think it desirable to give the precise details of the items which make up the total; but without entering into that, I may roughly apportion the expenditure. For the Army aid the Navy, according to the best Estimates which can at present be framed, out of the total given there will be required

    591
    approximately £275,000,000. That is also in addition, as I have already pointed out, to the sum voted before the War for the Army and the Navy, which amounted in the agregate to a little over £80,000,000. That leaves unaccounted for a balance of £87,000,000, of which approximately £38,000,000 represents advances for war expenditure made or being made to the self-governing Dominions, Crown Colonies and Protectorates, as explained in the Treasury Minute of the 17th November last, under which His Majesty's Government have undertaken to raise, on the credit of the Imperial Exchequer, the loans required by the Dominions to meet the heavy expenditure entailed upon them. In addition to that sum of £38,000,000, there has been an advance to Belgium of £10,000,000, and to Serbia of £800,000. Further advances to these Allies are under consideration, the details of which at is not possible yet to make public. The balance of, roughly, £38,000,000 is required for miscellaneous services covered by the Vote of Credit which have not yet been separately specified.
    I think the Committee will be interested to know what the actual cost of the War will have been to this country, as far as we can estimate, on the 31st March, the close of the financial year. The War will then have lasted 240 days, and the Votes of Credit up to that time, assuming this Vote be carried, will amount to £362,000,000. It may be said, speaking generally, that the average expenditure from Votes of Credit will have been, roughly, £1,500,000 per day throughout the time. That, of course, is the excess due to the War over the expenditure on a peace footing. That represents the immediate charge to the taxpayers of this country for this year. But, as the Committee know, a portion of the expenditure consists of advances for the purpose of assisting or securing the food supplies of this country, and will be recoverable in whole, or to a very large extent, in the near future. A further portion represents advances to the Dominions and to other States, which will be ultimately repaid. If these items be excluded from the account
    592
    the average per day of the War is slightly lower; but, after making full allowance for all the items which are in the nature of recoverable loans, the daily expenditure does not work out at less than £1,200,000. I have spoken of the average. These figures are the average taken over the whole period from the outbreak of war; but at the outbreak of war, after the initial expenditure on mobilisation had been incurred, the daily expenditure was considerably below the average, as many charges had not yet matured. The expenditure has risen steadily, and is now well over the daily average which I have given. To that figure must be added, in order to give a complete account of the matter, something for war services other than naval or military. At the beginning of the year these charges were not likely to be very considerable, but it will probably be within the mark to say that on the 1st April we shall be spending over £1,700,000 a day above the normal in consequence of the War.
    Perhaps I may now say something which is not strictly in order on this Vote, but concerns the Vote of Credit for the ensuing year, which amounts to £250,000,000. The Committee will at once observe an obvious distinction between the Votes of Credit taken for the current financial year and that which we propose to take for the ensuing year. As I have already pointed out, at the outbreak of war the ordinary Supply of the year had been granted by the House, and accordingly the Votes of Credit for 1914–15 were for the amounts required beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament for the cost of military and naval operations. When we came to frame the Estimates for the ensuing year, 1915–16, the Treasury was confronted with the difficulty, which amounted to an impossibility, of presenting to Parliament Estimates in the customary form for Navy and Army expenditure apart from the cost of the War. All the material circumstances have been set out in the Treasury Minute of the 5th February, and in principle have been approved by the House. As the Committee will remember, the total Estimates which we have presented for the Army and the Navy amount to

    593
    only £15,000 for the Army and £17,000 for the Navy. The remainder of the cost of both these Services will be provided for out of Votes of Credit, and the Vote of Credit now being proposed provides for general Army and Navy services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor in the small Estimates already presented. This Vote of Credit, therefore, has two features which I believe are quite unique and without precedent. In the first place, it is the largest single Vote on record in the annals of this House, and secondly, as I have said, it provides for the ordinary as well as for the emergency expenditure of the Army and the Navy. The House may ask on what principle or basis has this sum of £250,000,000 been arrived at? Of course it is difficult, and indeed impossible, to give any exact estimate, but as regards the period, as far as we can forecast it, for which this Vote is being taken, it has been thought advisable to take a sum sufficient, as far as we can judge, to provide for all the expenditure which will come in course of payment up to, approximately, the second week in July—that is to say, a little over three months, or, to put it in another way, something like one hundred days of war expenditure.
    4.0 P.M.
    As regards the daily rate of expenditure—I have dealt hitherto with the expenditure up to 31st March—the War Office calculate that at the beginning of April, 1915, the total expenditure on Army services will be at the rate of £1,500,000 per day—with a tendency to increase. The total expenditure on the Navy at the commencement of April will, it is calculated, amount to about £400,000 per day. The aggregate expenditure of the Army and Navy services at the beginning of 1915–16 is put at £1,900,000 per day—with a tendency to increase. For the purposes of our Estimate the figures we have taken indicate a level £2,000,000 per day. The Committee will remember—I am not sure whether I mentioned the figure—that on a peace footing the daily expenditure of the Army and the Navy, on the basis of the Estimates approved last year, was about £220,000
    594
    per day. The difference, therefore, between £2,000,000 and £220,000 represents what we estimate to be the increased expenditure due to the War during the one hundred days for which we are now providing. There are other items belonging to the same category as those to which I have already referred in dealing with the Supplementary Vote. With regard to advances to our own Dominions and other States, for which provision has also had to be made, the balance of the total of £250,000,000 for which we are now asking beyond the actual estimated expenditure for the Army and the Navy will be applied to those and kindred emergency purposes.
    Before I pass from the purely monetary aspect of the matter, it may be interesting to the Committee to be reminded of what has been our expenditure upon the great wars of the past. I am not sure if the figures have not been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Great War, which lasted for over twenty years, from 1793 to 1815, the total cost, as estimated by the best authorities, was £831,000,000. The Crimean War may be put down, taking everything into account, at £70,000,000. The total cost of the war charges in South Africa from 1899 to 31st March, 1903, were estimated, in a Return presented to Parliament, at £211,000,000. These are instructive figures. In presenting these two Votes of Credit the Government are making a large pecuniary demand on the House—a demand which in itself is beyond comparison larger than has ever been made in the House of Commons by any British Minister in the whole course of our history.
    We make it with the full conviction that, after seven months of war, the country and the whole Empire are every whit as determined as they were at the outset—if need be at the cost of all we can command both in men and in money—to bring a righteous cause to a triumphant issue. There is much in what we see to encourage and to stimulate us. Nothing has shaken, and nothing can shake, our faith in the unbroken spirit of Belgium, in the undefeated heroism of indomitable Serbia, in the tenacity and resource with which our two great Allies—one in the West and the

    595
    other in the East—hold their far-flung lines, and will continue to hold them till the hour comes for an irresistible and decisive advance. Our own Dominions and our great Dependency of India have sent us splendid contributions of men, a large number of whom are already at the front, and before very long, in one or another of the actual theatres of war, the whole of them will be in the fighting line. We hear to-day with great gratification that Princess Patricia's Canadian Regiment has been doing, during these last few days, most gallant and efficient service.
    We have no reason to be otherwise than satisfied with the progress of Recruiting here at home. Territorial divisions, now fully trained, are capable—I say it advisedly—of confronting any troops in the world. The New Armies, which have lately been under the critical scrutiny of skilled observers, are fast realising all our most sanguine hopes. A war carried on upon this gigantic scale, and under conditions for which there is no example in history, is not always or every day a picturesque or spectacular affair. Its operations are of necessity, in appearance, slow and dragging. Without entering into strategic details, I can assure the Committee that, with all the knowledge and experience which we have now gained, His Majesty's Government have never been more confident than they are to-day of the power as well as the will of the Allies to achieve ultimate and durable victory.
    I will not enter in further detail into what I may call the general military situation, but I should, for a few moments, like to call the attention of the Committee to one or two aspects of the War which of late have come prominently into view. I will refer first to the operations which are now in progress in the Dardanelles. It is a good rule in War to concentrate your forces on the main theatre, and not to dissipate them in disconnected and sporadic adventures, however promising they may appear to be. That consideration, I need hardly say, has not been lost sight of in the counsels of the Allies. There has been, and there will be, no
    596
    denudation or impairment of the forces which are at work in France and Flanders, and both the French and ourselves will continue to give them the fullest and, we believe, the most effective support.
    Nor—what is equally important—has there, for the purpose of these operations, been any weakening of the Grand Fleet. The enterprise which is now going on, and has so far gone on in a manner which reflects, as the House will agree, the highest credit on all concerned, was carefully considered and conceived with very distinct and definite objects—political, strategic, and economic. Some of these objects are so obvious as not to need statement, and others are of such a character that it is perhaps better for the moment not to state them. But I should like to advert for a moment, without any attempt to forecast the future, to two features in this matter. The first is that it once more indicates and illustrates the close co-operation of the Allies—in this case the French and ourselves—in a new theatre, and under somewhat dissimilar conditions to those which have hitherto prevailed. We welcome the presence of the splendid contingent from the French Navy that our Allies have supplied, and which is sharing to the full in both the hazards and the glories of the enterprise.
    The other point on which, I think, it is worth dwelling for a moment is that this operation shows in a very significant way the copiousness and the variety of our own Naval resources. In order to illustrate that remark, take the names of the ships, which have been actually mentioned in the dispatches we have published. First the "Queen Elizabeth," the first ship to be commissioned of the newest type of what are called super-"Dreadnoughts," with guns of a power and a range never hitherto known in naval warfare. Side by side with her is the "Agamemnon," the immediate predecessor of the "Dreadnought," and in association with them are the "Triumph," "Cornwallis," "Irresistible," "Vengeance," and "Albion," representing, I think I am right in saying, three or four different types of the older pre-"Dreadnought" battleships, which

    597
    have been so foolishly and so prematurely regarded in some quarters as obsolete or negligible, all bringing to bear the power of their formidable 12-in. guns on the fortifications, with magnificent accuracy and with deadly effect. When, as I have said, these proceedings are being conducted, so far as the Navy is concerned, without subtraction of any sort or kind from the strength or effectiveness of the Grand Fleet, I think a word of congratulation is due to the Admiralty for the way in which it has utilised its resources.
    I pass from that to another new factor in these military and naval operations—the so-called German "blockade" of our coast. I shall have to use some very plain language. I may, perhaps, preface what I have to say by the observation that it does not come upon us as a surprise. This War began on the part of Germany with the cynical repudiation of a solemn Treaty on the avowed ground that, when a nation's interests require it, right and good faith must give way to force. The War has been carried on on their part with a systematic—not an impulsive or a casual—but a systematic violation of all the conventions and practices by which international agreement had sought to mitigate and regularise the clash of arms. She has now—I will not say reached the climax, for we do not know what may yet be to come—but she has taken a further step, without any precedent in history, by mobilising and organising, not on the surface, but under the surface of the sea, a campaign of piracy and pillage. Are we—can we—and here I address myself for the moment to the neutral countries of the world—are we to sit quiet, or can we sit quiet as though we were still under the protection of the restraining rules and the humanising usages of civilised war? We think we cannot. The enemy, borrowing what I may, perhaps, call for this purpose a neutral flag from the vocabulary of diplomacy, describes this newly adopted measure by a grotesque and puerile perversion of language as a "blockade." What is a blockade? A blockade consists in sealing up the war ports of a belligerent against sea-borne traffic, by encircling their coast with an impenetrable ring of
    598
    ships of war. Where are these ships of war? Where is the German Navy?
    An HON. MEMBER: In the Kiel Canal.
    The PRIME MINISTER: What has become of those gigantic battleships and cruisers on which so many millions of money have been spent, and in which such vast hopes and ambitions have been invested? I think, if my memory serves me, they have only twice during the course of these seven months been seen upon the open sea. Their object in both cases was the same—murder and mutilation of civilians, and the wholesale destruction of property in undefended seaside towns, and on each occasion when they caught sight of the approach of a British force they showed a clean pair of heels, and they hurried back at the top of their speed to the safe seclusion of their mine-fields and their closely guarded forts.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Not all.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Some of them suffered misadventures on the way. The plain truth is, the German Fleet is not blockading, cannot blockade, and never will blockade our coasts.
    I propose now to read to the Committee the Statement which has been prepared by His Majesty's Government and which will be public property to-morrow, which declares, I hope in sufficiently plain and unmistakable terms, the view that we take, not only of our rights, but of our duties. It is not very long, and I think I had better read it textually:—
    "Germany has declared that the English Channel, the north and west coasts of France, and the waters round the British Isles are a 'war area,' and has officially notified that 'all enemy ships found in that area will be destroyed, and that neutral vessels may be exposed to danger.' This is in effect a claim to torpedo at sight, without regard to the safety of the crew or passengers; any merchant vessel under any flag. As it is not in the power of the German Admiralty to maintain any surface craft in these waters, this attack can only be delivered by submarine agency. The

    599
    law and custom of nations in regard to attacks on commerce have always presumed that the first duty of the captor of a merchant vessel is to bring it before a Prize Court, where it may be tried, where the regularity of the capture may be challenged, and where neutrals may recover their cargoes. The sinking of prizes is in itself a questionable act, to be resorted to only in extraordinary circumstances, and after provision has been made for the safety of all the crew or passengers (if there are passengers on board). The responsibility for discriminating between neutral and enemy vessels, and between neutral and enemy cargo, obviously rests with the attacking ship, whose duty it is to verify the status and character of the vessel and cargo, and to preserve all papers before sinking or even capturing it. So also is the humane duty of providing for the safety of the crews of merchant vessels, whether neutral or enemy, an obligation upon every belligerent. It is upon this basis that all previous discussions of the law for regulating warfare at sea have proceeded.
    "A German submarine, however, fulfils none of these obligations. She enjoys no local command of the waters in which she operates. She does not take her captures within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court. She carries no prize crew which she can put on board a prize. She uses no effective means of discriminating between a neutral and an enemy vessel. She does not receive on board for safety the crew of the vessel she sinks. Her methods of warfare are, therefore, entirely outside the scope of any of the international instruments regulating operations against commerce in time of war. The German declaration substitutes indiscriminate destruction for regulated capture.
    "Germany is adopting these methods against peaceful traders and noncombatant crews with the avowed object of preventing commodities of all kinds (including food for the civil population) from reaching or leaving the British
    600
    Isles or Northern France. Her opponents are, therefore, driven to frame retaliatory measures, in order, in their turn, to prevent commodities of any kind from reaching or leaving Germany. These measures will, however, be enforced by the British and French Governments without risk to neutral ships or to neutral or non-combatant life, and in strict observance of the dictates of humanity.
    "The British and French Governments will, therefore, hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes, unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation.
    "The treatment of vessels and cargoes which have sailed before this date will not be affected."
    That, Sir, is our reply. I may say, before I comment upon it, with regard to the suggestion which I see is put forward from German quarters that we have rejected some proposal or suggestion made to the two Powers by the United States Government, I do not say anything more than that it is quite untrue. On the contrary, all we have said to the United States so far is that we are taking it into careful consideration in consultation with our Allies. Now, the Committee will have observed, from the statement I have just read out of the retaliatory measures we propose to adopt, the words "blockade" and "contraband," and other technical terms of international law, do not occur, and advisedly so. In dealing with an opponent who has openly repudiated all the restraints, both of law and of humanity, we are not going to allow our efforts to be strangled in a network of juridical niceties. We do not intend to put into operation any measures which we do not think to be effective, and I need not say we shall carefully avoid any measures which violate the rules either of humanity or of honesty. Subject to those two conditions I say to our enemy—I say it on behalf of the Government, and I hope on behalf of the House of Commons—that under existing conditions there is no form of economic pressure to which we

    601
    do not consider ourselves entitled to resort. If, as a consequence, neutrals suffer inconvenience and loss of trade, we regret it, but we beg them to remember that this phase of the War was not initiated by us. We do not propose either to assassinate their seamen or to destroy their goods, and what we are doing we do solely in self-defence. If, again, as is possible, hardship is caused to the civil and non-combatant population of the enemy by the cutting off of supplies, we are not doing more in this respect than was done in the days when Germany still acknowledged the authority of the law of nations, sanctioned by the practice of the first and the greatest of her Chancellors, and by the express declarations of his successor. We are quite prepared to submit to the arbitrament of neutral opinion, and still more to the verdict of impartial history, that in this War in the circumstances in which we have been placed, we have been moderate and restrained, and we have abstained from things which we were provoked and tempted to do, and we have adopted the policy which recommends itself to reason, common sense, and to justice.
    This new aspect of the War only serves to illustrate and to emphasise the truth that the gravity and the magnitude of the task we have undertaken do not diminish, but increase, as the months go by. The call for men to join our fighting forces, which is our primary need, has been and is being nobly responded to here at home and throughout the Empire. That call, we say with all plainness and directness, was never more urgent or more imperious than to-day. But this is a war not only of men, but of material. Take only one illustration. The expenditure of ammunition on both sides has been on a scale and at a rate which is not only without precedent, but is far in excess of any expert forecast of what was even conceivable. At such a time patriotism has cast a heavy burden on the shoulders of all who are engaged in trades or manufactures which, directly or indirectly, minister to the equipment of our forces. It is a burden, let me add, which falls, or ought to fall, with even weight on both employers and employed.
    602
    Differences as to remuneration or as to profit, or as to hours and conditions of labour, which in ordinary times might well justify a temporary cessation of work, should no longer be allowed to do so. The first duty of all concerned is to go on producing with might and main what the safety of the State requires, and, if this be done, I can say with perfect confidence the Government on its part will ensure and promote a prompt and an equitable settlement of disputed points, and, in cases of proved necessity, will give, on behalf of the State, such help as is in their power.
    Sailors and soldiers, employers and workmen in the industrial world are all at this moment partners and co-operators in one great enterprise. The men in the shipyards and the engineering shops, the workers in the textile factories, the miner who sends the coal to the surface, the dockyard labourer who helps to load and unload the ships, and those who employ and organise and supervise their labours, are one and all rendering to their country a service as vital and as indispensable as the gallant men who line the trenches in Flanders or in France, or who are bombarding fortresses in the Dardanelles.
    I hear sometimes whispers, hardly more than whispers, of possible terms of peace. Peace is the greatest of all human blessings, but this is not the time to talk of peace. Those who talk of peace, however excellent their intentions, are, in my judgment, victims, I will not say of wanton, but of a grevious self-delusion. It is like the twittering of sparrows amid the stress and tumult of a tempest which is shaking the foundations of the world. The time to talk of peace is when the great tasks for which we and our Allies embarked on this long and stormy voyage are within sight of accomplishment. Speaking at the Guildhall at the Lord Mayor's banquet last November, I used this language which has since been repeated almost in the same terms by the Prime Minister of France, and which, I believe, represents the settled sentiment and purpose of the country. I said:—
    "We shall never, sheath the sword, which we have not lightly drawn, until. Belgium recovers in full measure all, and more than all, she has sacrificed;

    603
    until France is adequately secured against the menace of aggression; until the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domination of Prussia is wholly and finally destroyed."
    What I said early in November, now, after four months, I repeat to-day. We have not relaxed, nor shall we relax, in the pursuit of every one and all of the aims which I have described. These are great purposes, and to achieve them we must draw upon all our resources, both material and spiritual. On the one side, the material side, the demand presented in these Votes is for men, for money, for the fullest equipment of the apparatus of war. On the other side, which I have called the spiritual side, the appeal is to those ancient, inbred qualities of our race which have never failed us in times of stress—qualities of self-mastery, self-sacrifice, patience, tenacity, willingness to bear one another's burdens, unity which springs from the dominating sense of a common duty, unfailing faith, inflexible resolve.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying, and it is true, that no Minister in the course of our long history has ever presented Estimates like these to any House of Commons. But I am sure, as he sits down, he must have the satisfaction of feeling that never at any time in our history had any Minister, who feels his responsibilities more certainty of carrying with him in the course on which the Government has entered the full support of the House of Commons and of the country. I am not going to attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman over the whole or, perhaps, much of the ground which he has covered. He has spoken with that force to which we are accustomed, of the determination not of Great Britain alone, but of our Allies, and of the British Empire to see this struggle through. I shall make no attempt to supplement what he has said. Indeed all that can be taken for granted now. It is not a question of determination. It is a question of the way in which that determination can be made most effective, not only to bring the War to a successful issue, but to end it at the earliest possible moment.
    604
    The right hon. Gentleman referred in few words, but in words which the House greatly appreciated, to the action in the Dardanelles. I regard it as of the first importance, and, speaking with less responsibility, I am not afraid of indicating in what direction that importance lies. It used to be considered, I believe, that to force the Dardanelles was not a possible operation of war. Thanks largely to the fact that we have ships like the "Queen Elizabeth," with guns which cannot be approached, it is now a possible operation, and we hope and believe that it is going to be successful. If it be successful I cannot doubt that it is going to have a great effect on the ultimate issue of this War. We are fighting two Powers joined in an alliance, one very strong, the other not so strong. They are links in the same chain. The forcing of the Dardanelles will have a dramatic effect which I hope may end in some movement that may cause the attack to be directed against the weaker of the Allies, and help us to see this struggle brought more quickly to an end.
    We have been, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, seven months at war, and I think I can say that as a nation we have during these seven months done more than could have been anticipated either by friend or by foe. Look at what has been done in money. We have been spending, as I gather, £1,250,000 a day, and that is soon going to rise to £1,750,000. That could have been anticipated. We have kept to the full the command of the sea, and have the power to put a pressure of sea power to a greater extent than has ever been known in the world before. That, too, could have been anticipated. We have also kept in the field since this War began an Army which, though small in comparison with the gigantic forces in arms on the Continent, is by far the biggest Army which has ever been commanded by a British general. It has done great work, small as it is. I believe it is not too much to say that at the critical hour, if it did not save Paris, at all events it gave the aid which enabled the French to save Paris for themselves, and broke the tide which seemed to be the tide of victory.

    605
    I should like to pay my tribute, if I may, to the skill and ability with which that Army has been directed by Sir John French and the generals serving under him. I would like to say something, too, about the heroism which has been displayed by that Army, of which we know, I think, rather less than we should like, but of which we get glimpses, such as those in Sir John French's dispatch the other day. We have other means of knowing, and this has struck me, and I think must have struck others who have had the opportunity of seeing men and officers returned from the front: The officers cannot speak too highly in praise of their men, and the men are never tired of singing the praises of their officers. I happened to read a few months after the War began an interview with a wounded soldier, which seemed to me to show more clearly than anything I have heard of or read what was the spirit of our Army. He said that he grudged even seeing these decorations given to officers, because where all have done so well it seemed almost invidious to make any distinction. No praise could be higher than that for what our Army has done.
    All this could have been expected. Something is being done which could not have been expected. We are creating to meet the needs of this War armies which, even from the point of numbers, can compare with the Continental armies now in the field. That is a great conception, and I wish to say, speaking only for myself, and without having discussed it with any of my colleagues, that I think that conception is due largely to one man; that if it had been left to statesmen on cither bench the probability is that we should have attempted to keep up our Expeditionary Force, that we should have tried to add to our Territorials, but I hardly think this great idea of utilising to the utmost the full resources of the country would have been carried out. If I am right, and if at any time any of us feel inclined—and I think there is good reason—to consider that everything done by the War Office is not quite perfect, we ought at least to remember how much the country owes for this gigantic conception of what we can
    606
    do and for the way in which it is being made into a reality before our eyes. I said that we have done all, and more than all, that could have been expected of us, but that is entirely the wrong point of view from which to regard it. It is not a question of whether we have done more or less than could have been expected; it is a question of whether we have done, and are doing, everything in our power to bring this War to an end. The other point of view is an unfortunate one, and we see the result of that point of view being held in the strikes to which the Prime Minister has referred. I certainly shall be the last, and I am sure my hon. Friends behind me will agree with me that I should be the last, to say that the fault of these strikes is on the part of the men or the masters, but I do say that a strike under such conditions is inconceivable in France to-day—it would be just as easy to conceive men striking in the trenches—and it ought to be equally inconceivable in England. The reason that it is not, in my belief, is that we have not as a nation even yet quite realised that this is our War. We have not realised that it is not a case of our helping France or Russia, but, on the contrary, that it is just as much a case of France and Russia helping us, for, if we know anything, we know that the bulk and the strength of the hatred of our enemies are directed against us and not against our Allies.
    I do ask, not by way of criticism, but by way of suggestion, Are we doing everything that we can to end this War? I think, as regards the Army and the Navy, we are doing everything we can, but what about utilising the industrial resources of this country? One of the lessons which our enemy ought to have taught us is that their preparation for war meant just as much the organisation of the civilian population as the organisation of those who are actually bearing arms. That is comparatively easy in a state of government like Germany, for in war, as each form of government has its advantages and disadvantages, a despotic Government has the advantage that it can more easily control these things; but we have seen from what happened in France that it is possible for

    607
    a democratic country too. When the War broke out France mobilised the whole of her industry in precisely the same way in which she mobilised her troops. Have we done, and are we doing, the same? The Government know that both this House and the country will give them all the power they ask. We are the greatest manufacturing country in the world. This War has been going on for seven months, and if—I do not say that it is so, for I do not know—after seven months there is a shortage of ammunition, or of the necessary munitions of war, then in my belief we have not utilised to the utmost the industrial resources of this country, and I say to the Government now that to bring this War to a close nothing that they can do would be more effective than to look at the industrial position of the country and to consider, though business as usual is wise from the point of view of stopping panic, though business is necessary, that the first necessity is to provide what we need for this War, and it should be done and other business must wait until the needs of the State have first been met. I hope that is being done, and I am sure that it ought to be done.
    There is only one other subject on which I wish to address the House, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the intentions of our Government and of our Allies in regard to what the Germans have called the "English blockade," but what he has called by its true name, "a campaign of piracy and murder." It is not the time for, and we have long passed the stage of, fighting Germany with our tongue. There is no object in pointing out their atrocities. We have had enough of that, and the world realises it. What we have got to do now is to show them that their atrocities are in vain, and that we will use every weapon in our hands to bring to an end this horrible War. In times of peace we have heard plenty, and here in the House of Commons there has been a great deal said and written, about securing peace and, even what seemed more practicable, about making rules to mitigate the horrors of war. What happens? War comes and one
    608
    of the belligerents ignores utterly from the first every one of the rules, even those which they had accepted, which are to mitigate these horrors of war. As the Prime Minister said, they began by the violation of Belgium. They continued by inflicting on the civil population of Belgium horrors which not only are a disgrace to humanity, but which were clearly forbidden by the recognised rules of war. They seized private property; they fired on hospital ships; and they strewed mines in the open sea, all contrary to every recognised rule of war.
    5.0 P.M.
    If these international rules are to be of any use how are they to be—I will not say enforced—but to have any sanction? From what quarter can it come? It must come, if it comes at all, from neutral States. What have we found? Against any one of these violations of international law not a single protest was lodged by any neutral Power. I do not say that in condemnation of neutral Powers. That is not my business. What is the lesson we must draw from it? It is surely that if these rules are disregarded by one of the belligerents and no attempt even is made to enforce them, it is folly, and criminal folly, for another belligerent to allow its hands to be tied. I do not mean by that that we are to imitate them in methods of inhumanity and brutality, but I do say that we are entitled and we are bound to bring to bear our full power without regard to those juridical niceties of which the Prime Minister has spoken.
    The use of sea power has always been attended with this danger, which does not apply to military operations on land; that it is contrary to the interests and therefore irritates neutral countries. Our fathers, in a struggle not more deadly than this, faced that danger and on account of it they never for a moment gave up a single one of the rights which sea power gives. Throughout this War pressure by sea has been greater than ever before. I may say, also, that never before has that power been exercised with such a keen regard, not only for the rights, but for the interests and the susceptibilities of neutrals. From

    609
    the beginning that has been so; but now we are at the parting of the ways. We are face to face with a position where one Power, after starting a campaign of piracy, actually proposes to use that method as a lever by which to compel us to abandon recognised rights which sea power gives us. The thing is impossible. It could not be considered by any Government, and as I understand what the Prime Minister has said—it is exactly what I hoped he would say, and what I intended to suggest that this country ought to say—it is that nothing of any kind will be allowed to go in or come out of Germany, the entrance or exit of which it is in our power to prevent. That, as I understand it, is the declaration. We owe it to ourselves; we owe it to the men who on land and sea are risking and giving up their lives for us; we owe it to our Allies, to France, for instance, for which nation it is not enough to be sure that we are going to win ultimately, but which is exposing every day the flower of its people to death and for whom the issue is a quick end to this War; we owe it to our people; we owe it to our Allies, and in taking that course the Government will have, not the support of the House of Commons only, but it will have the support to the end, of the whole of the people of this country when they determine that no power which is in their hands will be left unused to bring at the earliest moment this terrible conflict to an end.
    Mr. HODGE: I am sure the moving appeal of the Prime Minister will not fall upon deaf ears. Some of us, I think, quite agree with the words used by the Leader of the Opposition that either strikes or lock-outs in this great national crisis that is upon us are inconceivable. Many of us have done our very best to bring home to the workers generally that a cessation of work, even under the greatest amount of exasperation, ought to be the last thing they should resort to, that they ought to remember that it is their sons, their brothers, their comrades who are at the front and who are upon the scene who may suffer as the result of this cessation of work. I am not the least bit concerned about allocating blame as to who is right, or who is wrong. If one person commits a wrong it does not wipe it out for someone
    610
    else to commit a further wrong, and my hope is that the Prime Minister's statement to-day and the promise contained in it the Government will see that justice is done, will bring conviction to the mind of the workers all over the country. At the very beginning I was convinced, not only of the justice of our taking part in this War, but I was also convinced of its expediency, and as time has gone on I have been more and more convinced in my own mind of the justice of our cause, and my hope is that the country as a whole will see to it that the Government are backed up to the very uttermost in seeing that when victory does prevail the dangers of a return of such a horrible war as we are now engaged in will be almost a thing of the past. I therefore only desire, so far as I and my colleagues are concerned, to endorse the very moving appeal that the Prime Minister has made.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I wish to ask the Prime Minister two questions. As this is the first case, in the whole history of all the ages, that a nation through its Government has declared that it is going to attack another country by methods which he has called piracy and sea-murder, will he tell the House that all those who are caught in this practice shall be interned in a different place from all other prisoners, whether they are officers or men, and that after the War is over they shall be tried for murder? The other question I should like to ask is, Does not the statement of the President of the Board of Trade rather conflict with the Prime Minister's statement that everything is going to be stopped going in and out of Germany? The President of the Board of Trade has told the House that under licence we can get aniline dyes from Germany.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend had made that statement. Perhaps the Noble Lord will renew his question. With regard to the first point, I do not like at this moment to make any definite pledge, but I think we shall have to take into serious consideration what is the status according to international law of persons engaged in this practice.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I want to make one observation about the sums of money that we are raising. They are enormous. No one grudges them; everyone thinks they are right; but I hope and trust that that money is not being unnecessarily

    611
    wasted, because, after all, we have to face the fact that every penny of it means a draft upon the resources of the country. We are bound to economise and husband those resources to the utmost of our power, consistently with efficiency. I should like to give the Committee one or two illustrations of the kind of thing in my mind. A friend of mine told me the other day that his garden was required, I think for officers' quarters, and the authority who came to get the garden apologised to him for giving him less than £100. My friend told me that the value of the garden was certainly not more than £25, and that was all that he ultimately accepted. The use of ships is another illustration of what I mean. Or take the question of billeting. I do not want to say anything harsh about it, but really 3s. 4d. a day comes to 23s. or 24s. a week, and really it is excessive in many districts as a payment for billeting. Or take what was mentioned in a question to-day, and has been mentioned in the papers this morning—the waste of food.
    We do not gain in efficiency by merely spending money. The thing is to spend it properly and efficiently. I am glad to have the opportunity of making these observations in the presence of the Prime Minister, who, I hope, will see to it that that aspect of the question is not lost sight of, because it is really a serious matter. I do not want to make more than a passing reference to the question of the Meyer contract, but there again we should be glad if the Prime Minister will personally see that that is not an extravagant transaction. I do not know whether it is or not, but I shall be glad to know that it was not. I cannot help feeling in reading some of the newspapers that it is a little unfortunate at a moment when there is a dispute going on about wages we should be told in some of the leading newspapers that this House is wasting its time in examining into the profits of a great contractor. We are not wasting time. We are entitled to inquire into these things, and in doing so we are performing a patriotic duty.
    I do not wish to say anything about the dispute on the Clyde more than this: I know nothing about the details; I agree with everything that the Prime Minister and the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) have said upon the subject. I want to say how greatly some of us appreciate the attitude which the labour leaders have
    612
    taken throughout this crisis. I read a speech by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) in this morning's paper which is worthy of recognition by this Committee as a fine specimen of the patriotic conception of his duty by a public man. When the leaders of the working men have acted in this way, and the working men for the most part have thoroughly backed them up, we ought in this House to say that we will see to it that they shall not suffer wrong in the circumstances, and that if any of their rules have to be relaxed to meet this great national contingency, at the end of the War we will take great care that they are put in exactly the same position as they were before.
    We were told in the very eloquent speech which was reported in this morning's paper, and I agree with it most fully, that the people of this country have not yet quite appreciated the seriousness of the crisis in which we are engaged. That is true. Anybody who has been in France, and particularly in Paris, cannot fail to feel the difference in atmosphere between the two countries. Do not let us put all the blame on the man in the street. There was a great agitation a little time ago against football matches. It was said to be a shocking thing that they should go on during the War. Very little was said about race meetings. It seems to me that the two are on exactly the same footing. I read a solemn reproof of working men because they bothered about wages at this moment, and then I read an announcement that Ascot is to be held this year as usual. That is a deplorable thing, and I trust that the Prime Minister will see that, at any rate, that decision is reconsidered. We hear a great deal about the evils of drink, and nobody feels more on that subject than I do, but I see that the restaurants all over this city are open just the same, as usual. There is quite a different state of things in France. When I was there they were all closed at 9.30 in the evening.
    If you are going to make a great demand, as you ought to make a demand, upon the whole people to devote the whole of their energies to meeting this great national crisis, that demand ought to be made equally on all classes, whether they are rich or whether they are poor. For my part I regret very much to talk about "business as usual." It is great nonsense to talk about business as usual. I regret very much the speeches of Ministers in which

    613
    they have talked about "business as usual during alterations to the map of Europe." A more unfortunate phrase was never used. Business ought not to be carried on as usual; it ought to be carried on entirely with a view to the crisis in which we find ourselves. I regard in the same way all the talk about capturing the trade of foreign countries. It may be right or it may be wrong, but at the present moment we ought to have our minds concentrated on the great issue. If you are to have concentration, the first and most essential filing is that you should tell the people the truth. You cannot expect them to realise the seriousness of the situation unless you tell them the truth. I do not say that secrecy for strategical reasons is not right, but the secrecy which keeps from people unpleasant news has been overdone in a most disgusting way during the present War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the folly of
    "Mollycoddling John Bull."
    I quite agree it is a great folly and a great danger. We all know the most celebrated instance, which we were not allowed to mention even in this House without a smile. We all know of the great battleship that was lost off the coast of Ireland; we all know that accounts of it appeared in the German papers and the American papers, and that pictures of it going down appeared in the American papers, yet nothing was allowed to be said about it in public. That was a most deplorable mistake and it is cutting at the root of the confidence of the country in the statements that are made about the War. I deeply regret it. It is not the only instance. We see by letters which have since appeared in the Press that only the other day one of our trenches was blown up, and I suppose captured, and we suffered considerable loss. Not a word of it appeared in the official statement. Why not? You cannot keep from the Germans the fact that they have blown up an English trench. You are not going in any way to aid the enemy by giving a full account of what they have done to us.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member thinks it was mentioned in one of the dispatches. If that is so, I apologise to the Committee for having said it was not, but I have no recollection of seeing it. It does not matter whether I am wrong
    614
    about that particular illustration, because the Committee knows quite well that many other illustrations might be given of that sort of thing. It is a deplorable circumstance, and I cannot understand why the Government have taken up this attitude in the matter. It seems utterly wrong. It is not true to say that everything is going perfectly all right, and that we have nothing to fear. How can you expect the man in the street to realise the seriousness of the situation if you print nothing; in the newspapers except British or Allied successes, if every defeat is ignored or minimised or is to me made into nothing at all, or if some losses that we suffer are deliberately concealed? I see the Prime Minister shakes his head. I shall be delighted to hear that what everybody said was untrue. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the battleship was never lost?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I never said anything of the kind.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I thought not. If we are to expect the country to realise the full seriousness of the situation we must take them fully into our confidence and tell them exactly how things stand. No one suggests there is anything of which to be afraid. We are faced with a task of enormous gravity which will tax our resources to the uttermost. With the efforts we are making and which we shall put forward I confidently believe that we shall win, but it is folly to treat the matter as if the struggle were already won, or that Germany is starving and that our troops are marching from victory to victory That is not the true state of things at all. We are struggling, and struggling desperately. Until we realise that, it is not possible to expect people to make the sacrifices which, undoubtedly, will be necessary in order to bring the War to a successful conclusion. The same thing is true about Parliament. We are desperately anxious to be allowed to concentrate our whole efforts on the one subject which is of vital importance at the present moment.
    I would ask the Committee to consider what it is we have before us. We are very confident, we know we are tremendously powerful, that we have suffered nothing from the War, and that we are certain that our arms are going to be successful. But everyone of these opinions is held with equal confidence by the people in Berlin at the present time. Nothing is more striking than the accounts which reach one privately of the slate of

    615
    things in Berlin now. We read about the shortage of bread and all the rest of it. I agree with what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on that subject—that the eating of potatoe bread was a fine testimony to the feeling and temperament of the German people. It is adopted at present, according to private advices which reach me, not because there is any real, immediate shortage at the moment, but as a precautionary measure to enable them to face whatever eventualities may come upon them in the long run. The German people, the German Navy, the German methods of warfare are deplorable, scandalous, barbarous, or any word you like. The courage of the German soldier is second to none. The way he is fighting is as great in its way as the way in which our troops are fighting. Do not underrate the adversary with whom you have to deal; do not minimise the struggle that is before us; but let all, whether rich or poor, whether Government or people, be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices in order to bring this great enterprise to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I heard the Prime Minister say that the terms of a conference had been arranged with regard to the Clyde dispute, and that a matter of a farthing or farthings must not be allowed to cause a cessation of work. That is not surprising seeing what the farthing is in that country. I want to bring the matter nearer home. We have at Woolwich Arsenal now a mass of seething discontent among the men, particularly among those taken on recently. I am told that men who were taken on last week have been asked to accept a farthing an hour less than the trade rate paid by employers outside. Instead of being offered a farthing an hour less at a Government workshop the Government ought to be prepared to give them a farthing an hour more than the rate paid outside. If representations are made to the Government—I believe they are going to be made by the men—I hope the Government will give not only sympathetic consideration to the matter, but immediate instructions that the men taken on must be paid at the rate which is paid by employers outside. If you want work done well, you want a contented set of workmen. A contented set of workmen is one of the best assets the Government could have in getting
    616
    proper equipment for the War. I hope the Government will give the matter their serious consideration.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the Government are entitled, on an occasion when the largest Vote that has ever been asked for is proposed from the Chair, not merely to the tacit but to the open support of Members from that one of the three Kingdoms which is poorest in money and in resources. I heard with unbounded satisfaction every word which fell from the Prime Minister, and I shall vote with cheerfulness and alacrity for the sum of money he demands. I especially welcome the way in which he dealt with the suggestion of intermeddling peace cackle. I think that was the gravamen of the remarks he made. Nothing crystallises the opinion of the House of Commons more than the statement that now, after seven months of war, we are as determined as we were when we began. Furthermore, this War is not a war of the Ministry, it is not a war of the Liberal party, it is not a war of the Conservative party; it is the War of the House of Commons and the War of the nation.
    While I endorse entirely the proposed methods of reprisal which the Government has announced, I think that at times there are incidents which we read of in official reports which should be noticed by the Government, with a view of, if possible, of mitigating the asperities of war. I refer especially to an incident described by the Eye-Witness of the Government at the front with regard to the action of a German officer who, in bringing drink to a wounded British soldier, in a most gallant manner met his death by a chance shot, to the great regret, as was stated, of the entire British Army. I think incidents like that should be noticed officially by the Government, either by the release of some German prisoners now in captivity in these Islands or else by some communication made through a nentral Power to the German Government that we are prepared, when this War is over, if we can find the name of the family to which this officer belongs, in some way to recognise the fact that this man met his death in this gallant, noble, and Christian manner. There is only one other remark I desire to make. We are providing cheerfully and readily enormous sums for the service of the State. In Ireland we feel strongly that adequate provision has not been made with regard to naval chaplains.

    617
    Lord Kitchener has met in an admirable manner the demand put forth on behalf of Catholic clergymen, and I am well aware that shore chaplains in sufficiency have been provided by the State. But seagoing chaplains have not been provided, and I certainly think, when we are voting such enormous sums of money for belligerent purposes, we are entitled to say that this provision which the soldiers are getting at the front should in equal measure be provided in the Navy. The Government are, in the course of their economies, announcing various retrenchments in the Irish Service. I do not complain of that, provided there is an equivalent retrenchment all round. It would be unfair if it were otherwise. I regret, for instance, the withdrawal from the National Library of Ireland of the £2,000 for books, but provided a similar retrenchment is effected in England and Scotland we can make no objection. At any rate, we shall on the proper occasion have a right of comparison in this matter. I sit down assuring the Government that, in my opinion, the steps they tave taken throughout this War, so far as I have been able to judge them, have been efficient and practical, and, having watched their actions critically, I must say I feel thoroughly satisfied that the efficient administration, both of the Marine and Military Services, as been effected by His Majesty's advisers.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) made a very feeling and moving speech. But there was one unfortunate passage in it. It would be unfortunate if it were to go out to the world that we were in possession in the House of information which was not given to the country at large, and which the Admiralty had deemed undesirable to make public. I do not think it was the Noble Lord's intention to suggest that Members of this House have information which the Admiralty have designedly withheld, or that we are in the position to convey to the public information which is not permitted to be conveyed by any other vehicle or organ than this House. I rather think the purpose of the Noble Lord's remark was to ask for information, rather than to convey it, upon a subject which has been mentioned in various ways.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member correctly represents what I desired. But the news to which I did refer has, in fact, been made public in this country.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I have no idea, at any rate, which of the various rumours, if any, is true, or whether there is any foundation at all for them. No doubt, reports of various kinds have appeared in both the American and the German Press. But we have reason to know that these rumours are not always accurate. For instance, there were very-precise and definite statements in the German papers with regard to what had happened to His Majesty's ship "Lion," and we all know that those statements were not accurate. I take it that the Admiralty in withholding information are actuated by the belief that, by so doing, they leave the enemy in doubt as to what has really happened. If the Admiralty believe it is desirable to take that course, I think it would be very unfortunate for Members of this House to press them with regard to such subjects.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I want to make a reference to that part of the Prime Minister's speech in which the right hon. Gentleman suggested that employers and workmen should try to settle their grievances without resorting to the unfortunate method of striking. So far as I am concerned I hold up both hands for the Vote the Government are now asking for, and if they come to us with a demand for still another Vote, they will have my support, because I have made up my mind that, whatever money the Government wants in order to carry the War to a successful issue shall be granted to them. On the other hand, so far as organised labour is concerned, I do not think the Government have any reason to complain at all. The union which I represent, before the War commenced, had a membership of about 140,000, and over 20,000 of the members have joined the Colours; as a matter of fact, in some of our branches as many as 75 per cent. of the men have joined. Taking organised workers as a whole throughout the country, I do not think I am exaggerating when I state that over 200,000 workmen belonging to the different trade unions have already enlisted. On an average about 10 per cent. of the total membership have joined, and, therefore, I think, from a trade union standpoint, the Government has absolutely no cause of complaint at all.
    But I hold there is a duty devolving on the Government as well as on the men. Personally I do not say the Government have done all they could do. They ought, in the first place, to put their own house

    619
    in order. There are some thousands of employés who are working in the various Government Departments for very low wages who have had absolutely no increase whatever. There are many women working in the Post Office who have been taken on as auxiliaries to do certain work hitherto done by men, and they are doing it efficiently for about £1 per week less than was paid to the men who have joined the Colours. It seems to me that in cases like that the Government should have no hesitation at all in increasing the wages of those employés, in view of the rapid rise in the cost of food-stuffs—a rise which bears very heavily indeed upon the London population.
    The Government can, I think, help us in many ways. My own union, for instance, or other organisations, may make representation to firms engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war. In one case such a firm has offered a very scanty advance. What are we to do? Are we to advise the men to accept it for the time being, and then, when we have advised a settlement, find the employers ignoring us altogether? I must say that, so far as my own union is concerned, we have not had the slightest difficulty with our members. At an early stage of the War we closed down every strike, and, in some cases, the men returned to work on conditions which were worse than those which obtained when they went out. I have another instance. At Stowmarket there are men working under most dangerous conditions. The munitions of war made in those works are of a most dangerous character, and I read of one explosion in which hundreds of men were blown up, the remains of some never being found. These men are working under these conditions at a rate of about 5d. or 5½d. per hour. This week the firm has come along and offered them, 2s. in some cases and in other cases only 1s., on the condition that they make a 54½-hour week. If a man loses a single quarter of an hour during the week he is not to get the increase.
    What are we to do under conditions like that? Are we to advise the men to accept them? Certainly after what the Prime Minister just said, we will advise them to do it for the time being, but I would suggest that the Government itself might see if it cannot bring pressure to bear upon this particular firm. I am informed it is not now a question of contracts. In many cases it is simply a question, "Present
    620
    your bill and we will pay it." The Government have already agreed to make good to a very large extent the concessions that have been made by various railway companies in different parts of the country, which means that men receiving less than 30s. are to get an advance of 3s., and those earning more than 30s. an advance of 2s. If the Government could persuade the employers of labour in all parts of the country to make a similar advance I should have no hesitation in saying that, for the remaining period of the War, unless food-stuffs go up further in price, the men to a very great extent would be satisfied.
    There has been a great deal of talk in the newspapers and among train and tram passengers about the unpatriotic manner in which the men on the Clyde have viewed the situation. May I remind the Committee that not only on the Clyde, but the Tyne and throughout the North-East Coast, men have been working from sixty to ninety hours a week; that they have been subject to this physical strain for four or five weeks at a stretch, and that therefore it is impossible to keep good time all along? They are bound to lose time, and in these trades we find that, in consequence of the heavy strain, our members are more liable to sickness. In consequence of increased sickness the cost has been greater. I know that at Grantham men have been working sixty, seventy, and even ninety hours a week. I say it is a physical impossibility for men to work under such conditions, and the country should understand the conditions under which the men have been working. At any rate, so far as the majority of workmen are concerned, I feel certain that they will take the advice of the Prime Minister, and also the advice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in the speech which he delivered on Saturday last. I think if the labour leaders advise the men to refer all these matters to the Arbitration Committee an effort should be made to speed up their consideration so that early decisions will be given. There is nothing more irritating to men than to have to wait for decisions.
    May I remind the House that this Committee is not giving satisfaction as regards its composition? I think there ought to be at least two Labour Members on the Committee. I admit that Sir G. Askwith is a good man and that he has done some good work in connection with labour disputes, but it is impossible for him to understand all the technicalities in connection with the

    621
    different questions which will come up from time to time. There is not a single representative of organised labour on the Committee. Why should we not have at least two Members on the Committee? If men do not want to work, what powers have you at your command to make them do so? In my opinion you will have to satisfy the men that their claims will be properly considered. I believe that compulsory arbitration is coming along. Compulsory arbitration has been voted down by organised labour many times. I do not think you will get the men to accept compulsory arbitration. I know that we are living under military law. There are always spies at meetings, and if we advise men to come out on strike we will have to take the risk of being brought before a court-martial. I would suggest that the Government should start by giving an advance of wages to those who have not had an advance, and in that way give a good example to employers who have not advanced wages. You may talk about pig-headed workmen, but it should be remembered that there are pigheaded employers as well. If employers would adopt reasonable terms, we will get the workmen to act more reasonably than some of them seem to do at present. The Government have power to put an end to the exploiting methods of shipowners, and I think they should put their power into operation. The men who are in the coal trade should not blame the workmen. I hope the Government will do their duty to the workmen, and endeavour to see that they get reasonable conditions as regards the hours of labour and wages.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Prime Minister has pointed out that he was asking sums of money for the purposes of the War which are unprecedented. When these sums are being asked, it is strange that there should be no representative of the War Office present to answer questions that may arise on that statement. I wish to say a word or two in support of the views expressed by the last speaker. The Prime Minister appealed for the patriotism of the workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech in Wales used similar language, and suggested that drastic steps would have to be taken. These statements arise out of the cessation of work at Clydebank. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said we would have to introduce drastic temperance legislation to meet this difficulty. I wish to point out that the
    622
    patriotism of the workers is greater under the stress of to-day than we might have been inclined to anticipate. I wish to deal with the conditions of housing at Clyde-bank. We know that the men there are working long hours, and we know also of the tremendous strain that is being put upon them in the shipbuilding yards. According to a statement which has appeared in the "Times," the workmen, so far from being able to work longer hours, are overcome by the work they are at present undertaking.
    There has been a Local Government Board inquiry into the conditions of housing at Clydebank. I wish to give the House a few of the facts which were brought out at that inquiry. I find that in one ward of the borough the population density is 615 per acre. I find that there are 599 habitations per acre, 69 per cent. of the population are living at the rate of more than two persons per room, 28·2 per cent. more than three, and 14·8 more than four persons per room. I am surprised at the patriotism of men who are forced to live under such conditions as these. It seems to me that they have little interest in the country. The point I wish to make is this. We have had this enormous increase of expenditure foreshadowed, and we are undoubtedly going to have increased taxation in the future. I trust the Government will not proceed on the lines already adopted in the levying of taxation, because I hold that the labour unrest which is springing up in certain directions is due largely to the methods of taxation adopted by the Government. In Glasgow there has been an increase of cottage rents, and that is due largely to the increased taxation levied under the Income Tax.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclear): I think the hon. Member is going far outside the limits allowed for discussion on this Vote.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The point I wish to make is that these men who are striking find that the cost of living has increased. I may point out that it is due to the methods of taxation adopted by the Government in connection with the Income Tax. Under one of the Schedules the tax falls in part on cottages, and the owners of the cottages are passing on the tax to the tenants, from whom they are asking larger rents.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into that on this Vote.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I must bow to your ruling, but I hope that when inquiry is made into this matter the Committee will go into all the economic causes for the increased cost of living.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    VOTE OF CREDIT, 1915–16.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £250,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March. 1916, for general Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament: for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of food-stuffs and materials, or otherwise: for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    Resolved,
    1. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1914 and 1915, the sum of £37,223,440 13s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Resolved,
    2. "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 £286,855,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II. AMENDMENT.— [MONEY.]
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable contributions to be made for the purpose of Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 191], by workmen employed abroad in insured trades on work connected with the present War. (King's recommedation signified) Tomorrow.—(Mr. Gulland).
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.—(By Order.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

CITY OF LONDON NATIONAL GUARD (UNIFORM).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to-the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
6.0 P.M.
Sir J. D. REES: I wish to call attention to a statement made in an interview by the Chancellor of the Exchequer "which appears in a periodical published this month. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have stated that we only went to war for the sake of Belgium, and that we had nothing to gain by the War. I understood that the Prime Minister had stated that it was nothing of the kind. These two statements are as mischievous as they are erroneous. I would have liked to ask the Prime Minister whether he assented to-the statement which was made by his colleague. The Prime Minister stated that in this War we were fighting for this country as much as for Belgium or any other country. The question about which I wish to address the House is the question of the uniform of a particular corps. It does not matter particularly what corps it is, but a concrete case is perhaps more useful. So I put a question on the Paper asking if a uniform had been sanctioned for the City of London National Guard. The right hon. Gentleman informed me that

625
uniformity of dress is permissible among members of any corps, provided it is distinguishable from that worn by the Regular and Territorial Forces. The right hon. Gentleman informed mc that a uniform has been sanctioned by the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps, but he takes all the authority out of that statement by merely remarking that it is permissible—that is to say, anybody may wear anything that he likes, but the War Office do not recognise it. That I take to be the real meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. We have in the City of London National Guard some 2,000 men. Surely it is a good thing that those men are willing, at the end of their day's work in the City, to go and qualify by drill to form fours and perform other difficult operations of that sort, and to spend their Sunday in tramping over Hampstead Heath, and also to march the whole length of the City, as we all have done!
Surely it is a good thing which ought to be encouraged, and not left in a state of doubt as to whether the War Office approves of them or regards them as a kind of necessary nuisance, who may provide themselves with a kind of uniform or not as they themselves may like without any encouragement or sanction from the War Office! I do not know even whether the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps is authorised by the War Office to sanction a uniform, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will answer that. My remarks are entirely friendly to this regiment. When I put the question before my object was somewhat misunderstood. I take the opportunity of saying that it is entirely friendly. The authorities of the regiment have been most kind and attentive to all of us, and indeed the colonel of the regiment is deserving of recognition because, to his infinite credit, he gave three recruits a whole hour of his own attention himself. But when it comes to this question of uniform, and when I go to the quartermaster to see what is the authority for the uniform, the worthy man is naturally astonished to find a private coming and asking for the information, and when I pursue the matter further, and get the paper, I find that it is signed by an official tailor.
That is not enough for me. I would like some other authority, not that I wish to disparage tailors at all, but I should naturally expect to see an authority signed by some other person. I do not think that it is a very fortunate thing that in
626
this paper they describe the badge of rank on the sleeve as an Austrian knot. You might as well call one of our bands a German band as to describe as an Austrian knot a badge for a British regiment. But this is printed on the paper signed by the official tailor, and I have to accept that as the only authority which I find when I make inquiries in the proper quarter. Then, on Sunday, I find the Optimist National Corps going through various military evolutions in Hertfordshire, wearing a khaki uniform, and a red brassard on the arm. It may be that the brassard was worn in this case because when khaki is worn it is necessary to distinguish the wearer from members of the Territorial and Regular Forces. Why it should be necessary heaven only knows. I should have thought that the more we all look as if we are all trying to do what we can at a time like this, the better. I saw them wearing a brassard, and in the uniform which is described, whether rightly or wrongly, as that for the City of London National Guard, there is a fashion plate, if I may so describe it, of a man in this uniform also wearing a brassard.
When I look at the regulations in the "Volunteer Training Corps' Gazette" I find it states that the wearing of a brassard is compulsory with the uniform. I cannot understand this. A brassard is a substitute for a uniform, a very inconvenient and ineffectual substitute, that can be easily discarded and very easily put on, and it is exactly the kind of a distinguishing feature which is considered insufficient for troops whether for Home defence or any other purpose in the, I am happy to think, very remote event of the invasion of the country. But under the existing rules, which I have no doubt are as official as anything connected with the matter can be, because they are published as earning from the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps and are published in the "Volunteer Training Corps' Gazette," it is distinctly stated that the wearing of this brassard is compulsory with the uniform.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Is that in the-same letter of the master tailor from which the hon. Member has been quoting?
Sir J. D. REES: No, I have left the master tailor. I had to mention him because he is exceeding important in a matter of uniform, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I could not leave him out. The definite point I

627
was dealing with was that he was the sole authority whom I could track. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was indulging in a little pleasantry.
Mr. TENNANT: No.
Sir J. D. REES: Because if he had been he could have seen it expressly stated that the order requiring the wearing of the brassard was officially noted as coming from the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps and was published in the "Volunteer Training Corps' Gazette." It is stated that the following are the official rules issued by the Central Association, and that it should be noted by officials of all corps that in some cases additions are made to previous paragraphs, and it says:—
"It will be noted Unit the wearing of a brassard is compulsory with the uniform."
Why is a brassard to be worn with the uniform? Is this uniform properly sanctioned? If so, in Heaven's name, why proclaim that a brassard should be worn to show that it is not a uniform, and that the wearer is only masquerading in what he is not entitled to wear? My right hon. Friend laughs, but it is no laughing matter for the 2,000 men who are extremely anxious and many of whom, if the age limit were altered, would be found, and would be only too glad to go, fighting anywhere they might be sent as soon as they were qualified. But it is extremely discouraging to find that there is this doubt as to who is sanctioning the uniform, and whether the uniform has been sanctioned, and whether when it is sanctioned it is a uniform at all, and whether the War Office does not disclaim its character by coupling with the wearing of it the wearing of that most ineffectual substitute the brassard.
The right hon. Gentleman will allow that the Volunteer corps are good things or are not. When the original Volunteer corps were brought up, nobody thought anything of anybody who was not a Regular soldier. Now we are on a totally different tack. Surely one of the things which we hope for as a result of this War is that every man who can will be trained to drill and trained to the use of a Service rifle. If the right hon. Gentleman and his staff are going to discourage this movement, I am sure that it will be for good reasons, but let there be no half-and-half business. Let him say plainly whether these corps are welcome, and if so, why
628
this matter of uniform is left in this extremely doubtful position. One more question. Would it not be advisable to insist on all members of affiliated and approved corps wearing uniforms on all occasions? I should have thought that it would have been an excellent thing that men working in the City should be there in their uniform ready to go off to their drill in the afternoon. Would it not be an encouragement to all the clerks and young men working under them to follow their example when they see the heads of the firm, or whoever they are, doing their level best in the crisis through which we are passing? I must say that I should have thought that it would have been a very good thing. I hope that I have made my points in such a manner that the hon. Gentleman will at least answer them. There may be some very good or, as I think, some very bad reason for not doing so, but the questions are there, and I would ask him to let me have an answer.
Sir WILLIAM BULL: I also wish to raise a point on this subject of Volunteer corps. It is with reference to a letter of the 19th November, written by Sir Reginald Brade, I think, to Lord Desborough. There are two clauses of that letter as to which there is a great deal of searching of hearts in the Volunteer corps, because a good many people think that they imply veiled conscription. The words complained of in Clause 1 are—
"if specially called upon to do so."
and in Clause 7 the words complained of are—
"It will be open to an Army recruiting officer to visit the corps at any time, and recruit any members found eligible for service with the Regular Army whose presence in the corps is not accounted for by some good and sufficient reason."
I may give an instance of a case in Hammersmith which may be affected by these two clauses. There is a firm who carry on business which is quite personal to themselves. The head of the firm is an old gentleman who, according to his means, has subscribed very generously indeed to the National Fund. He has four sons. Three of them have joined the Colours, volunteered and gone, either as privates or as officers, into the Army. The fourth is left behind to look after the business. He is twenty-five years old, is married, and has got one child. He is perfectly fit and able to go into the Army, but, if he goes, the whole of that business goes by the board. They have got twelve families dependent upon them. I submit

629
that that family has certainly done quite enough, and that that fourth son ought not to be called on to go into the Regular Army while there are thousands of slackers still about who have not volunteered for the front. I know that the official answer of the War Office will be that they want to have some control over these Volunteer corps and must put in some words to guard themselves, but I say that either we ought to have conscription or we ought not. If we have conscription, then no one can complain, but a good many people are complaining that when the War Office makes a regulation of this kind by which it might suddenly compel a young fellow of twenty-five, who is fit and able to do so, to go, then this is practically veiled conscription. I believe that there are thousands who would join this Volunteer Training Corps but for the uncertainty which exists with regard to these two sentences. I saw Lord Des-borough on the subject this afternoon, and he admits that they are certainly not clear, and I believe that representations have been made to the War Office to try and Set something which is rather more clear than what we have at the present time.
There have been hints given by one or two officials—but it seems to me extraordinary that a hint should be given to these men—that, being in the Volunteer corps, they can get out of it, if they are specially called upon to go. The majority of these corps take the greatest care and trouble to advertise that they do not want men who can serve in the Regular armed forces at the front. In the corps with which I have the honour to be associated at present I frankly advise them to be in no hurry, but to improve themselves in drill and to wait. I think we should have a definite answer from the Under-Secretary of State, in order to see whether he can say anything which will clear away the doubt which at present exists in the minds of thousands of those very willing people who want to serve their country in some shape or other, but yet cannot join the Regular Forces for reasons good and sufficient to their own consciences. Personally, I have never asked a man about such a matter, and I should think it impertinence on my part to approach anyone on the subject of his joining the Regular Army. There are a great many men eligible for the Army who, for reasons good to themselves, cannot join in the fighting line; yet they want to make themselves efficient so as to be of service in
630
case of invasion. They do not want to be hanged as franc-tireurs, and, if they are to die, they would prefer to be shot in the ordinary way. I do not want to be shot, but I should certainly prefer that to being hanged ignominously. A mere brassard on the arm would not be recognised by any German regiment, nor should we recognise any brassard if we found it in Germany.
Mr. TENNANT: The two hon. Gentlemen opposite to me have put some very interesting and useful questions relating to points the solution of which is not quite so simple as they may imagine or as they may wish to think it. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) began by asking me whether I would put myself in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ascertain whether he was correctly reported in his description of the causes of this War or of the grounds on which we find ourselves in war. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend, with his encyclopedic knowledge—
Sir J. D. REES: I never claimed that.
Mr. TENNANT: That is my observation of the hon. Gentleman. He is as perfectly well aware as anybody else of what; the causes are for which we are at war, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never said a word which would conflict with the universal belief as to what those cruses were. If he was reported as stated, I cannot help thinking that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was an erroneous one. The hon. Gentleman called my attention to the question of the uniform of one of the Volunteer Training Corps. Perhaps I should say, at the outset, that I should be the last person in this House or outside to say one word in derogation of the admirable principles which have dictated the policy, from the first, of those joining these corps; or, the contrary, with patriotism and self-abnegation, they give up their time for the purpose of training; and I should like them to think that the War Office are most anxious to say nothing which would in any way give umbrage to those who are making these efforts. But I still maintain what I said at Question time, that a uniform is permissible. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether it was authorised. It is not authorised by the War Office. Power is given to the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps to authorise a uniform for any particular corps, provided it does not conflict with the rules laid

631
down in the letter which has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman in this House, and in the regulations signed G.R.
Sir W. BULL: What does G.R. mean?
Mr. TENNANT: George Rex.
Sir W. BULL: Or, general regulations.
Mr. TENNANT: I may infer, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham, when I intervened, that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is indulging in a pleasantry. I am rather surprised to hear from the hon. Member that in the regulations it is asserted or laid down, that the brassard must be worn with the uniform. That is news to me. I am not doubting for one moment that the hon. Gentleman states what he thinks to be correct, but I am amazed to hear it, because, as I understood, the brassard was devised to be more a substitution for a uniform than the accompaniment of a uniform. But it seems I am wrong as to the order laid down by the Central Association, of which Lord Desborough is the President. I must ask the two hon. Gentlemen not to hold me responsible, or the War Office responsible, for the orders issued by the Central Association. We are not responsible for those orders so long as they do not conflict with the War Office regulations signed by Sir Reginald Brade. We must not be held to be responsible for all the details of the orders which are issued by the Central Association. The hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of that. As to our having or not having authorised the particular uniform, I would point out that it is highly desirable that the War Office should not make itself responsible for every type of uniform in connection with these Volunteer corps, for what would be the result? At once we would have thousands of men most patriotic and wishing to join these associations, pointing out that the War Office had authorised various uniforms and paid for them, and why not pay for theirs. The War Office has as much now as it possibly can do, without undertaking further difficult duties.
Sir J. D. REES: That is not the case which I put. I never suggested that the War Office should take this responsibility.
Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman did not say we were to take the responsibility, but he did suggest that we should make some respresentations.
Sir J. D. REES: As to pattern and stuff.
Mr. TENNANT: Exactly; but I am projecting my mind further—it is a very short step indeed—and I maintain, and hon. Gentlemen will agree with me, that we could not give any sort of special authorisation in regard to uniforms. The hon. Gentleman may not think so, and he is, of course, entitled to his own opinion. He asked me what the War Office thought of these Volunteers. They have never shown any desire to say anything disparaging as to their military value, but I know that there are some general officers and field-marshals who do not consider their military value to be so high as I myself hope to see it made. I do not think I can say more than that. The hon. Gentleman asked me to consider the two sentences to which he referred in the letter to Sir Reginald Brade, and he laid stress upon the desiribility of either having conscription or not. I should like to lay stress on the desirability of not having it. But I really do not find that there is anything in this letter which discloses the germs of conscription. I consider that what it does mean is that the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps should have their attention called to men who ought to be serving with the Colours, but not such cases as the hon. Member for Hammersmith was careful enough to give, where there is good and sufficient reason why the person concerned should remain at home to look after important business, on which a large number of people depend for their livelihood.
The cases to which the Central Association have had their attention drawn are those of persons who have joined the Volunteer corps, but who are really persons that should join the Colours. Lord Desborough's Central Association have given to the War Office their word that they will utilise their powers in that direction, and, where there is good and sufficient reason, a man will not be asked to join the Army. The case which the hon. Member for Hammersmith brought to the notice of the House seems to me to disclose eminently good reasons for the man in not joining the Colours. He has already sent other members of his family to join the Colours, besides which there is a considerable number of persons of both sexes, I imagine, who are dependent upon that business being carried on. That seems to me ample reason for the man not being required to join the Colours.
In cases where good and sufficient reasons are not shown a man ought not

633
to be allowed to take the lesser obligation, when he ought to fulfil the greater obligation of serving with the Colours. The hon. Gentleman asked what power we have. We can only use the power of persuasion, but, at all events, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any alarm that these passages to which he refers in the document contain anything in the nature of conscription. I should like to relieve the House of any apprehension they may have on that subject by informing them that all the possible powers of persuasion are being used. I would add how greatly we appreciate the great self-sacrifice of the men who are joining these corps.
Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the question of the Volunteers wearing uniform before they attend drill.
Mr. TENNANT: I confess I think my hon. Friend is labouring under a misapprehension. As I have said, it is very undesirable that we should provide an easier job, as it were, for men than fighting for their country.
Sir J. D. REES: But these men are over age.
Mr. TENNANT: I quite admit that, but we do not want people going about the country, or in London, in various uniforms as if they were serving as soldiers when, in point of fact, they are not. Therefore, to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and to allow those Volunteers to be dressed in uniforms at all times of the day, would, to my mind, be a mistake. The clause in the letter to which I have referred, "No uniform is to be worn except when necessary for training," is one which I commend to the House.
Colonel YATE: Is there any special reason why officers in the corps and company should not be allowed to wear some special badge of rank to show that they are officers? And is there any reason why the corps should not be organised into brigades under the County Territorial Associations and under the orders of the Lord Lieutenant of the county? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me if there is any special reason to militate against that, as I think the country would like to know?
Mr. TENNANT: I think the only reason which operated in the minds of those who drew up this document was that it is undesirable to make these Volunteer corps too similar to the Regular service, and
634
that the uniform ought to be different and the names ought to be different and the badges.
Colonel YATE: Are there any badges?
Mr. TENNANT: I think the badge is the brassard.
Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why badges are not allowed?
Mr. TENNANT: It was felt to be undesirable to have too great similarity, and therefore those clauses were inserted in the letter.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am sure we ought all to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his very full and complete answer to the question, and particularly those of us who have joined the corps. In the case of a London volunteer I think the right hon. Gentleman has not quite appreciated one of the difficulties. In this particular corps most companies drill in the day time, so that it is absolutely impossible for the members who wear ordinary clothes to change into uniform. I think we ought all to be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the War Office for the amount of sympathy which they have extended to our poor efforts. We would like to do anything in our power since we are debarred by age from joining any forces for active service, and we gladly snatched at this as a means of doing something. It seems to me that the uniform might be made sufficiently distinctive so that it would be clear that nobody was trying to masquerade as a soldier upon active service. The prohibition of the wearing of a uniform presents a difficulty, since it is considered desirable that uniform should be worn at the drills. That difficulty is partly created on one side and partly on the other, and militates very much against the drill being carried on. I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very sympathetic reference he has made to this corps.
Mr. R. GWYNNE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will induce the War Office not to adhere too stringently to all the terms in the original letter. It seems to me that the main object which the War Office tried to achieve, namely, to prevent Volunteer corps being used as a screen behind which people could excuse themselves from recruiting has now been attained. Practically all the corps can be said to consist of men who are over the age

635
limit for recruiting purposes, and therefore I think the War Office might remove some of the other restrictions, such as not allowing any distinctive badge, or the men to wear uniform within a few hours of the time of drilling. I think the great thing is to encourage the spirit in which the corps has been formed and not to allow the feeling to spread that the War Office is merely tolerating and does not want to encourage these corps. If the movement is worth having at all it is worth
636
encouraging. Although I think everybody connected with it knows that the War Office only wanted to safeguard themselves against the corps being used as a screen, yet, having achieved that object I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get some of the minor terms of the letter modified, and by doing so he would give great satisfaction to the corps.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes before Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES. ART GALLERIES, AND MUSEUMS.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES. ART GALLERIES, AND MUSEUMS.
  DONINGTON HALL.
  DONINGTON HALL.
BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  CONSULTANT PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.
  CONSULTANT PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  BELGIAN SOLDIERS (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS).
  BELGIAN SOLDIERS (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS).
  INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
  INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (WARRANT RANK).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (WARRANT RANK).
  ROYAL FUSILIERS.
  ROYAL FUSILIERS.
  DUNGAREE AND KHAKI.
  DUNGAREE AND KHAKI.
  LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS.
  LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS.
  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  NATIONAL RELIEF FUND (GRANTS).
  NATIONAL RELIEF FUND (GRANTS).
  ANILINE DYE INDUSTRY.
  ANILINE DYE INDUSTRY.
  WAR RISKS (STATE INSURANCE).
  WAR RISKS (STATE INSURANCE).
  IRISH-BRED MARES.
  IRISH-BRED MARES.
  Westminster Hall Roof Restoration.
  Westminster Hall Roof Restoration.
  John Bull Bank.
  John Bull Bank.
  Thurso and Wick Mails.
  Thurso and Wick Mails.
  Undelivered Letters.
  Undelivered Letters.
  Agricultural Seed (Ireland).
  Agricultural Seed (Ireland).
  Women Employed in Agriculture.
  Women Employed in Agriculture.
  Home-grown Tobacco.
  Home-grown Tobacco.