Sitting of 4 March 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.
River Glen Improvement Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Methodist Church in Ireland Bill,
Friends' Provident Institution Bill,
Blyth Harbour Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Skegness Urban District Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group A),
Sir William Howell Davies reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Two of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the East and West Yorkshire Union Railways Company to raise additional capital [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
Copy presented of Return showing the names of all Constabulary Officers in receipt of Pensions on 30th November, 1914, of all Head Constables, Sergeants, and Constables, and of all Widows and Children, to whom Pensions have been granted since the Constabulary Estimate for 1913–14 was prepared, with the amount and date of Pension in each case, including also Returns (1) of all Special Pensions to Constabulary Widows, (2) of portions of Pensions chargeable on the Constabulary Vote, and (3) of all Civil Service Pensions similarly charged [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 26th February, 1915, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Arrears) Amendment Regulations, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 147.]
CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Sixty-fourth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Council of the city of Chester (three),
Council of the county of Carmarthen (Ammanford urban district)
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]

NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) this day, at Five of the clock.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, 1912.
Ordered, That the Order [11th August, 1913] for a Return relative thereto, and the Orders [12th August, 1913] that the said Return do lie upon the Table and be printed, be read, and discharged.—[Mr. Robertson.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants), That they give leave to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons, pursuant to Message of this day, His Grace consenting thereto.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I.) AMENDMENT [MONEY].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of Moneys provided by Parliament, of any further contributions that may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (King's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BELGIUM.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is willing, inasmuch as Great Britain and her Allies and all neutral Powers are agreed is to the injury which Belgium has
    946
    already suffered by reason of a quarrel to which she is not a party, to invite suggestions from neutral Powers with a view of avoiding any further devastation of the territories of Belgium or any further destruction of the cities and towns of Belgium by the Great Powers who are contending against each other for mastery?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The only just solution of this question is the evacuation of Belgian territory by German troops with restoration of her independence and reparation for the wrong done to her. Unless neutral Powers are prepared to assist in securing that, I do not see what will be gained by approaching them.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister what precautions are taken by the British forces engaged in operations in Belgium to prevent damage being done to the population and property of the Belgian nation in the course of air raids or land and sea bombardments of towns and villages by British forces?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Attacks are directed only against points of military significance, and every precaution is taken to avoid damage which is not necessary to the object in view.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask if the Government have any information of a recent air raid by British airmen where bombs were thrown indiscriminately, and as a result of one of these gentlemen's escapades nineteen civilians were killed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Our information is not to that effect.

    RUSSIA, GERMANY, AND GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is willing to lay before Parliament the Reports received from the British Embassy at Petrograd relating to the debate in the Duma in May, 1914, upon the relations between Russia, Germany, and Great Britain?
    Sir E. GREY: A report of the speech delivered in the Duma by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs in May, 1914, will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed by the Russian and French Governments of the exact terms of the Franco-Russian alliance; and, if he has, whether he proposes to place the instrument before Parliament?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

    TREASONABLE LITERATURE (IRELAND).
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary, whether his attention has been called to the distribution in certain parts of Ireland of a leaflet in which it is stated that Lord Kitchener is confident he can entrap, cajole, gull, and force 100,000 Irishmen to enlist in the demoralised, decadent, crime-stained, blood-sodden British Army, and which contains many treasonable expressions appealing to Irishmen not to enlist in His Majesty's Forces; and whether he proposes to take any and what steps to suppress the circulation of treasonable matter in Ireland?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It would be against the public interest to set out the steps taken to prevent the dissemination of treasonable literature in Ireland, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the efforts, which have already led to a very great decrease in the circulation of offensive pamphlets and newspapers are not being relaxed.

    AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRATION OF ASIATICS).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the condemnation by the Prime Minister of Australia of the action of the Governor of South Australia in delivering a speech advocating the introduction of Asiatics into Australia; and whether he has addressed any communications to the Governors of self-governing States, suggesting that they should endeavour to secure the remission of legislation directed
    948
    against the immigration of Indians, in view of the military services now being rendered by Indian soldiers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first question is yes, and to the second question, no.

    WAR OFFICE TIMBER PURCHASES.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, (1) how much commission has accrued to Mr. Montague Meyer up to the end of February; (2) whether the contract is still in force; (3) what is the rate of commission on present purchases; and (4) whether Mr. Meyer discloses to the Office of Works any dealings in timber which his firm take part in whilst he purchases on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first question is £9,561 8s. 6d. (£4,000 only has as yet been paid). As to the second and third questions, I shall make a statement later. The answer to the fourth question is that the representatives of the Office of Works at Mr. Meyer's office have complete access to all transactions in that office.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked whether, in view of the admitted responsibility of the War Office in connection with the Meyer timber-buying arrangement entered into by the Office of Works, any steps have been taken by the War Office with a view to the immediate termination of the arrangement?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): The War Office does not propose to terminate its arrangement with the Office of Works. As the hon. Member is aware, the Office of Works is considering the question of a new arrangement with Mr. Meyer.
    Mr. W. YOUNG: How long are they going to consider it?

    COAL AND COKE (EXPORTS).
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of coal and coke were exported form the United Kingdom to neutral countries in each of the two last completed calendar months?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The quantities of coal and coke exported from the United Kingdom to neutral foreign countries in the last two completed calendar months were as follows: Coal, 1,864,000 tons in January and 2,060,000 tons in February; coke, 81,000 tons in January and 64,000 tons in February.

    ANILINE DYE INDUSTRY.
    Sir F. CAWLEYasked whether in case the chemists doing research work for the limited liability company supported by the Government should make, any valuable discovery, such discovery will be immediately placed at the service of all other aniline dye manufacturers, seeing that the Government are giving this one company £10,000 per annum for research work out of public funds?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Grant referred to is a Grant-in-Aid of the new company in respect of expenditure incurred by them in research and experiment. No such condition as that suggested in the question will be imposed.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: In the event of such discoveries being made will they be published?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot make a statement on that at the moment, but the intention is that discoveries that are made shall be made available for other manufacturers under licence.
    Sir F. CAWLEYasked whether paranitrotoluol is being supplied to Swiss manufacturers for the manufacture of aniline dyes; whether permits to obtain the same products are being refused to English manufacturers of aniline dyes; and whether the Government will treat other manufacturers of aniline colours and intermediate products exactly in the same way in regard to licences and permits as the company to whom they are lending money?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that licences to export limited quantities of paranitrotoluol to Switzerland were granted in two instances some time ago on condition that equivalent quantities of dyes were re-exported to this country. The question of granting permits for the export of that product, or for its utilisation in this country for other than naval and military purposes, is decided in each case having regard to the surplus, if any,
    950
    which is available after naval and military requirements have been met. There is no discrimination as between different manufacturers in the United Kingdom.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: Will English manufacturers have, at any rate, the same benefit as the Swiss manufacturers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In so far as there is a surplus of paranitrotoluol available for English manufacturers of course they will have the benefit of it.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the terms of the option of the purchase of the interests of the firm of Messrs. Read, Holliday, and Sons, Limited; and, if not, when the terms of the option will be announced; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the terms?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The terms of the option to which the hon. Member refers will necessarily be disclosed in the prospectus of the new company, which will be issued very shortly. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on the 1st March, it will be for the directors of the new company to decide at their discretion whether the option shall be exercised. I do not think, therefore, that any useful purpose could be served by a discussion on this subject in the House.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the terms of the option of purchase be set out fully in detail in the prospectus?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the prospectus be issued before this House adjourns for holidays, so that it may be reviewed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know the exact date on which it will be issued, but I understood that it was to be issued in the course of a day or two.
    Mr. HOGGE: Who are the directors?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot tell that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are there any Members of this House?
    Mr. HEWINS: Is the prospectus ready?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the prospectus is ready, but I am not responsible for the issue of the prospectus. It will be issued by the promoters of the company and not by me.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked how, under the Government scheme for increasing the production of dye stuffs, it is intended to expend the proposed Grant of £100,000 for research; to what extent the universities will participate in that Grant; whether the suggested research work will be to any extent under the direction and supervision of the proposed new company; and whether a staff of chemists is to be appointed to pursue researches in laboratories to be established and equipped in the works of Messrs. Read, Holliday, and Sons, if and when taken over by the new company?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The research Grant to which the hon. Member refers will be made to the new company, and accordingly it will be for the directors to determine the manner in which it can best be utilised for the purposes of research and experiment.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Are the universities to have no share in the Grant which is being given by the Government?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that. I understand that the intention is that the universities should supply a great deal of the knowledge and research work, of which advantage will be taken.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the Government make an equivalent Grant to the universities?
    Sir F. CAWLEY: In case the directors think it wise to retain it in their own hands, will they be allowed to do so?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said, in reply to a supplementary question, that the intention is that any knowledge which is acquired as a result of this research work should be made available under licence.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: In giving this large Grant for research, almost the first Grant of this kind over given by the Government, will the Government exercise no control whatever over the company as to the allocation of the fund?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that that arises out of the question. The Government have not yet abandoned all control over the allocation of the fund, nor is this the first case in which large sums have been given for scientific research. Large sums have been given for agricultural research and other matters during the last few years.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I said so large a sum.

    GAME PRESERVATION.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the number of men employed in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively, in connection with the preservation of game?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. According to the Census of 1911, the number of gamekeepers was:—

    England (including Monmouth, with 120)

    15,828

    Wales

    1,320

    Scotland

    5,908

    Ireland

    1,238

    Giving a total of

    24,294

    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Has the right hon Gentlemen any figures available to show what proportion of this class has enlisted?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no figures. I do not know whether it is possible to get them. The question should be addressed to the War Office.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the work for which the education committees are anxious to get child labour is work in which these men might be appealed to help?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a question for the Board of Agriculture.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Are the water bailiffs who are engaged in protecting the salmon in the River Tweed included in these figures?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No. These are the figures in reference to gamekeepers.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (BOARD OF TRADE AGREEMENT).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes that any variation in the original agreement between the Board of Trade and the railway companies, which may increase the amount guaranteed by the Government, shall be submitted to and approved by the House of Commons before being ratified?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The net effect of the proposed variation in the original agreement which is now under discussion

    953
    between the Board of Trade and the railway companies is not to increase the scale of compensation payable by the Government. The question raised by my hon. Friend does not therefore arise.

    H.M.S. "NIGER" (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of casualties in connection with the sinking by torpedo of His Majesty's Ship "Niger," guardship at the Downs, and by whose orders this vessel maintained a stationary position; and when it is intended to hold a court of inquiry into the loss of this vessel?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The casualties were fourteen lost and three vounded, of whom one died subsequently. My right hon. Friend cannot discuss the conduct of naval operations. A court of inquiry has been held, and he has no statement to make.

    ROYAL MARINES.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the position of men serving in the Royal Marines who have completed their time for pension during the period of hostilities and are serving on in their regiment; and will pensions be paid from the date when their period of service expired or only from the date of final discharge at the end of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Marines whose period of service expires while they are serving on a foreign station may, at the discretion of the Commanding Officer on the station under the Royal Marines Act, 1847, be detained for a period of two years. During the continuance of the present War it is open to the Admiralty under the Royal Marines Act, 1914, to retain also for a similar period the services of those Marines whose period of engagement expires while they are serving at home. No awards of Long Service pensions can be made until the men are discharged, but applications for the award of Good Conduct Medal or Good Conduct Gratuity earned by service will be considered. The further service will be taken into account when the pensions are awarded at the close of the War, and pensions earned by service up to the date of completing time
    954
    for pension will be regarded as secured except in cases of conviction for mutiny or felony or of dismissal from the Service with disgrace?

    H.M.S. "VIKNOR" AND "CLAN MACNAUGHTON."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether, since the loss of His Majesty's ships "Viknor" and "Clan Macnaughton," there is a doubt as to the seaworthiness of similar ships being employed as armed cruisers, notably when the bunkers become empty; whether the Admiralty can see their way to give these ships more ballast, there being no cargo; and whether mounting guns on the upper deck under these circumstances renders this class of ship top-heavy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the case of each vessel taken up and fitted as an armed merchant cruiser, the most careful attention has been paid to the loading and stability of the vessel. Actual stability tests have been carried out in all necessary cases, and instructions have been issued to the commanding officers of the vessels as to the extent to which they might be loaded and the precautions to be observed in working out the coal. In cases in which investigations showed it to be necessary, ballast was added, and in all cases, having regard to these instructions, the Admiralty are satisfied as to the lading of the vessels and as to their stability in all conditions of lading. The armaments carried by the ships are very light in comparison with the size of the vessels, and the weights added in this respect were fully taken into account when their stability was investigated and the instructions issued. None of the vessels when taken over were new, and all of them had been employed on their merchant cruises. The mounting of the guns has not rendered the vessels top-heavy, and no further ballast for stability purposes is necessary.
    Mr. HINDSasked how many lifeboats and what other life-saving apparatus the ss. "Clan Macnaughton" carried?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Clan Macnaughton" carried six lifeboats as well as four other boats, the total carrying capacity of which was sufficient for all on board. She was further supplied with a large number of lifebelts, and two life rafts each capable of supporting fifty men.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men belonging to the Engineering staff of the Royal Naval Reserve are now engaged on board His Majesty's ships; whether the supply is sufficient to meet the present requirements of the Navy; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in this branch of the Service with existing rates of pay and prospects of promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that it would be desirable to give detailed information as to the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve engine room staff employed in His Majesty's ships. Entries of men continue to be made in this branch, and the supply is sufficient to meet present requirements. I am not aware that the facts are as suggested in the concluding part of my hon. Friend's question.

    HIS MAJESTY'S TRAWLERS.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked whether the Secretary to the Admiralty can see his way to advance the pay of the coxswains of His Majesty's trawlers to 3s. 6d. per day and £1 per month war retainer so as to place them on the same scale of pay as the A.B. Trawler Reserve; and whether he can arrange for them to obtain their food from the Service at Service prices?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The retainer paid to the Royal Naval Reservist is given in respect of his liability to be called up from civil life on mobilisation, and unless he elects to allot half of it to his dependants it is set aside for payment to him on resuming his civil occupation. It is therefore not appropriate to the conditions under which naval ratings of the general Service are engaged. When employed in trawlers the latter are eligible to receive the allowance recently conceded of 1s. 3d. a day (chief petty officer and petty officer) or 1s. a day (A.B. and leading ratings) hard lying money in addition to their substantive, non-substantive, and badge pay. All men of whatever class serving in trawlers receive a victualling allowance of 1s. 5d. a day. As regards the last sentence of my hon. Friend's question, I understand that arrangements of the nature indicated are already made so far as is practicable.

    MINED VESSELS (COMPENSATION TO DEPENDANTS).
    Mr. TICKLERasked if the Secretary to the Admiralty can recommend the payment of compensation to the wives and children of skippers and mates who have lost their lives through their vessels being blown up with mines since the War began, as the Government has already expressed their intention to pay such compensation from the 18th February. 1915?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is the intention that the scheme for the payment of compensation in the event of death or injury in the case of masters, officers, and seamen on British merchant ships, which was announced on the 19th February, should be retrospective and date back to the beginning of the War. The question whether the scheme should be extended to fishing vessels is now being considered.

    SOLDIERS' BILLETS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he calls for reports from local sanitary authorities as to the conditions of soldiers' billets; and whether he will make any special inspection of those districts where large numbers of men are billeted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Last autumn the Local Government Board, after consultation with the War Office, issued circular letters to local authorities indicating the action which should be taken by the authorities and their officers to give assistance in connection with the sanitary condition of military quarters and other matters affecting the health of troops, including the systematic inspection of billets. I have received a number of reports from medical officers of health on camps and billets in their districts. Since the outbreak of the War my medical inspectors have visited camps and billets in all parts of the country, and have made inquiries with respect to their sanitary condition, and the action of local authorities and their officers in the matter. Up to the end of January about 550 such visits had been made. In addition to local representations by the inspectors, action has been taken on their reports by the Board in cases where this was necessary by means of communications with the War Office and the local authorities.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has my right hon. Friend any report of cases in which soldiers themselves have got rid of mattresses by burning then on account of their insanitary condition?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not had brought to my notice any such report, but if the hon. Member can give me any particular case I shall be glad to investigate it.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: Have the local authorities any power to enforce their suggestions?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaints from the local authorities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There, have been representations, which have been handed on to the War Office, but there has been no case of difficulty in providing a remedy in each case, so far as I am aware.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is there any objection on the part of the military authorities to visits by the medical officers of health?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir. So far as I am aware the military authorities are most anxious to have the assistance both of the officers of the Local Government Board and of the local officers of health to secure the best sanitation of the camps and billets.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there are a number of workhouses not fully occupied at present; and whether he will take steps, by concentrating all the existing paupers in a limited number of workhouses and thus rendering as many as possible wholly vacant, to provide accommodation in workhouses for prisoners of war and thus obviate the necessity for spending public money in adapting and furnishing country mansions for that purpose?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For some time past the Local Government Board have been arranging, in co-operation with the boards of guardians and with the War Office, to render available as many Poor Law institutions as possible for military
    958
    requirements. In the opinion of the military authorities, these institutions can be used with greater advantage for other purposes than for that suggested in the question.

    VACCINATION (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take such steps as are necessary in order that when persons register the births of children they shall be apprised that in the event of the father of the child being abroad its mother is legally entitled to make the declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination if she wishes so to do?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The form of notice of the requirement of vaccination is already addressed to "the father, or mother, or other person having the custody of the child," and the form of declaration of objection to vaccination refers to "the parent [or person having the custody] of" the child. In these circumstances, it does not seem necessary to modify the forms now in use, but I am proposing to send a Circular to the vaccination officers making it clear that, in the absence of the father, the mother is qualified to make the declaration, as was stated by the Home Secretary in his answer to a question by the hon. Member on the 22nd February.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this point clear in the Circular, that it will not be necessary for the father to be abroad, as he may be serving with the Colours in any part of the United Kingdom, and that the mother in that case may make the declaration?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

    CERNE ABBAS DISTRICT COUNCIL (SURVEYOR).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the action taken by the rural district council of Cerne Abbas, who permitted their surveyor and sanitary inspector to join the Royal Army Medical Corps for the War, but declined to keep the place open for him, although

    959
    not asked to make any allowance in respect of salary; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have inquired into the case of Mr. Earwaker, the officer referred to in the question. It appears that, in view of the short notice he gave the rural district council of Cerne before leaving their service, they decided not to keep his place open, but to treat the post as vacant. The Local Government Board drew the council's attention to the usual practice adopted by local authorities of granting their officers leave of absence when joining the Colours, and appointing temporary substitutes to perform their duties. I am suggesting to the council, who have made only a temporary appointment, the desirability on general grounds of offering to reinstate Mr. Earwaker on his return.

    INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
    Mr. J. W. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now give a statement showing the extent to which the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914, has been put into operation to limit the hours of opening and closing of licensed premises by licensing authorities throughout the Kingdom; and whether, in the interests of greater efficiency and in view of the shortness of labour, especially for Government contracts, he will consider the desirability of making the Act of more general application?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I much regret that the Return of Orders under the Act which is in preparation is not yet ready for presentation to Parliament, but I hope that it will be presented within a week or two. As regards the latter part of the question, I can only refer my right hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's intimation that it depends upon the possibility of an agreed Bill.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Home Secretary whether, as owing to the diminution of crime the gaols are not fully occupied, he will arrange for a
    960
    transfer of the criminals so as to hand over an empty prison (or two) to the War Office for the accommodation of German prisoners of war, thereby saving the taxpayers the sums of money that are now being spent on country mansions?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The accommodation afforded by prisons would be unsuitable and not in accordance with the requirements of The Hague Convention respecting the treatment of prisoners of war. I may add that the Prison Commissioners have already placed at the disposal of the War Office for use as military prisons three small prisons and portions of two prisons which could be set free for this purpose.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if the Government will give a list of places where German officers are imprisoned and the amounts of money the Government have spent on each place?
    Mr. BAKER: I shall be prepared to give the Noble Lord such a statement, but the information as to the expenditure will, I am afraid, take some time to collect.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not better to err on the side of generosity than to act with undue rigour?

    PRIZE COURT PROCEDURE.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister, having regard to the law of nations that the first duty of a the captor of a merchant vessel is to bring it before a Prize Court where it may be tried, if His Majesty's Government intend to take that course when they detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin; do they intend to ask the Prize Court for the condemnation of such goods as good prize, and to release the ships themselves when neutral, paying them their freight; and, if not, what is it proposed to do, respectively, with such cargoes and such ships?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The intentions of His Majesty's Government will become apparent when the Order in Council on the subject of the retaliation measures against Germany is published. I cannot make a more definite statement at the moment.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Sir F. CAWLEYasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the fact that allowances to dependants have been withheld on the ground that the soldiers who had made the allotments had been convicted of offences, he will take immediate steps so to alter any regulation on the matter as to ensure that the punishment shall be, so far as possible, limited to the guilty person; and (2) of the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is a regulation by virtue of which the authorities can deprive a dependant of a soldier of the separation or other allowance in the event of the soldier being convicted of an an offence; what are the terms of such regulation and the date of its enactment; and whether or not it has been acted upon?
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Driver No. 1175, No. 3 Company, Army Service Corps, made an allotment of 3s. 6d. per week in respect of an allowance which he desired to have made to his parents; whether the amount has been regularly deducted from the man's pay; whether, notwithstanding this deduction, an allowance has been refused and the amounts deducted not refunded; and whether it is the policy of the Army Council to refuse an allowance in similar cases in which an amount varying from 12s. to 15s. has been contributed by the man concerned to the upkeep of the home merely because the pension officer and the pension committee disagree in the case?
    Mr. BAKER: The policy of the Army Council in these matters is to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which recently reported. The particulars of individual cases are not kept in the War Office and are known only to the Regimental Paymaster concerned, in this case Woolwich. If the hon. Member has reason to think that there has been an error the fact could most speedily be ascertained by reference to that officer; if, however, the hon. Member wishes inquiry to be made through me, perhaps he will be good enough to give the man's name for purposes of identification.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether applications for separation allowances from mothers and similar dependants of soldiers are being refused where the family income
    962
    reaches a certain level; whether there is a lack of uniformity in the application of this rule; if so, whether steps will be taken to establish a uniform system; and whether clear instructions will be issued promptly to paymasters and secretaries of Territorial Associations on the subject?
    Mr. BAKER: No such rule is now in force. An instruction has been issued stating that a dependant otherwise eligible is not in any case barred by the possession of income from other sources.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In those cases where there are two or three sons is the amount to be allowed to the mother confined to 12s. 6d. per week?
    Mr. BAKER: That does not arise on the question, and perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that all over the country mothers have been refused their separation allowances on the ground that the family income is sufficient for the maintenance of the family without separation allowance; if that is not a correct interpretation of the wishes of the War Office, will he so instruct the paymasters and secretaries?
    Mr. BAKER: I do not think what the hon. Member asserts is the case now; certainly no instruction contradicting that has been issued.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not in the Royal Warrant issued by the War Office recently?
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Have the War Office issued their circulars to the old age pension committees as well as to the pension officers, because the members of those committees are certainly ignorant of the rule?
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot say whether or not the instructions have gone to the pension committees as well as to the pension officers. I do not see why they should not.
    Mr. RAFFAN: If I submit a number of cases to the hon. Gentleman, will he see that they are attended to in accordance with the rule?
    Mr. BAKER: Certainly.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a soldier who in normal times would have passed into the Reserve on the completion

    963
    of seven years with the Colours is not allowed to allot any portion of his pay to relatives; and whether separation allowance is not payable in such cases, notwithstanding the financial straits in which the dependants of the man may be placed?
    Mr. BAKER: Any soldier may allot; and the qualification for separation allowance as a dependant is extended under the recommendations of the Select Committee, to any person who is found as a fact to have been dependent on the soldier before mobilisation.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: If the transfer is compulsory, will the dependants be treated as others?
    Mr. BAKER: The only test is that approved by the Select Committee: whether, in fact, there was dependence before mobilisation or enlistment.
    Mr. BAKER: As I have already stated, separation allowance will continue in these cases so long as the soldier remains in the Army.

    BRITISH AND GERMAN GOVERN MENTS (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if he will issue as a Parliamentary Paper the full text of the correspondence, notes, and communications which passed between the British and German Governments in 1912 on the subject referred to in his speech at Cardiff last October?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 8th February last, which was to the effect that, after consideration, His Majesty's Government did not think any useful purpose would be served by the publication of further Papers at the present time.

    WAR DEPARTMENT ESTABLISH MENTS (WAGES).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Prime Minister whether Sir G. Askwith has yet reported upon the complaints of the Royal Arsenal skilled and unskilled labourers with regard to the non-payment of increased wages which they claimed to be entitled to; and, if so, whether he can inform the House of the result?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Arbitration Committee appointed by the Government reported upon the wages of labourers and certain other classes of employés in War Department establishments in London on 1st March, and the Government have concurred in the Report. The Committee recommended that an increase of 7½ per cent. on book rates and piece rates—with a minimum increase of 3s. a week—should be granted to men working as semiskilled machinists or engaged on other work of equal or superior skill, except those receiving the advances recently given, and that an increase of 2s. a week be granted to labourers. The increases are to operate as from 14th December, 1914, and to extend, so far as applicable, to all the War Department establishments in London.
    Mr. BARNES: May I ask if other men who are even worse paid than Woolwich Arsenal labour will be put on the same footing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    INTERNED STEAMERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any of the nine vessels chartered and utilised for the internment of prisoners has yet been freed; and, if not, on what dates it is anticipated that all will be liberated and the money saved to the country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Two of these ships have been liberated. It is anticipated that more will be set free by the end of April, and the remainder from time to time as other accommodation becomes available.
    Mr. PETO: What is the monthly cost to the country of using these ships?
    Mr. TENNANT: Obviously I cannot answer that without notice.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the highest freight per ton of coal charged for the use of any of the interned steamers lately made available for the coastal trade; and what is the average freight per ton charged for such interned steamers as compared with the average freight per ton charged for the use of similar steamers other than the interned steamers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: From the Tyne to London the highest freight paid in the case of an interned steamer was 13s., which was 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. below rates on outside steamers. The present rate on interned steamers is 12s., and on outside steamers 14s. 6d. to 15s. 6d. The average rate to London during February was 13s. 6d. for outside steamers and 10s. 10d. for interned steamers.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the gentlemen who form the committee which regulates the freights to be charged for the use of the interned steamers in the coastal trade are representatives of shipowners, distributing merchants, and consumers, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The methods by which freights are charged for the use of the interned steamers in the coasting trade are regulated by the Government.

    ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the firm of Smart and Rolland, clothiers, Paisley, secured a contract for the supply of 150 military garments to the Renfrewshire Territorial Force Association, but that instead of having the work done in their own workshop the firm sent it to a factory in Glasgow; whether the work was executed under a sub-contract; if so, whether the consent of the authorities was first obtained; and whether he can state the date when the firm sent in their estimate for the contract?
    Mr. BAKER: I have no information as to this and I would point out to my hon. Friend that the contract in question is one made by a Territorial Force Association under its statutory powers.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not to be assumed that the work will be better done in Glasgow than in Paisley?

    OFFICERS' LETTERS (PUBLICATION).
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the offer of payment appearing in many of the daily newspapers requesting that officers' letters
    966
    from the front may be forwarded to them for publication; and, in view of paragraph 452, King's Regulations, whereby the writers are held responsible if the person to whom such letters are addressed publishes them, as also of the fact that such publication is an offence for which punishments to the writers are being awarded, if he will take steps to impress upon these newspapers that by their action they become accessory to a military crime against which orders have been issued to the Expeditionary Force by headquarters?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter has already been considered, and it is hoped that a practicable solution of the problem will shortly be found.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Under-Secretary for War if he has received from the Montgomeryshire police committee a resolution protesting against the release of a German Reservist, aged thirty-two, ordered by the Home Secretary; and if the War Office contemplate taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: No communication on this subject can be traced at the War Office.

    INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether battalion orders are still being issued in effect punishing recruits for adhering to the terms of their enlistment in regard to inoculation, thereby breaking the law of the land and violating the word of honour of Ministers; whether such orders have the sanction of the Secretary of State for War; and whether the deterrence of recruiting caused by punishment of soldiers not guilty of an offence against law or discipline will now be discontinued?
    Mr. TENNANT: There has not been any change in the instructions with reference to inoculations, and I am not aware of any battalion orders of the kind referred to. If any order breaking the law of the land or violating the word of honour of Ministers were brought to my attention I should certainly take action.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hold such an order in my hand?

    RELIGIOUS SERVICES (ATTENDANCE OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether the attendance of soldiers at religious services is compulsory; and what provision, other than that of the Established Church, is made for those who dissent from her doctrines or religious observances?
    Mr. TENNANT: The King's Regulations provide that every soldier, when not prevented by military duty, will attend Divine service, but a soldier will not be obliged to attend the service of any other religious body than his own. Clergymen of the non-established Churches are appointed to give their whole time to duty among the troops, as chaplains to the forces or acting chaplains, at stations where the numbers are sufficient to justify this course. At other stations arrangements are made with local clergymen for the care of their respective co-religionists among the troops.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are the officers compelled to go to church?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think there is a general understanding. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.

    118TH INFANTRY BRIGADE (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether on the formation of the 118th Infantry Brigade inducements wore held out to old public school and university men that enlistment in the brigade would afford valuable training and experience for those desirous of obtaining commissions; whether during the first few months of the brigade's existence numerous applications for commissions were applied for and granted; whether since the middle of January commissions ceased to be granted, except under very exceptional circumstances; and whether, in view of the effect of this upon men who were induced to enlist in the brigade, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the inducements held out by the committee which raised the brigade referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but War Office sanction to its formation was given with a view to the raising of four efficient battalions for the New Armies. The efficiency of
    968
    such units is likely to be impaired if a large number of their non-commissioned officers and men are given commissions at one time. Commanding officers are therefore instructed carefully to consider each application and forward the names of suitable candidates when they can be spared without detriment to the unit. It is the case that there has been a diminution in the number of applications submitted from this brigade during the last few weeks.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that it is no longer a public schools brigade, but is open to all the elementary schools in the country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked if Volunteer Training Corps are to be in any way dependent on or under the emergency committees?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, the Volunteer Training Corps are under the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps and in no way dependent on the emergency committees. The duties assigned to the emergency committees will be carried out by special constables, who are a distinct organisation from the Volunteer Training Corps, although in many cases the same individuals belong to both. I regret that in my reply to the hon. Member for North Islington on 4th February I stated Volunteer Training Corps instead of special constables.

    MUSKETRY TRAINING (YEOMANRY).
    Colonel SANDERSasked the Under-Secretary of State, for War if he is aware that in Yeomanry regiments an officer who has qualified at a school of musketry must be appointed assistant adjutant to assist in musketry training, but that he gets no extra pay while performing these duties, whereas in the Regular Cavalry an officer performing similar duties gets 3s. a day extra; and whether he will take steps to put the Yeomanry officer on the same footing in this respect as the Regular, seeing that the extra work entailed is the same in both cases?
    Mr. BAKER: The appointment of an assistant adjutant for musketry in Yeomanry regiments is not recognised, and, therefore, no extra pay is admissible.

    DONINGTON HALL.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that many of our wounded officers and men are housed in places not so commodious and net so completely fitted with all modern appliances and comforts as Donington Hall, he will transfer the German prisoners, namely, the German officers and their eighty servants now occupying Donington Hall, to other quarters, and will give directions that Donington Hall shall in future be occupied by wounded officers or men belonging to our own Armies or those of our Allies?
    Mr. TENNANT: On behalf of the medical authorities I must repudiate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that our wounded officers and men, and those of our Allies who may be in this country, are not receiving all proper attention in the matter of accommodation. The provision of such accommodation is not dependent, either directly or indirectly, on whether Donington Hall is or is not assigned to prisoners of war.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I made no such suggestion in my question. My question was whether it would be better to hand over Donington Hall, with all its conveniences, to our own soldiers rather than to Germans?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman will look at his question he will see that it says—
    "in view of the fact that many of our own wounded officers and men are housed in places not so commodious and not so completely fitted with all modern appliances and comforts as Donington Hall."
    Mr. BUTCHER: Hear, hear!
    Mr. TENNANT: Well, I repudiate that suggestion.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that none of our officers are housed in less commodious quarters?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the rent of £500 per annum agreed to be paid by the Government for the use of Donington Hall is in respect of a leasehold tenancy; and, if so, for what term of years?
    Mr. TENNANT: The rent referred to is for a tenancy during such time as the exigencies of the public service shall require, and the Department has power to terminate the tenancy at short notice.
    Sir MAURICE LEVY: How long?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I do not know.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can the hight hon. Gentleman say whether or not the owners of Donington Hall can terminate the tenancy without notice?
    Sir M. LEVY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is the owner of Donington Hall?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know.
    Mr. McNEILL: In the event of the tenancy being terminated at short notice by the owners of Donington Hall will the Government recover anything like the large sum of money expended upon it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware how the contract affects the owner that way. My statement was, "that the Department has power to terminate the tenancy at short notice."
    Mr. McNEILL: Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the same power rests in the hands of the owner of Donington Hall; also what is the provision of this expenditure of money in the event of the tenancy being terminated at short notice?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certainly; but the hon. Gentleman might put the question on the Paper.
    Sir M. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Donington Hall belongs to a brother of an hon. Member who sits on the opposite side of the House?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman at once abandon all feelings and considerations of humanity, and hand over these German officers to the care of the hon. Member opposite?
    Mr. McNEILLrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is hardly desirable to indulge in these exchanges.

    HOUSE RENT (GLASGOW).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has given consideration to the question of recent increase of house rent in Glasgow, and to the statements contained in the notices that the increases are in consequence of war taxation; and if he can take some steps to prevent this burden, intended to be spread over all classes, from being placed on one class of the community?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I regret to say that a good deal of feeling has been aroused by the fact that in some of the notices the increase of taxation necessitated by the War is mentioned as a reason for increasing the rent. As an example, I have had the following letter forwarded to me:—
    "Dear Madam,—The Government having increased the tax on property by 1s. 3d. per £ for the present year, I beg to give notice that I am obliged to increase the rent of the house occupied by you to £21 per annum, taxes extra, commencing 28th May, 1915."
    In this case I am informed that the existing rent was £19. I venture to think that this is an unfortunate attitude for owners to assume at a time like this, when all classes of the community may be expected to be ready to bear their share of the sacrifices entailed by the War. I have heard of cases where the tenant has found his remedy by threatening to remove, but there are others in which, for various reasons, the tenant is not able to avail himself of this remedy, and in these cases the rise in rent is felt as a real hardship under present circumstances.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no power to take any such steps? The Government a short time ago carried the Courts Emergency Act, which gives protection to tenants who are unable to pay their rent in consequence of sacrifices entailed by the War, and protects them from ejectment; but it is a legal question whether it affects this case directly.
    Mr. BARNES: That Act can only apply when people are in actual poverty. Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of framing some emergency legislation to stop landlords from charging more rent, so as to prevent further industrial trouble?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If my hon. Friend can assure me that such legislation would pass as uncontentious, I will consider it, but I am not very hopeful.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has special war taxation been placed upon owners of house property more than upon any other class of the community?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly not.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Then that representation in the notices from house-owners is false?

    POTATO CULTIVATION.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether, having regard to the fact that the average quantity of potatoes annually imported into this country exceeds 3,000,000 cwts., the estimated value of which is about £1,250,000, and having regard also to a further possible rise in the price of wheat and flour, the Board of Agriculture will invite landowners and land occupiers, not necessarily farmers, to sow during the next few weeks any available land not otherwise cultivated with seed potatoes, with a view to increasing during the coming autumn the supply of food for the people of this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): While the import figures given are correct, it must be borne in mind that the average export for the five years 1909–13 amounted to 2,946,000 cwts. In both cases the quantities bear a very small proportion to the total potato crop in this country. The 1914 crop was well above the average and with the usual imports of early potatoes should fully suffice for home requirements. The Board are of opinion that all occupiers of land would be well advised to increase its productivity as much as possible, and the Board believe that they are generally adopting all the means in their power to do so.

    OFFICERS' UNIFORM.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware of the financial disadvantage which exists in the case of officers who belonged to the Volunteers

    973
    and have served ever since, but who have never had any initial grant on joining the Territorial Force beyond a small sum to defray the cost of converting their Volunteer uniforms into the pattern to be worn by the Territorial Force; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and (2) whether anything can be done to remedy the inequity existing between officers who have joined since the declaration of war and also officers who, having previously resigned their commissions, have rejoined since 4th August, who are entitled to a sum of £50 towards the expense of providing themselves with kit, and officers who joined some years ago and have served continuously up to the present time, but who only draw an initial grant of £20, although since mobilisation they have been put to considerable expense for clothing and equipment which in times of peace they do not require?
    Mr. BAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's suggests, if I understand him correctly, a system of grants for maintenance of officers' uniforms in addition to the grants for provision. I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if there have been any cases of junior officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps promoted for services during the War; and, if not, will he say why this corps should have been exceptionally treated in this respect?
    Mr. TENNANT: Four majors have been promoted to be brevet-lieutenant-colonels. Decorations have also been conferred on thirteen majors, twelve captians, and nine lieutenants.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question as to cases of junior officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have given the hon. Member all the information in my possession.

    BRITISH EMPIRE ROYAL FUSILIERS (CITY OF LONDON).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether General Woollcombe ever informed the chairman of the British Empire Committee at any time to continue the hutting
    974
    contract with Mr. Devereux; and (2) whether the War Office instructed the colonel commanding the British Empire Royal Fusiliers (City of London) to continue the food contract with Mr. Devereux.
    Mr. TENNANT: These matters are under consideration, and until they have been investigated I can make no statement. The inquiry may take some time.
    Mr. HOGGE: If I raise this question on the Adjournment on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to reply?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope so.

    OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the Report may be expected of the Committee appointed to consider the question of officers' pay and allowances?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not sure to what Committee the Noble Lord refers. Perhaps he will be good enough to inform me more exactly.

    HOSPITALS FOR SOLDIERS (CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the basis upon which contributions are made to the voluntary hospitals which, with the approval of the War Office, are admitting sick and wounded soldiers; whether such basis of contributions is uniform throughout the United Kingdom or whether a varying scale has been adopted; and, if so, upon what principle such variations are made?
    Mr. BAKER: I am glad to say that the use of these voluntary hospitals has not been offered on a commercial basis, and the assistance given from public funds has taken the form of a Grant-in-Aid on the basis of a daily rate per occupied bed. This rate is normally 2s., but in some cases a somewhat larger grant may be given by the General Officer Commanding.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will a difference be made between general hospitals in the Metropolitan area and other hospitals?
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    ARMY PAY OFFICE (DUBLIN).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received a petition signed by the temporary clerks employed at the Army Pay Office, Island Bridge, Dublin, with regard to the wages paid; whether he is aware that the wages of these men were considerably reduced in October last, and instead of receiving from 45s. to 50s. a week for the hours worked they now only receive 35s.; whether he is aware that on account of their services not being required on a recent Sunday the men were stopped 5s. from their pay; and whether he will favourably consider the men's petition and restore to them the conditions on which the majority of them were originally engaged?
    Mr. BAKER: Owing to a local misunderstanding some temporary clerks were wrongly taken on at a rate which did not cover overtime. When this came to light they were placed upon the authorsied rate of 35s. a week. The stoppage of the 5s. was an error which has been rectified.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IN GERMANY.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the British subjects in Germany who will be the subject of release or exchange either as incapacitated military prisoners or doctors?
    Sir H. VERNEY: No information is yet available as to the numbers or names of the next batch of British incapacitated military prisoners who will be released, nor have His Majesty's Government any information as to the precise numbers and names of British military doctors whose release it is hoped to effect under the terms of the Geneva Convention. It is believed that all British civilian doctors have been released under the agreement with Germany, as no British civilian doctor has latterly appealed to us to negotiate his release.

    WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now say what was the total amount of premiums received, losses paid, or liabilities incurred under the National System
    976
    of War Risks Insurance up to the 31st December, 1914, or, if not, as to such dates as there are now completed accounts?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only repeat the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend on 11th February that the time has not yet come for publishing figures relating to the working of the Government War Risks Insurance Scheme.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend formulate any idea of the time when it will be possible to give the House some statement in regard to this very important matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid it will not be possible to give any detailed figures while the risks are as they are. During that period we might have losses that would quite upset the estimate.

    PRICE OF BREAD.
    Mr. SUTTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of members of the Master Bakers' Association throughout the country in advancing the price of bread from time to time and also in many instances reducing the weight of the loaf sold; whether he is aware that in many districts a number of people have been convicted for selling bread otherwise than by weight in accordance with the Bread Act of 1836; and whether he will take steps to have this Act put into operation so that the public may be made aware of the weight of the bread they purchase?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the price of bread has risen, or that, alternatively, the size of the loaf has been reduced. There have been recently, as my hon. Friend states, a number of convictions for contraventions of the Sale of Bread Act, 1836, and this seems to indicate that local authorities are alive to the importance of enforcing the provisions of that Act.
    Mr. SUTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the local authorities on this question, because the law in many places has practically become a dead letter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will confer with the Local Government Board on the subject; they are in communication with the local authorities.

  China (Japanese Demands).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether His Majesty's Government has received any representations from the Chinese Government relating to the demands presented by the Japanese Government for economic privileges; and, in such case, can he state their nature?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the Nicholson estate, comprising the town-lands of Ballyrush, Annaghcor, Sheerevagh, and Cloonamughan, situate in the Lakeview East division of the Sligo Union, will be purchased by the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board have made an offer for the purchase of this property, but it has not been accepted.

  Housing and Town Planning Act.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of the staff engaged at the offices of the Board in connection with the administration of town planning in England and Wales under the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909; the accumulated cost of the salaries and travelling expenses of the staff since the Act was passed; the number of town planning schemes finally adopted; and the number of houses built, or to be built, in connection with these schemes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The administration at the Local Government Board of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, in regard to town planning is conducted by the Housing and Town Planning Department of the Board, which is concerned also with the administration of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts; and it is not practicable to state the cost of the stall as regards town planning only. Moreover, other members of the Board's staff give part of their services to that Department. The number of town planning schemes made by local authorities and finally approved by the Board is four; three other schemes have been made by local authorities and submitted to the Board for approval; and the Board have authorised ninety-one other schemes to be
  978
  prepared. It may be roughly estimated that the area of land comprised in town planning schemes approved or in contemplation is equal to about half the area of land already built upon in England and Wales. I have no information with respect to the number of houses built or to be built in connection with these schemes. The schemes do not require the erection of houses, but limit the number of houses to be erected on particular areas. It rests with the owners of the land within the area of the schemes to decide when building shall take place and, subject to the restrictions referred to, what number of houses shall be erected.

  Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the motor boats used by the Metropolitan Police attached to the Thames Division are unsafe and dangerous to the lives of the crews; whether he is aware that in January, 1913, Sergeant Spooner of this division was drowned near Southwark Bridge, and that the coroner's jury condemned these boats; is he aware that the police authorities then promised to replace the unsafe craft with an efficient service; and will he see that steps are taken to safeguard the lives of the police employed on this duty by the provision of proper boats?
  Mr. McKENNA: The boats referred to were not in ordinary circumstances dangerous, but owing to a deficiency in engine power one of them upon the occasion mentioned was unable to make headway against a strong tide, and a collision occurred, resulting, unfortunately, in the death of Sergeant Spooner. The coroner's jury added to their verdict a rider to the effect that the boat should have been provided with a more powerful engine. This verdict was given on 5th March, 1913, but action had already been taken immediately after the accident on 10th January, and all boats of the same type were withdrawn from the lower river, for which a fleet equipped with more powerful engines has now in part been provided. The boats withdrawn are in use above Southwark Bridge, where navigation is easier and currents less strong.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the new boats have been provided?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire. I do not know of my own knowledge.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that three constables of the Greenwich division of the Metropolitan Police have been punished by the police authorities on a charge of persuading police to join the National Union of Police and Prison Officers; is he aware that the fine inflicted on Constable Davies amounts to £63 14s., and in the cases of Constables M'Shea and Shave to £54 12s. each; and can he see his way to cancel or reduce this punishment?
  Mr. McKENNA: Some constables of the "R" division of the Metropolitan Police having complained to their officers that they were being pressed against their will by certain senior members of the force to join secretly an unauthorised association styling itself the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, an inquiry was held. Conclusive evidence established the fact that the constables named in my hon. Friend's question had been guilty of a very serious breach of discipline by endeavouring to induce the younger constables to act in contravention of Standing Orders on the subject, and they were reduced in pay 6s. a week, to regain advancement at the rate of 1s. a week a year. The misconduct of these constables was deliberate, for repeated admonitions on this subject had been given. The three constables had by their misconduct rendered themselves liable to dismissal. A lesser punishment was inflicted after being very carefully considered. I do not think the case is one for interference by me.

  Dolgelley Council School.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if a special sub-committee of the Merionethshire education authority, acting on representations made by the Board, recommended the extension of the existing council school at Dolgelley, provided that the guardians would sell a piece of land for a playground; what would have been the cost of such extension; and what steps the board or the local authority took to persuade the guardians to sell the land required?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board did not make any representations to the Merionethshire local education authority, or to any sub-committee of
  980
  that authority, recommending the extension of the existing council school at Dolgelley. For some years past the Board's officers have expressed the opinion that the restricted character of the site made it unsatisfactory for school purposes, and the premises have been found to be both insanitary and inconvenient. The Board were informed by the authority that they had placed themselves in communication with the guardians of the Dolgelley Union in order to ascertain whether they would sell a piece of land, and that the guardians were not prepared to do so. I have no information as to what would have been the cost of any extension of the buildings that may have been contemplated. The Board have no power to intervene in any negotiations which an education authority may think fit to enter into, for the acquisition of land by agreement for such a purpose, and no steps were taken by the Board to persuade the guardians to sell land.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would not the cost of putting the existing school into a sanitary and convenient condition and acquiring a playground have been much less than the £5,000 which it is proposed to spend on a new school?
  Mr. PEASE: I understand there was no opportunity for obtaining the additional land required for the alteration, and without it it was quite impossible to put this school into a satisfactory condition.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the board of guardians are now willing to sell that piece of land?
  Mr. PEASE: That is not a matter at all for the Board of Education. The question possibly may arise between the Local Government Board and the guardians, but certainly it does not come within the province of the Board of Education.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he has received any resolutions from the parish councils of Brithdir and Islaw'r-dref protesting against the erection of a new school at Dolgelley?
  Mr. PEASE: A copy of the resolution passed at a meeting of the parish council of Brithdir and Islaw'r-dref reached the Board yesterday.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he has seen a letter sent from the Board on 28th September last to the ratepayers in Dolgelley, who appealed against the new school, asking them to give their reasons for the appeal, and their answer of 12th October giving those reasons and asking to be heard; and why no reply was sent by the Board to the letter of 12th October?
  Mr. PEASE: I have again seen the correspondence referred to, and I find that on 13th October the Board formally acknowledged the letter of 12th October from the appellants' solicitors. This letter gave no new or sufficient reasons against the new school. On 20th October a copy of the letter of 12th October was forwarded to the local education authority for their observations. The Board did not receive their reply until 19th December. The views expressed by the local education authority agreed with those held by the Board's officers and, on reconsideration of all the circumstances, the Board came to the conclusion that no ground whatever had been disclosed for overruling the discretion of the local education authority, and on 24th December they informed the appellants' solicitors of their decision.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a letter which gives the reasons asked for under Section 8 of the Education Act of 1902 is a letter giving sufficient reasons to have the case properly considered and not put off for two months and decided behind the backs of the people who appealed?
  Mr. PEASE: I think it is most important that the Board of Education should not decide this off its own bat, but should consider what the views were of the local education authority, and they communicated with the local education authority and that authority reported to the Board of Education, and as soon as we reconsidered the question we immediately informed the parties interested of our decision.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Am I to understand that the Board only consulted one side of this question without allowing those who held other views to express their opinions?
  Mr. PEASE: We asked the other side to put any views they held into writing and that we would take them into consideration.
  982
  In the writing there was no fact before us to justify us in coming to any other conclusion than the one at which we arrived.

  Beer and Spirits (Manufacture).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the acreage devoted in the United Kingdom to the production of material for the manufacture of beer and spirits, respectively?
  Sir H. VERNEY: The acreage of barley in the United Kingdom in 1914 was 1,873,280 acres, that of hops was 36,661 acres. No figures are available as to the proportion of home-grown grain used for brewing or distilling; but a largo proportion of the barley crop is used for feeding stock.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will be completed?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The original valuation cannot be completed until provisional valuations have become final, either by effluxion of time or by settlement on appeal. My. hon. Friend will remember that the limit of time for objecting to provisional valuations has been indefinitely extended by reason of the War, and the actual service of such valuations has been retarded both by decisions in the Courts and by the general dislocation (including loss of staff) consequent on the War. Subject to these considerations the Board of Inland Revenue anticipate that the valuations will be made by the end of June next.

  Easter Bank Holiday.
  Mr. TURTONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that so many bank clerks are on active service and that those who remain are working at high pressure, and moreover as on the Saturday before Easter very little business is done, he is prepared to declare Saturday, 3rd April, an additional Bank holiday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that there would be considerable difficulties in giving effect to the suggestion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business is proposed for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): On Monday we shall take the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and various stages of the other Bills on the Paper.
  On Tuesday, the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  On Wednesday, we hope to make the Motion adjourning the House for the Easter holidays, but probably we shall have to ask the House to sit on Thursday for Royal Assent.
  All this is, of course, subject to the exigencies of emergency legislation.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what length of time it is proposed that the House should adjourn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not like to name an exact date, but I think until some time about the 13th or 14th April.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is desirable that this House should not be sitting for any considerable time during the present crisis?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Ordered, That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[The Prime Minister.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

  CHILD LABOUR (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I rise for the purpose of taking what is rather an unusual course, that is of raising once more the question of the shortage of labour in agricultural
  998
  districts in this country, which was discussed at some length only a few nights ago. I do so because I am absolutely convinced of the extreme urgency of facilities being given for the purpose of making really effective arrangements for sowing the spring crops of all descriptions in this country before it is too late. The two chief sources of obtaining further labour which may be profitably considered are, first, the labour of women in agricultural pursuits, and especially in dairying and all the processes connected with it; and, secondly, boy labour to be obtained with the aid and assent of the education authorities of this country. I make no apology to the House for raising this question again, because, with all respect to the two Ministers who took part in the Debate on that occasion, their speeches seemed to me to be wholly unsatisfactory. An observation that I made earlier in the Debate, I think, applied very properly to the speeches of both those right hon. Gentlemen. It was that for anything we could gather from their speeches, they wholly ignored the great struggle in which all of us are engaged at the present time, and in regard to which it has always seemed to me that the largest possible provision of food grown in our country at a time like this is a factor of the very utmost and gravest possible importance.
  This is the 4th March. How much time have we got for the work before us? That is a very grave consideration. It is a matter, of course, for agricultural experts to decide, but all the experience I have had for a great number of years—I have sown a vast number of spring crops and other articles of that description—has always taught me that the earlier you can get these crops in the better the results you obtain. I think everybody would agree, if they had the doing of it, they would like their spring crops in by the end of March if possible, and certainly not later than the beginning of April. If this work is not done, and not done properly, within the time, we shall certainly see another shortage of a more serious description than the shortage of labour in agricultural districts, namely, a shortage in the production of food in our own country, which is of the most vital importance. Tomorrow is 5th March. Nearly a week has been lost already since this question was raised in the House of Commons, and time is going on. Nothing at present has been done. I do not say steps have not been

  999
  taken to try to bring it about, but no effective agricultural labour has been added to the stock available up to the present time. Day by day is going by, and it becomes more urgent every moment.
  Why are we cornered every time in the way that we are? I will tell the House why I think it is. I asked a question of the representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House a week ago across the Table while I was speaking, and I repeated it in the form of a question a few days afterwards. I asked him whether the Consultative Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture in August last had made any Report or Reports to His Majesty's Government, and, if so, would they lay them upon the Table? What was his reply? When I came to ask the question he said:—
  "The Board received a formal Report, dated the 24th August, from their Consultative Committee. This Report was marked 'Private and confidential. For the information of the Board of Agriculture only, and not for publication.' In these circumstances I am unable to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's request."
  What were we to understand? What was the only inference we could draw from that reply? That the Report was not to be published by the wish of the Committee. That is the only inference I was able to draw, but the exact opposite is the case, as I have since learned. The Chairman of the Committee has thought it right, and I am very grateful to him, to give me a copy of a letter he has addressed to Lord Lucas, the President of the Board of Agriculture, together with his reply. What Sir Ailwyn Fellowes says is this:—
  "I have just read Sir Harry Verney's reply last night in the House of Commons to Mr. Chaplin's question. Let me at once say that our Report on wheat supply was marked 'Private and confidential' for the Board, as we did not wish anything to leak out until the Board had considered it."
  It was sent to them on the 24th August, and they have had many months to consider it since then. The letter proceeds:
  "We fully expected, however, that, whether the Board agreed or not with our view, they would, in fairness to the Committee, have let the public know what had been suggested by them. I understand that there is to be a Debate in the House to-morrow, and as it is perfectly impossible to get the Committee together at such short notice, I feel I am expressing their wishes that our Report on the wheat supply, the memorandum on labour and the Report on sugar beet, should be laid on the Table of the House of Commons."
  Now I come from that to Lord Lucas' reply. What he says is this:—
  "Lord Lucas has asked me to say that in his opinion the publication of the Consultative Committee's Report on wheat supplies, which would
  1000
  inevitably lead to a full Debate on the subject in Parliament, would be against the public interest at the present time."
  I observe that Lord Lucas raises no objection whatever to the other two Reports on labour and sugar beet being published, and therefore I presume that we shall shortly have them laid upon the Table. His only objection is to the Report on wheat? Why, I cannot imagine, because all the world knows exactly the position with regard to wheat, and though it may be in the interests of the Board of Agriculture, under its present management, that this Report should not be published, I cannot conceive how the public interest is to be damaged by the publication of any Report on this question of the present position of the wheat supply. However, as that is the opinion of the Noble Lord, my mouth will be absolutely closed, and I shall not have a word more to say on that subject, although it is possible I may say something with regard to the two other Reports. I have been informed by a communication this morning of the Report on sugar beet, and a draft letter has been sent to me on the subject of labour which is of the greatest importance at the present moment. I want to turn for a moment to a statement made by the representative of the Board of Agriculture the other night in this House. He said:—
  "The right hon. Gentleman (referring to me) has asked me what we were doing as regards certain prominent agriculturists."
  What I asked him was about his own Consultative Committee, and I did not ask him about any other prominent agriculturists. He continued:—
  "Of course, the question of labour is one of the most important. We consulted the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Charles Bathurst) as President of the Chamber of Agriculture and Mr. Colin Campbell as President of the Farmers' Union, and with the co-operation of these two gentlemen, who represent the vast majority of the farming community, we decided that we ought to call upon the farmers to furnish a proof of this shortage in connection with the Labour Exchanges."
  I thought it was a very curious decision when I heard it, for this reason: that six weeks or more ago the Board of Agriculture had sent a communication to the Central Chamber of Agriculture in these words:—
  "The Board are satisfied that the shortage of farm labour has become very serious indeed in certain districts, if not throughout the country generally.…"
  It has become so generally since then.
  "And the time has arrived when farmers must take concerted action to deal with the situation if they are to carry on their business with profit to themselves and in the interests of the nation."

  1001
  I thought it my duty to communicate with these two Gentlemen, one of whom sits on this side of the House and the other is a Lincolnshire farmer whom I have known for many years. I telegraphed to the hon. Member for Wilton, and said we should be having another Debate on this question, but evidently my notice was too short, and only half an hour ago I got a telegram from him saying:—
  "Sorry I cannot come. Make any use whatever you please of my communication. Verney's statement incorrect. All I stated was willingness of Central and Associated Chambers to co-operate in formation of county committees on initiative of Labour Exchanges to consider local demands and possible supply. Not a word said at interview by President or Verney about requiring—"
  4.0 P.M.
  I ought to say that the words used by him were, "We ought to call upon the farmers," but, as I was telegraphing, I used the one word "requiring," which I thought had exactly the same meaning as "calling upon"—
  "requiring farmers to furnish proof of shortage. Strongly advocate employment of suitable boys under supervision of education authority, failing suitable adult labour. Myself advocated this originally in question to Prime Minister last August."
  I remember the occasion, though I dare say the Prime Minister with the vast multitude of his occupations does not remember it, and, as far as I remember, the Prime Minister gave either an absolute or a qualified promise that the question of boy labour would be entertained by the Government. That is a matter which can easily be referred to, but, thinking that the hon. Member was going to be here, himself till after I had left home, I did not bring that particular quotation with me. I was so convinced that the House would be interested to hear what the chairman of the Farmers' Union says on the subject that I have had typed copies made of some abstracts of the letter which tie wrote to me. In writing to him, I asked him to give his opinion generally on the situation of the shortage of labour, and I put some specific questions in addition. This is his reply:—
  "(1) There is a shortage of labour in every agricultural district I know. It is short now in a time that is not a busy one. When seeding time and harvest comes on the supply will be still shorter. In soma districts the shortage is acute now. It is not a question of price. I do not think that anywhere there is a surplus of useful (not good) agricultural labour. The casual town labour, male and female, is of comparatively little value on a farm, at any price."
  Anybody who is acquainted with the subject will agree with that statement.
  "(2) I am strongly of opinion that under the circumstances boy labour should be used if the
  1002
  parents concur. The need of it is urgent. (3) In my opinion the use of boy labour should not be postponed a single day. I look at the matter from two points of view: 1, the farmer, as a trade; 2, the national point of view, in that especially at a time of national crisis like this the utmost possible quantity of food should be grown for the national need.…"
  I do not suppose that there is anyone who will dispute that statement.
  "From the farmer's point of view only, he must put up with any loss and inconvenience the same as any other trader; but, from a national point of view, if the Government lay great stress on the production of food, and I have no means of knowing how great this need is—."
  I may say that we know, from the statement of the hon. Baronet representing the Board of Agriculture the other night, what they think about it, because he said that the policy at the back of the Government, which had always to be remembered and which we all must adopt, was that the land must be cultivated and that the cows must be milked. Then Mr. Campbell, the chairman of the Farmers' Union, goes on to say:—
  "Then, in that case, they are bound to supply us by any possible means with a sufficiency of skilled labour, and to put no obstacles in the way of getting it, and country boys are skilled. If this labour is not speedily forthcoming, less than the normal quantity will be grown, let alone an abnormal quantity."
  I always wish to be strictly fair in any quotation that I make on any subject, and therefore I must trouble the House with one other from the same gentleman. He says:—
  "Whether it will to any appreciable extent make the shortage good I am unable to express an opinion, but I shall give my thorough support to the Government scheme of getting labour from the towns, male and female, Belgian refugees, and Irish."
  When I read that, seeing that my correspondent had already heartily condemned labour from the towns as useless at any price, I thought to myself that it was a touching illustration of the confidence which he reposed in His Majesty's Government generally and in the Board of Agriculture in particular, and which I am bount to say at the present time, so far as the Board of Agriculture is concerned, with all due respect to the hon. Baronet opposite, I do not altogether share. I need not trouble the House with any further quotations from this gentleman, who, I think, has made the case which I ventured to submit to the House the other night even stronger than it was before. I must ask the House to remember that the two men whom I have quoted are the two witnesses brought forward and cited on his own behalf by the hon. Member opposite who represents the Board of

  1003
  Agriculture. I do not think that I need discuss the hon. Member's other expedients at any length to-night, although I had not the opportunity of doing so on the night that he spoke, because I had spoken before him. In my humble opinion, with the exception of women, there is no other source of labour which he recommended which can be depended upon in an urgent and immediate crisis like this. He spoke of Belgian, Danish and Dutch labour, all of which he thought might be employed in helping the sowing of spring corn. How does he suppose that the work is to be happily conducted when the employer cannot speak a word of the language of those whom he is employing or get anyone to interpret it, and when those whom he is employing cannot speak a word or make any explanation whatever in English? It does seem to me that to look to that kind of labour as a hopeful expedient in an urgent and immediate crisis is really a singularly futile proposal.
  There was another expedient. They were to get the boys from the reformatory schools. They may get them from the reformatory schools, but what use are they as compared with the boys living in their own villages under their own thumbs, and known to them all? Those expedients—I do not think I have omitted any expedient that was suggested by the hon. Member—hold out no hope whatever of success. Look at it from another point of view. The labour of which he spoke has got to be imported into the country. How are you going to provide for their habitation? What is their position in that case compared with the boys for whose labour we ask? All these boys are on the spot. They are all living in houses in the village, and in nine cases out of ten any boy that was employed at the present moment in helping to get the spring crops into the ground would be serving in all probability under his own father on the same farm and living in a house where he has been living all his life. No preparation of any sort or kind for their housing would be required. I will not deal now with the other Reports submitted to the President by the Consultative Committee, except to say that they strongly enforce the view which I have submitted to the House with regard to boy labour.
  The question of sugar beet is one which I think may well wait for another occasion, although greater temptation to make some observations to a Free Trade Government
  1004
  like those who sit opposite to me to-night I do not think that I underwent in the whole course of my life. I recognise the position in which we are all placed, and I do not want to do anything whatever to embarrass the Government in the position of extreme national difficulty in which they are placed, and in which, if I may venture to say so, strong party man as I am, I think, on the whole, they have done much to deserve well of the nation. In the few observations which I have made I have only given expression to the convictions which I hold most deeply on this subject. Because of those conditions I have thought it was my duty, if I could obtain the opportunity, to put the matter once more before the House before the Adjournment in the hope that some concession may yet be made to us on the subject of boy labour, which, in the opinion of those who represent, according to the hon. Member, the vast majority of the farming community in this country, is entertained and desired with a conviction as strong as mine. There is not a shadow of difference among them, and they are the people who really ought to know what is needed.
  I think I ought to have read something more which fell from Mr. Colin Campbell. He dealt with the wages of agricultural labourers, and he said most distinctly that there was no comparison with the towns. These labourers were quite as well if not better off in that respect. On the whole, taking all things into consideration, agricultural labour was better paid than town labour, as wages were raised very considerably some time ago, and quite recently they had gone up a second time. As far as I am concerned, I have absolutely nothing either to gain or to lose, except from a national point of view, whatever may be the decision of the House on this question. But I do consider it to be of such real and vital importance, constituting so great and practical a difficulty at the present time, that I have put my opinion as clearly as I can in public, before Parliament, and I have also taken another and perhaps very unusual course—for which I make no apology—I have approached some of the leading Members of this Government privately on this subject. I need not say I have received from them a kindness and courtesy which I shall never forget, whether my suggestions are accepted or not. All this I have done because of the knowledge and experience gained by upwards of fifty years' thought and study, fortune and misfortune

  1005
  combined, in connection with this interest. These are the deliberate and profound convictions I entertain. We are in a moment of great crisis with regard to the production of spring food for the service of this country, and if the opportunity is lost now it may never again recur.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The right hon. Gentleman apologised to the House for raising this subject again. I hope he will not think it impertinent of me if I say there is not a Member, in whatever part of the House he sits, who is not rejoiced when the right hon. Gentleman is good enough to address the Horse. Neither do I think any apology is needed, because, from the point of view of the Board of Agriculture, there could certainly be no subject which we consider more important than this question of providing about to carry on the work of the farm. The right hon. Gentleman will allow me, for one or two minutes, to deal with a point of great importance at the moment—the question of the Agricultural Consultative Committee. The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question the other day with regard to publishing the Report of that Committee, and I gave him an answer which I ask him to believe was given in all good faith. It was to the effect that the Report was private and confidential, and was not for publication. Until Sir Ailwyn Fellowes addressed a letter to my Noble Friend Lord Lucas, we had not the smallest idea that the Consultative Committee wished the Report to be published. But it is clear from that letter that they have no objection to its publication, and I would remind the House that that answer I gave in the House was drafted before we became aware of that fact. I do not wish to seem to exaggerate, but I think hon. Members will realise that, in this time of war, there are subjects of extreme delicacy and importance on which agriculture has a bearing, and the Agricultural Consultative Committee has enabled my Noble Friend Lord Lucas to put forward, with the utmost authority, the opinion of the agricultural world on particular questions.
  On questions which come up for discussion in the Cabinet, we can put forward, with the whole authority of agricultural opinion behind my Noble Friend, the views of this very expert Agricultural Consultative Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to give an instance. If
  1006
  the question should come under consideration of the slaughter of animals, with a view to preventing the slaughter of immature stock, my Noble Friend would, through the Committee, secure the best expert agricultural opinion in this country on the effect of any proposed order. If these Reports were published, the raison d'être of the Consultative Committee is quite gone, and it would become merely a Committee—a most valuable one—of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. What we ask of this Committee, which has for six months assisted us very materially, is that they should give us their expert opinion, in order that we may be helped to come to a decision on particular questions. This they have done, and are still doing, most loyally and ungrudgingly, and with the utmost readiness, and their advice has been of the greatest value. If anything I have said should seem to depreciate the splendid work done by the Committee, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the very last thing the Board of Agriculture wish to do. We recognise the splendid help which has been given in these matters, and I am privileged to thank the Committee publicly for what they have done. I hope they will find it possible to continue their help during this time of War.
  One word with regard to the question of labour. I ventured to put, at extreme length, a few days ago, my own views on this subject. I cannot help thinking there is much less difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself than would appear to be the case. We both start from the same standpoint. The work on the farm must be done. We must get really effective labour to do it, and we must not let pass any possibility of getting such labour. The only difference between us is whether the labour the right hon. Gentleman suggests is more effective than the labour I suggest, because if, in the opinion of the House, or of the Board of Agriculture, one form of labour is more effective than another that settles the point, and there is no other consideration involved. We are not the Board of Education or a Women's Suffrage Society. All we have to consider is, how best to get the work on the farms done. The Board of Agriculture does not think the boy labour is effective. It may be, and, of course, it is better than nothing, but the question is, what is the most effective form of labour?
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Available?
  Sir H. VERNEY: Yes, available labour. I venture again to put this point, that the great difficulty of the Board of Agriculture in dealing with this matter of labour is to find out what is the demand. It is easy for people to come down and say there is a shortage of agricultural labour. Of course there is, but is it possible to find out on what particular farm it is wanted; whether two or three men are wanted on one farm, or ten on another. Therefore we think it is essential, in the first place, to get at the demand. I would like to give one instance. It was the case of a farmer in a very large way. He came to the Board and told us that ten of his men had enlisted, and ten others had been notified that they would have to join the Colours, and, as a result, he would be literally left with two men and two boys to cultivate his land. They could not do it, and the land would have to go out of cultivation. Nothing could be more serious than that, and, therefore, the Board took upon itself to make minute inquiries into this case. It was found that, whereas ten men had been notified, in fact only one had gone, and in the case of the ten enlisted, Belgians had taken their place, so that the work of the farm was going on as usual.
  Colonel F. LOCKWOOD: Was it a grass farm or arable?
  Sir H. VERNEY: It was a mixed farm. We thought it was our duty to get at the demand, and the only way, so far as we knew, to do that, was to ask the farmers to meet the Labour Exchange. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my statement that the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) and Mr. Colin Campbell have co-operated with us. Mr. Colin Campbell issued a letter to the National Farmers' Union, in which he says clearly that the farmers individually cannot do this, and probably the Labour Exchanges are the bodies most likely to be able to go into the matter. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division, in his capacity as President of the Chamber of Agriculture, has written, strongly urging the chamber to accept the invitation of the Government to help the Labour Exchanges in this matter. Thus both these gentlemen have co-operated with us in trying to find out exactly what is the demand for labour. The right hon. Gentleman has said, and very properly so, "Here we have been a week, a precious week has gone by, and what have you done?" The right hon. Gentleman knows
  1008
  how difficult it is to do anything in a week, but I will tell him what we have done. The Labour Exchanges have always been considered rather useless in regard to agriculture, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has furnished me with some figures showing what a Labour Exchange can do in an emergency. In a period of four weeks last year—up to 11th September—there were found, through the Labour Exchange—apart from hop-pickers and other similar labour—1,038 men absolutely for work on the farm. In that period of four weeks the Labour Exchange was able to put on farms 1,038 men who would not have been put there otherwise. Let me give another instance showing how the Labour Exchange has helped in this matter. In the present year the Bedford Exchange has been able to do something. Six farmers applied to it. Of course it is impossible to find labour if the farmers do not apply. These six farmers to whom I am referring have actually engaged through the Exchange seven men who are still working on their farms.
  Yesterday, in consequence of our Debate on the policy we have taken up, I venture to repeat, in co-operation with the hon. Member for Wilton and Mr. Colin Campbell, a meeting was held of one branch of the National Farmers' Union, and a representative of the Labour Exchange has reported to us, by telegraph, what happened. He informs us that the branch sent one of its members from the meeting to inquire about the class of labour reported to be available through the Exchange, and on his return that member reported it was quite true there was a considerable number of men available, many of them, judging from the particulars supplied, being good, experienced men. If other branches would do as this particular branch has done, and if farmers would engage labour through the Labour Exchange, it will be possible in a certain number of cases to find efficient men to take the place of the labour that has gone. It seems to us there is no way in which farmers can tap this sort of labour except through the Labour Exchange. I do not wish to address the House at any length again upon the expedients we have proposed. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon one question. We approach this matter from rather different points of view, but what is the real difference between us? He thinks that boy

  1009
  labour on a farm is a good thing. He thinks that it is a good thing for a boy of twelve or thirteen to work on a farm. I do not.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: No, the whole of my plea is for the use of boy labour at the present moment, which is a crisis of very great urgency. I say that not a single moment ought to be lost in this matter. I am the last person in the world who wants to interfere with the education of boys on ordinary occasions, but when we are confronted with statements such as I have read to the House, statements to the effect that unless boy labour is allowed there will be a great falling off in the production of food, then I say everything else ought to give way to it.
  Sir H. VERNEY: Then may I put it this way: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon thinks that if you can get boy labour on a farm it will be effective.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: It is the best thing we can get now.
  Sir H. VERNEY: That is where opinions differ. There is a prominent Member of this House, an agriculturist, who told me the other day that, in his opinion, boy labour was only a nuisance. He did not think boy labour on a farm a very good thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was it?"] I will tell the hon. Gentleman afterwards, but that at any rate is the opinion of some people. We have only one object in this House, and that is to get the work on the farm done. My feeling is, that boy labour will not help in the cultivation of spring wheat to the which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Not spring wheat only.
  Sir H. VERNEY: Whatever may be the particular work which the right hon. Gentleman wishes done, I believe it is possible to get it better done than it can be done by a boy twelve or thirteen years of age. It is because it is our object, just as much as it is the right hon. Gentleman's object, to get effective labour to work on the farms, that we venture to put forward these suggestions, and say that boy labour should be the last and not the first expedient to be adopted.
  Mr. PETO: I listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. Baronet's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin). It is quite true that this is the second occasion upon which this question has been debated in the
  1010
  course of a few days, but the question has not been satisfactorily debated or exhausted, and, what is more, no real means of meeting this very serious difficulty was suggested either by the President of the Board of Education or by the Under-Secretary for the Board of Agriculture when the question was debated on a previous occasion. I am very glad indeed that it should be raised again now, because of all the branches of carrying on the War in which this country is engaged, there is no branch which could possibly be more important than the feeding of the civil population, and the proportion of food that can be grown in this country is one of the most urgent branches of that question. The reason why it is more important than any other is so obvious to hon. Members that, it is hardly worth mentioning, but every quarter of wheat or quarter of barley and feeding-stuff, every single pig actually in this country is safe here and available for our own use, no matter what contingencies may arise in the War.
  I am convinced that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) has rendered a public service in bringing this matter in his very pleasant manner before the notice of the House. The hon. Baronet said he limited himself to considering what was the class of labour that was most effective, and as soon as he had settled that he had settled the whole question. In that one statement we see perfectly clearly that the Board of Agriculture do not realise the urgency of the matter. I would put it in this way: Considering the immense proportion of our agricultural population that is serving in the Army, and in other ways occupied with matters relating to the War, what we have to consider is not only what is the most effective form of labour, but what is the amount of labour of all kinds that can be rendered available for this purpose, and not what is the most effective form of labour that may be able to be found, perhaps, in a few months' time. You may be able to import some, as my right hon. Friend said, from other countries. Various suggestions were made, but every one of them was less immediately available than the very class of labour which we are asking should be utilised. It is perfectly obvious that the boy labour in the country is not only the most immediately available, but is among the most effective forms of labour that we have. May I read to the House one very short extract of what occurred at a meeting of agriculturists held only the other day? At the Central and Associated

  1011
  Chambers of Agriculture only last week there was a debate on this matter, and one member, Mr. T. Latham, said:—
  "In Berkshire he knew of farms which were being worked by the farmers themselves. All the men had left, and the horses never went out. A large number of cows were being sold for beef, and dairies were threatened with extinction. Unless something was done at once, hundreds of cows in Berkshire would be done away with. Farmers had gone boldly to the front and had done their best to supply the War Office with labour, and now that they were suffering in consequence it behoved the chambers to appeal to the War Office and Board of Agriculture to assist them. He was employing schoolboys, with the consent of the local education authority; they were very useful and loved the work."
  We heard statements made in the Debate the other day which would lead one to suppose it was intended to introduce a species of slavery. Whatever the opinion of hon. Members may be about the employment of boys, the opinion of the boys is that it is far from slavery. If you ask the average country boy, his opinion would be that he would infinitely prefer the work to being stuck on a bench in school. The hon. Baronet made the suggestion, and it is still part of his programme, that meetings should be called to be attended by farmers, who will lay before the meeting their actual labour needs. There, again, I ask the House to note the very leisurely proceeding the Board of Agriculture propose to take. They do not realise, and did not show that they realised in the Debate the other night by a single sentence in a speech, the urgency and importance of this matter.
  With regard to what the hon. Baronet said as to the Report of the Consultative Committee. I readily accept his statement that it was marked "Private and confidential," and that he had never imagined that it would be intended for anybody but the Board of Agriculture; but I do say it is a somewhat unsatisfactory position. I quite understood what the hon. Baronet said about the Consultative Committee being intended only to advise the Cabinet. If that is all their duty, it is not very satisfactory to the House, to the country, and particularly to the farming interest, to feel that they are to have no access to this body of expert opinion, and that they are to have no means whatever of knowing whether or not the course the Cabinet are pursuing in this matter of the production of wheat and other foodstuffs is settled in accordance with the most expert agricultural opinion in the country. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in
  1012
  regard to this very great responsibility, one among many great responsibilities the Government have taken upon themselves, they are keeping, I will not say suppressing, but keeping for their own private information and not to be communicated to farmers, opinion which might conceivably be of enormous value in solving the problem of how we can grow more food. They are keeping all this information entirely to themselves.
  With regard to the question which really formed the basis of these Debates—the question put by the hon. Member for Wilton on the 28th August last—I mention it now because the Prime Minister is present and the question was addressed to him—there is no doubt that the answer he returned gave great satisfaction to the country. It showed that the Government intended, with regard to boy labour, to do something more than maintain a benevolent neutrality, and that they were going to do what they could to render it available. When the President of the Board of Education referred to this matter the other day he said it had been misunderstood and almost misstated, and that it was intended only to apply to the emergency of the last harvest, but had been held to be generally applicable. I ask the Prime Minister to consider how that is regarded by farmers. On 28th August last the number of their labourers who had joined the Forces must have been comparatively limited, certainly nothing approaching the number that will now be passing from the farms and are not available for agricultural labour. They naturally say, "At the time you had not got our labourers the head of the Government, the Prime Minister, gave us every reason to believe that he would do everything in his power to assist us in the matter of boy labour to replace the labourers who enlisted."
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): What did I say?
  Mr. PETO: I agree it would be preferable to read the exact words. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) asked the Prime Minister—
  "if he is aware that a large number of farmers are ready and anxious to facilitate the enlistment after harvest of the younger men in their employ if they could have the temporary services of boys between eleven and fourteen years of age to assist them in the necessary farm operations during the autumn and winter in order to secure the sowing of next year's wheat and other necessary farm crops; and whether, under the exceptional circumstances, the Government will suspend such provisions of the Educacion Acts, or will enable boys over eleven years of age in purely agricultural districts to furnish such assistance subject

  1013
  to the approval and supervision of the local education authority?
  The Prime Minister: I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion. It would appear that the matter is well within the discretion of the local authorities, who have already had their attention called to it by the Board of Education.
  Mr. Bathurst: Are we to understand that if the local authorities took such action they would not meet with the disapproval of the Board of Education?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th August, 1914, col. 274, Vol. LXVI.]
  I quite agree that the hon. Member's question was limited in its scope. That is not my point. I ask hon. Members opposite, who take such an interest in trying to cut off this, as I think, effective source of labour in the present emergency, to consider the question from this point of view: At the time the question was asked it may have been urgent. It was, and that is no doubt the reason why the hon. Member asked it. If it was urgent then, when a few thousand agricultural labourers had joined the Colours, is it not infinitely more urgent and pressing now after seven months of war, when we see other months of war stretching out indefinitely before us, and when probably a million instead of a hundred thousand will have enlisted, or at least ten times the number which was then available for this purpose? It is very natural that there should be a feeling that there should be no holding back. If the matter was urgent then, and if they received a sympathetic reply then, and if at the present time we ask the Prime Minister afresh whether the Board of Education would now assist so far as they can and not hinder the application of this boy labour, that they should say, "Certainly, if it was urgent on the 28th August, it is more urgent now, and it will have our sympathetic consideration."
  Another argument that was put forward in the Debate the other evening was that there would be plenty of labour available for farms if only the farmers were willing to pay wages which were high enough. That view is probably held to a considerable extent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would ask hon. Members to consider that what we are dealing with is a shortage of labour, not an in-strike or a determination on the part of a certain number of people not to do a full day's work because they are not satisfied with the wages. Neither is it a question of merely inducing people to go back to their work by offering some advance in wages. I could understand their attitude more if that were the problem with which we were dealing. But it is not. You could not
  1014
  render more labour available in this emergency if the labourers were paid several shillings a week more, or if their wages were increased by 50 per cent. Undoubtedly the wages question does closely touch the problem in another way. A very large number of agricultural labourers in our Southern counties, or men who would otherwise be agricultural labourers, are engaged, probably necessarily engaged, in rendering the camps more or less habitable by the military, and are doing work for which they are not fully qualified, such as carpenters' work and the like.
  But I know of my own knowledge that a very considerable number of agricultural labourers have been attracted by these high wages. I make hon. Members opposite a present of it. I know it is so, but what are these wages? I know a case where an agricultural labourer is at present earning over £3 a week. Will hon. Members suggest that farmers are to compete with that rate of remuneration? What price do they imagine agricultural produce would have to be sold at if wages of, say, three or four times what they are at present were suddenly paid in the middle of this emergency? You would only make confusion worse confounded. I am all in favour, as of course we all are, of such arrangements being made as shall enable farmers to pay the highest possible rate of wages, but I know perfectly well that a mere increase in wages would not produce more labourers and would not meet the problem at all.
  Then there is the question of the employment of women, which the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) put as either first or second among the sources of available supply. We were asked to consider how retrograde we were in Wiltshire because we only employed 1.23 per cent. of our agricultural labour in the form of women, and how advanced they were in Northumberland where the percentage was about 40. That was suggested, I think, by the hon. Baronet. But does he really put before the House the suggestion that in this emergency it is probable that we could entirely alter the whole processes of agriculture which have grown up in generations past and suddenly employ any such percentage in the Southern counties as is employed in the North? I quite agree with an hon. Friend of mine who suggested that these ladies who take extreme views on the suffrage question might be very usefully employed if they were to go round the country and point

  1015
  out to the women that they have a patriotic duty to perform, and that it would be a very good thing in this emergency if they tucked up their skirts and performed every agricultural function which it was possible for women to do. But it does not meet the problem of spring sowing or anything of that kind at all. In the dairies, undoubtedly, there is a good deal more room, although it will not be the kind of work which in the past women have been in the habit of doing in dairies when they were on a very much smaller scale and before the great milk trade of London commenced. I do not think the hon. Baronet opposite has studied what has been said at all these various meetings which have taken place in various parts of the country—the National Farmers' Union, and meetings of agricultural associations. I have not made any special study of the subject, but I am inundated with evidence, which is open and available to every Member in the House and everybody within the country who takes any interest in it. They know perfectly well that it is so. May I read what took place on 4th January at a National Farmers' meeting at Swindon. A member said:—
  "With regard to boy labour, in respect of which the suggestion had been made that the educational authorities should relax their rules under the special circumstances and allow boys to be employed at an earlier age, he had four boys just over twelve years of age to keep going a dairy of sixty cows, and if those boys were kept at school he would have to sell at least half the herd."
  That is only one of many cases. Really, when the suggestion is made that the Labour Exchanges will solve the whole difficulty, is it quite fair to the House to put that contention forward? A question was asked on 1st March by the hon. Member, Mr. Fell. He asked:—
  "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?"
  That, so far as the spring emergency is concerned, is the problem. It is no use telling us how many town dwellers there are, because that is not the present problem at all. It is the number of agricultural labourers on their books seeking similar employment at present. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade replied:—
  "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)."
  1016
  In answer to a supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I can get details for the hon. Member if he gives me notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1915, col. 540.]
  The hon. Member (Mr. Fell) said, "These are the whole?" and the answer was "Yes." So I think there is no question that these, figures had already been gone into and were being taken as correct figures supplied by the Labour Exchanges. When we consider the number of the agricultural population, even in a single county, the Labour Exchanges over the whole of the country have not got on their books agriculturists seeking employment in anything like sufficient numbers to supply even the requirements of a single moderate sized county in the South. Therefore I hope the President of the Board of Education will show more appreciation of the urgency of the question than he did the other night, and will realise that however important attendances may be and the different rules which have been laid down, they really do not apply to an emergency like the present.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not profess, although I have represented an agricultural constituency for nearly thirty years, to have any expert knowledge of my own with regard to these matters. But, in spite of other preoccupations, I have come down, first and foremost, out of respect to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, whom we all regard not only as one of the old Parliamentary guard, but almost the foremost living veteran in ranks which are being thinned by misfortune and death, but also, as we all recognise, as one of the first authorities in regard to agricultural matters. I know that when questions of this kind are brought forward the right hon. Gentleman looks at them, as we all ought to do, not from a party, but solely from a national point of view. This is really a very difficult question, and one which we ought to approach with absolutely open and unbiassed minds, collecting, as far as we can, all available information and expert knowledge. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) quoted an answer which I gave to a question as far back as 28th August, and which, as is not always the case, seems to me, after six months, a fairly accurate and unobjectionable answer. In answer to an appeal from the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst), that the Government would suspend such provisions

  1017
  of the Education Acts as would enable boys over eleven years of age in purely agricultural districts to furnish assistance, I said:—
  "The matter is well within the discretion of the local authorities, who have already had their attention called to it by the Board of Educatiou."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th August, 1914, col. 274, Vol. LXVI.]
  In reply to a supplementary question by the same hon. Member, who asked if the House was to understand that if the local authorities took such action they would not meet with the disapproval of the Board of Education, I replied immediately, "Yes." The President of the Board of Education, speaking six months later, on 25th February last, said, in strict compliance with what I had indicated, that our policy has been, and still is, to give as much discretion as possible to local education authorities in emergencies of this kind. That is a comparatively unimportant point. But how does the matter actually stand?
  The principle on which we ought to proceed, and about which there is no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House, as laid down more than once by the representative of the Board of Agriculture, is this: In this great national emergency when the agricultural population, like the town population, has responded loyally and generously to the appeal which was made, special difficulties arise in connection with the procuring of an adequate supply of labour for the land, and the governing principles which ought to guide us is that work for the farmers sowing spring wheat is work which in the national interests ought and must be done. There is no difference of opinion as to the urgency and necessity of that primary demand. The only question is as to expediency, and ways and means as to how that demand can best be met. Various expedients can be and have been suggested. My hon. Friend, not for the first time, has pointed out that a liberal and elastic use, on the part of the farmers, of the machinery provided by the Labour Exchanges might be and ought to be effective for the purpose, and I myself think, on such evidence as has come to me, that where that machinery has been put into operation a very considerable response has followed, and I will not say the whole shortage, but a substantial part of it in particular cases has been supplied.
  Then, again, there is the question, and it is one which does not apply merely in regard to agriculture but in regard to every other interest of the country,
  1018
  whether or not in the conditions of special emergency in which we find ourselves it might not be possible to have a larger recourse to woman labour. In the part of the Kingdom which I represent, the Lowlands of Scotland, woman labour is very largely employed on the farms. It is as high in some counties as 40 per cent. I am not sure that in my own county of Fife it does not approach nearly the same figure. As you go further south the percentage dwindles and dwindles until it is as low as 1 per cent.—in fact, it is a negligible quantity altogether. Northumberland has a high record in this respect, but the further south we go—I am not trying to make invidious distinctions between different parts of the country—owing to variations largely due to local conditions, local traditions, customs and so forth, there is no doubt about the fact that the employment of female labour in agriculture diminishes and dwindles almost to the vanishing point. I cannot help thinking that in an emergency such as that with which we are at present confronted it would be very desirable if We could reinforce the ranks of agricultural labour and fill the gaps which have been left by the men who have gone to the front by a larger employment of female labour. I believe that is the opinion of agriculturists in all parts of the country. These are two possible means of dealing temporarily at any rate with a special emergency.
  5.0 P.M.
  Then I come to the question which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman of the employment of boy labour. I do not think we ought to be bound in a great national emergency like this by any pedantic regard for rules and conventions and usages which have prevailed, and rightly prevailed, when circumstances were normal. Therefore I was far from indicating in the answer I gave so far back as the month of August any such regard. I was speaking for myself, and needless to say the President of the Board of Education was particularly interested in this matter. I do not think we ought to rule out any special demand, as beyond the pale of political or statesmanlike consideration, for the employment of boy labour. It is a question of degree and of relative expediency as to the extent to which we ought to resort to one or other of these means in the way of supplying our needs. We have received returns from two-thirds of the counties of England and Wales, and these returns

  1019
  deal with the period between 1st September of last year and 3rd January of the present year, and they show that in these county areas, which embrace two-thirds of the counties, 1,152 boys and 42 girls have been allowed to leave school, making a total of 1,194, for agricultural employment. Of the boys, 34 are between 11 and 12, 763 between 12 and 13, and 354 between 13 and 14. All the girls are between 13 and 14.
  An HON. MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been a contravention of the by-laws?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have stated what has been done, and, although the figures, when you consider the magnitude of the area involved, and the extent of the work to be done on the farms, do not seem large, they do show that there has been substantial recourse to child labour—not, I am glad to say, to any great extent between the ages of thirteen and fourteen. We must all regret this for two reasons. We should all regret, if the circumstances were not exceptional, the removal of these children from school so early. In the first place, it causes a gap in their educational course at a time when it is desirable that they should have the advantage of the whole curriculum and school life. In the next place—and here I speak with more diffidence from want of special and expert knowledge—I think it is at least doubtful whether this class of labour is efficient for the main purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. It is better than nothing.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: It is the best they can get.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman makes a wise qualification. It is the best they can get, but not the best they would like. If they could get anything else they would take it. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go further than that. I think myself that the withdrawal of children from school for employment in this way is to be regretted—if the need could be met by the unemployed who are at the disposition of the Labour Exchanges. I do not think anybody will differ from that. If child labour is to be resorted to, I think it ought to be resorted to in a national emergency, subject to the conditions clearly laid down by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education a week or two ago. I will only name two or three of them. The first is that the local authorities
  1020
  should see that every effort is made for the wages to be reasonable before they entertain the idea of relieving children from school attendance. That is a very important condition; but it is not very easy to secure the observance of it. The next condition is that there is no other form of labour practically or immediately available for the work. The last condition is that the employment should be of a light character, suited to the capacity of the child, and that it should be clearly understood that it is not to extend beyond the emergency with which we are for the time being, or shall be during the continuance of the War, confronted. If these conditions are observed—and I think they are fundamental and absolutely essential—I may repeat what I said six months ago, that the Government are not going to interpose on the discretion of the local educational authorities anything in the nature of a veto. They know the local conditions, they are responsible to the ratepayers, and they are in touch with the parents of the children; but subject to these limitations they ought to have a more or less elastic discretion. I should be very sorry if the idea were to go forth that there is going to be anything like a large resort to child labour in agriculture. It is an emergency thing, an exceptional thing, a thing which ought to be circumscribed in every possible way, and ought never to be resorted to unless the local authorities are satisfied that neither by the operation of the Labour Exchanges, nor by the increased employment of female labour, the gap cannot be made good. I think if we arrive at something like a general agreement on these lines, the discussion which the right, hon. Gentleman has initiated will not have been thrown away.
  Mr. LONG: I think that, in the first place, we have to thank the Prime Minister, not only for his speech, but for his presence here this afternoon. We all realise that the pressure upon him and the demand upon his time at the present moment is enormous. The right hon. Gentleman has generously given up a portion of his time to listen to a Debate of this character. I am convinced, I may say for myself and for my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents in the agricultural interest, that they are prepared to accept to the full, not only the conditions which the Prime Minister laid down as those under which alone child labour may be available for agriculture,

  1021
  but they are prepared to accept the description which he himself gave of the only way in which this labour ought to be availed of for agriculture, or any other form of employment. The Prime Minister laid stress upon the fact that this ought not to be regarded as a permanent change in the life and upbringing of the boys. Neither my right hon. Friend, nor those who have supported him in the House or outside, would contemplate with anything but the utmost aversion any suggestion which would be likely to lead to the taking of boys away from school at a tender age and putting them on the land being a permanent arrangement. It is only because we are confronted with an exceptional state of things in connection with the great pressure arising out of the War that this change is proposed.
  May I say a word as to what fell from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture? I may say that it never occurred to one of us to charge him with any misrepresentation of facts, or with any intention to deceive the Members of this House, or anybody else. We quite understand that when he made the statement which has been referred to he was speaking of the need of farmers for labour. I think we see how it was that he came to use a particular word when referring to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Charles Bathurst) and the Chairman of the Farmers' Union. I say without hesitation that there is no suggestion that the hon. Gentleman was guilty of bad faith or anything of that kind. I must say that I think he ought not to have used the word "co-operation" in that connection. The use of that word leads to the impression that there is something more than assistance given by subordinates to the policy laid down by their superiors. The impression conveyed by his language was that the Board of Agriculture in the steps they were taking had the entire approval and co-operation of my hon. Friend. That is not so. The language used by the hon. Baronet does not prove that, and the letters of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division which my right hon. Friend read, and the letter from Mr. Campbell, make it perfectly clear that what they did was to give the best assistance in their power to the Board of Agriculture. If the Board of Agriculture adopted their policy—
  Sir H. VERNEY: I am very anxious that this point should be made clear. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division wrote a letter to the branches of the Chamber of
  1022
  Agriculture in which he said that they would probably receive a letter from the Board of Agriculture on the subject of obtaining labour through the Labour Exchanges. He strongly urged the branches of the Chamber of Agriculture to accept that suggestion. After the letter was written he did nothing but consult the hon. Member.
  Mr. LONG: That really does not alter the case. I am not charging the hon. Baronet with bad faith. I am asking him to realise that the statement does not go far. It shows that my hon. Friend the Member for the Wilton Division and others gave their best assistance to the Board of Agriculture, but it is not fair to represent them as co-operating, which means that the policy has been adopted as the result of consultation with them. It is not so. The language which the hon. Baronet has read does not lead to anything of the kind. What it does lead to is that they have put their case and, a policy having been adopted, they do their best to give effect to it. That is what the hon. Member for Wilton makes clear in his telegram, and what Mr. Campbell makes perfectly clear in his letter. I do not want to carry the thing any further. I only want to make clear that the Board of Agriculture are attributing to my hon. Friends a little more than they ought to do in the present circumstances of the case. When the hon. Baronet told us just now that the Board of Agriculture thought that their first duty was to inquire as to whether there was any shortage of labour, I was shocked. It was my privilege to preside over the Board of Agriculture for five years, and it must have greatly changed from the institution with which I was familiar if it is necessary to-day in present circumstances to have any inquiry at all as to the existence of shortage of labour in agriculture. They might as well almost have proposed to have an inquiry as to whether there is a war going on at the present time. Of course, there has been a shortage of labour and everybody has known it. It was apparent the moment war broke out. The moment that you began recruiting, and that, to the eternal credit of the agricultural districts, the response from those districts was most satisfactory, shortage of labour became an inevitable consequence.
  Sir H. VERNEY: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that he wishes to co-operate. This is what I want to put to him. We know

  1023
  that there is a shortage of labour, and we reckon it at 10 or 12 per cent. It is our business to find people who will take the place of those who have gone away. I do not think that we can do so, unless the farmers will tell us the individual farms on which there is a shortage and the men whose places it is required to fill.
  Mr. LONG: That is not what the hon. Baronet said, but if that is the case you will have no co-operation from me. If the Board of Agriculture is going to set itself up as the authority to ascertain on what farms labour is wanted, and what labour they want, then that is a task which no Board of Agriculture could possibly perform. It means inevitable delay. It is not the duty of the Board of Agriculture. They have no machinery for the purpose. It is not their business in any way whatever. Certainly, in that respect, they will get no co-operation either from me or from anybody else who is connected with agriculture. That is certainly not what I understood. I understood that the Board of Agriculture thought it was their duty to ascertain whether there was a shortage. That is not the case. I now understand that the object is to ascertain in what particular cases there is a shortage, and what it is that the farmers want. All they want is what we have got from the Prime Minister in that powerful sentence in which he declared, on behalf of the Government, that they had no intention of being bound by conditions which are essential in ordinary times, but which at a time like this must for the moment be set aside. Beyond that we do not want to carry it at all.
  The hon. Baronet laid great stress on Labour Exchanges. He produced some figures to show what Labour Exchanges are doing. They were paltry things when compared with the demand which exists in the country, and the urgency of the need. The position of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education is an exceptional one. It is his business to think much more of the educational aspect of these questions than of agriculture, industry, trade or any other matter. It is only at a moment like this that he can allow judgment to be at all affected by these other considerations. But this does not exactly apply to the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture was created because under the old system there was no Minister in this House whose business it was to keep
  1024
  constantly in view the actual needs of agriculture, and to take care that its case was fought out not only here but in the Cabinet.
  The hon. Baronet told us that these Labour Exchanges ought to be regarded by us with a favourable eye. I do not know how much experience he has had. I have had a great deal during the last six months. I have been sitting, as he knows, on one of the Government Committees. I have heard a great deal about Labour Exchanges. I have come into direct contact with the work which they are doing. I have not heard anything against them. On the contrary they are doing admirable work, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they are not going to offer any material assistance in the provision of agricultural labour, and if we rely upon them we shall be relying upon a broken reed. All that we really want is what I think we have got to-day, and that is, the assurance of the Government that they will not put obstacles in the way of the employment of boy labour where it is necessary. I heard with the greatest delight the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to female labour. It is perfectly true, as he told us, that the further you go South the more women labour decreases. I have never been able to understand it.
  I live in a dairy district myself, and the greater part of dairy work, milking and feeding cows, and attendance in the dairy, is all work of the cleanest and healthiest possible kind, and in every respect suitable for women, and it was entirely done by women when I was a young man. I cannot for the life of me understand why that system was given up. This is an opportunity to revive it, and I am thankful to have the good word, and the blessing of the Prime Minister upon the work upon which some of us are engaged, when we are making efforts to revive, women labour, and I hope that we shall succeed. Then I come to boy labour. The hon. Baronet referred to a distinguished agriculturist, a Member of this House, who has said that, in his opinion, boy labour was a nuisance. The hon. Baronet did not convey any information as to what this authority is. All I can say is, that I suppose boys vary as between different parts of the country, as they certainly do as between each other, because if a boy is carefully selected and properly supervised, he is a very valuable addition for certain kinds of labour. For instance you are urging the agricultural

  1025
  industry to increase the production of corn. To do that you must plough up land and you must harrow it. For a great deal of the land of the country which will produce the best wheat, you must have more than one person to work the plough. If you are going to use a man to do a boy's work, that is to say the leading of the horse, you will require two men instead of a man and a boy, and you are going to attempt something which will be impossible, because you cannot get the men.
  There is much work for which boys are eminently suitable and which they can do very well, and if yon want to meet the demand that wheat should be cultivated on a great deal of land which is now growing other things, you will render this labour available. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, and with his entire consent, may I say that we do not for a moment suggest that boy labour can replace man labour. We do not suggest that it ought to be adopted as a permanent system, but solely as a temporary expedient to meet an immediate and great difficulty. We accept entirely the Prime Minister's view that the matter of wages should be dealt with satisfactorily, and we are in favour of some system of supervision, whether by the local education authority or by some other local authority we do not care. We quite agree that it opens up possibilities of abuse, and we are quite certain that there ought to be some local authority to intervene between the boy and those who might abuse his labour, even at a time like this, subject to any limitations you like, we do not very much care what they are.
  Above all, we do not want to suggest, as the hon. Baronet suggested in the earlier part of his speech—I think entirely by inadvertence—that we are in favour of the employment of boy labour as a matter of course, on farms, under the age of fourteen. We never made the suggestion. The policy with regard to education has been for years a common policy. Both parties have amended the education law, and both parties have passed successive Acts of Parliament with the co-operation of the other side, whichever Government was in power, and the education policy is now the common policy of the country, and not the property of any particular party. We have no desire whatever to interfere with it, or take the boys back to the old conditions of this country which we and hon. Gentlemen opposite think were thoroughly bad for them. All that we want is that, subject to every reasonable precaution, they shall, at this moment of great emergency
  1026
  in the history of the country, be allowed to be employed on farms where they are required, and we are very grateful to the Prime Minister, not only for having attended this Debate to-day but for those very valuable words which, I believe, will go very far indeed towards removing the difficulty.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I heard the remarks of the Prime Minister. My recollection of them is not quite in accordance with the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, except in a very limited degree. The Prime Minister assented, as I expect everyone in this House will assent, to the general proposition that in an acute emergency where the labour of boys is absolutely essential, all parties will agree to its temporary employment. But what the right hon. Gentleman did not quote in his reference to the Prime Minister's statement was the right hon. Gentleman's insistence upon the limitation which he quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education.
  Mr. LONG: I beg pardon. The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said explicitly, speaking for my hon. Friend who opened this Debate and for myself and my party, that we accept with out question all the limitations mentioned by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am very glad to have that reinforced statement from the right hon. Gentleman. The limitations, therefore, to which the right hon. Gentleman assents are limitations which are very vital to the matter, and such limitations, properly applied, will have the effect, in my view, of securing the acceptance of the suggestion by the representative in this House of the Board of Agriculture. I welcome his statement, as much as I welcome that of the Prime Minister, for it was suggested to us that through the means of the Board of Agriculture it would be possible to find for farms labour other than that of boys. One of the limitations of the President of the Board of Education is the limitation that no other labour is available. The representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House has shown us clearly that other labour is available, and I trust that the utmost limits of that resource will be enforced before there is any drawing upon the labour of boys. I support all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if that be the policy of

  1027
  his party, in this matter of the school age of children.
  Unfortunately the hon. Member for Devizes, who spoke earlier in this Debate, has gone a little in the other direction in this matter. If he spoke in any way as representative of his party, the lowering of the age rather than the raising of it was really the goal of his hopes. I am rather suspicious of this insistence on the necessity of boy labour as being a continuance of the policy voiced in this House to secure by legislation a lower age, differentiating it, in the case of agricultural districts, as against the age which obtains in towns. In the towns people are more engaged in Government work for the War than are the country districts; yet the towns, I believe, have provided a greater percentage of recruits than the agricultural districts, and there has been none of that insistence on the employment of boys to come to their relief in the matter of contracts that has been experienced in agricultural districts. Hence my suspicion that this is just a continuation of the policy, which, comes down to us from prewar time, to get boys and girls in agricultural districts away from the beneficent influences of the school earlier than would be the case if they were living in towns.
  I, from my own experience and inside knowledge, accept what the Prime Minister said. The retention of boys and girls in school between twelve and fourteen years of age is most important. The Prime Minister is absolutely correct when he says that those are the years which are most effective. It is then that one is able to do most with boys and girls under the influence of their teacher. The policy of the Board of Education has been very much criticised in this connection. My own feeling is that what was said in August last probably conveyed a wrong impression to the local education authorities in rural districts. I think that they regarded what was intended as merely a temporary expedient as something which was to obtain during the whole period of the War. When the question was raised again this afternoon, it is quite clear that the statement which was made last year had reference merely to the time of winter, and I believe was intended, in the main, to wink at the difficulty of the harvest period. The local education authorities up and down the country have read more into that statement than was meant, and, in my view, have misunderstood the policy of the Board of Education in this matter
  1028
  of an undue extension of child labour in rural districts. The policy of the Board, so far as I have been able to ascertain it in recent communications to local authorities, appears to be very adequately stated in a Departmental letter which was sent to the Derbyshire education committee, and I should like to read an extract from it. It reinforces what the Prime Minister so well insisted upon, that the limitation shall be so circumscribed as to prevent any attempt to widen the extent of the employment of boys and girls. This is part of the letter from the Board to the secretary of the Derbyshire education committee:—
  "The only reason alleged for an alteration in the By-laws is that there exists 'in some places a dearth of farm labour, and that the services of boys of twelve would be very useful.' It appears to the Board that this is a proposition that might have been and probably was true on many occasions before the War, and it does not appear to afford any sufficient justification for the proposal to interrupt the education of children at the age of twelve, who have not even passed the Fifth standard. Before deciding not to enforce attendance in a particular case, the Board consider that the authorities should satisfy themselves that there is a pressing need in the public interests of agricultural labour, that that need cannot be supplied, either by utilising the services of children who are already exempt from school attendance, or by employing adult labour, and that the child selected for employment is a child who can be permitted to leave school with the least possible prejudice to his educational interests."
  Personally, I am glad that the Board sent such a letter. It is a very good answer to what is urged, not so openly in this House as outside, on behalf of the farmers. Let me take a report of the meeting of the Oxfordshire education committee. There a gentleman, speaking in the farming interests, advocated practically the setting aside of the attendance by-laws. When it was pointed out to him what that involved, that it meant, possibly, the securing of children for farmers at the age of nine or ten years, this gentleman, I believe in the interests of the farming community, actually said he was prepared to take boys of ten years of age, at which age they could "lead a horse as well as a man." There you get at the heart of the demand, but I trust that resistance to it will be continued, and that we shall have applied the limitation expressed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board, and reiterated by the Prime Minister, that you must exhaust all sources of labour supply before you attempt in any way to call upon the labour of children. I now come to the Staffordshire education committee, and in that particular case there was a suggested relaxation of the by-laws. That, I believe, was again proposed by a representative of the farming

  1029
  community, and it had the support of Lord Lichfield, who said, "They were Britons before educationists." I see nothing contradictory in the terms.
  I am bound to say that I am an educationist because I am a Briton, and I believe that the future welfare of our country is dependent upon the moral and physical well-being of the children at present in the schools. I regret very much that the suggestion made by the chairman of the Staffordshire education committee (the Reverend Prebendary C. Dunkley) was not acted upon. He opposed the movement for getting children out of school earlier, and he called the attention of the committee to this important fact, that none of the places between Birmingham and Wolverhampton had made a similar request—places full of Government orders, except Darlaston, where they were making nuts and bolts; yet it had been brought forward in the interests of the farming community. He said, "The nation's first care was the care of the child." In the work of reconstruction which will follow this War the House realises, I trust, that our hopes must be fixed upon the children at present in the schools if we are ever to compete successfully, industrially, commercially or educationally with our enemy, with whom we are now engaged in war. I wish Lord Charnwood's advice had been followed by this education committee. His words were:—
  "The ast sacrifice we should make, until it was clearly necessary, was the sacrifice of the future strength of this country, in the welfare, efficiency and capacity for public service of the rising generation."
  Hon. and right hon. Members of this House would be well employed in reading the introduction to the Report of the Board of Education's chief medical officer, Sir George Newman, who, in an admirable introductory comment, insisted upon the importance of doing everything we can to preserve the interests of the rising generation, as on the rising generation we must depend for the reconstruction of the State after the ravages of the present War. I find, on referring to what local authorities are doing, that in places where agricultural wages are high the demand for child labour is low. That experience has been referred to and quoted on the Front Bench. When you go to Scotland there is scarcely any demand for getting children out of the schools in this time of emergency. One hardly hears of a single request North of the Tweed for children of school years to do work on the farm. In Northumberland,
  1030
  a county I know well, they are in the same happy position. In all the Northern counties, in the main, where wages are higher than in the Southern counties, they are not making this demand for child labour.
  The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) seemed to me to give the whole case away. He knows former agricultural labourers who are getting £3 a week, and asks if farmers can be expected to compete with that wage. No, they cannot in the present position; but I would say this to the hon. Member, that if the wage were considerably less than that in some of the Southern agricultural counties, I doubt whether there would be a demand for child labour at all, because the men would prefer to stay in their employment in those districts. The country that has done most in recruiting is Scotland, and, subject to correction, I doubt whether the agricultural counties in Scotland can be excelled in the percentage of population recruited for the War. My point is that if the agricultural labourers are drawn into other work at a wage of £3, which must seem to them to be wealth almost beyond the dreams of avarice, they cannot be expected to starve on the land on 14s. a week. But in my view the agricultural labourer would much sooner stay on the land at a considerably less wage than £3 a week if he could live in the circle in which he has been accustomed to move, and amid his home surroundings, rather than go away to some town even for those high wages. In the main it is a question of wages, and I believe the source of supply of proper labour is not exhausted. Therefore I look with grave suspicion on what seems to be the gathering volume of pressure for exploiting child labour in the interests of the farming community.
  Mr. STANIER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has tried to argue that agriculturists are seeking to exploit child labour. As an old agriculturist, and as one who, for the last few months, has turned his ploughshare into a sword, I will meet him on that point. I absolutely deny that is the fact, and I do not think he can bring forward anything which would prove it to be the fact. Why the agriculturists at the present moment want boy labourers to come and help them on their farm is because to-day we are in the midst of an international crisis. They want the most effective form of labour that is available, as was put by the right hon. Gentleman

  1031
  the Member for Wimbledon, and echoed from the Front Bench on the Government side. That is all they want. There are one or two reasons why they are asking for boy labourers to-day. In my own district we want them, and want them badly. It is an arable district. The counties where labourers are highly paid are the Northern counties of this country. There you will find that the farm is chiefly grass and pasture; the district from which I come is chiefly arable. It was said from the opposite side by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture that eight hon. Gentlemen in this House had stated that these boys were a nuisance. That complaint must have come from a district where grass is the prevailing farm. I maintain that on the arable land we want the boys, and want them badly. To-day we are asking the farmers to do all that they can to provide us with the largest amount of food.
  At this moment in my own district we are a month behind with our farming work. Land that at this time of year in other years has been sown, to-day is not even ploughed, and in many parts is covered with water. We have not got the men and we have not got the horses, and we do not know when we are going to put that land under wheat or other corn. That is why we want boys to come and help the men to carry out this work. If you put in the corn late you do not get the crop, and if you do not get the crop you do not get the yield of corn for feeding the people. Every year the Board of Agriculture is trying to tell us how to grow two blades of grass where one grew before and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board has used those words time after time. If that be so, give us a helping hand now in this crisis. We do not believe in bringing the boys from school till they are sufficiently educated in the ordinary course of events. That can be safeguarded. The safeguards have been put, and clearly put, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) this afternoon, and sympathetically received by the Prime Minister. In to-day's "Times" there is rather a remarkable letter, which is signed by T. C. Fry, from the Deanery of Lincoln. If this gentleman is the Dean, and I suppose he is, I think that he has rather hit the nail on the head when he says:—
  "(1) The boys should be selected boys. (2) That they be volunteers. (3) That they be half-timers in work, whether at school, or resting when off work. (4) That the very heavy work be scheduled and excluded."
  1032
  All those points could be taken up by the local authority, and, as the Prime Minister put it, the wage should also be defined. In my own county of Shropshire we have put it in that way, and we have declared that no boy is to work more than eight hours per day, and his meals to be taken out of that. I think that that is moving in the right direction, but for hon. Gentlemen opposite to get up and say that we are exploiting farming in this way is, I think, rather carrying it in another direction. There is one other point, and it is this: We have been told that if we go to the Labour Exchanges and ask for men we can have them. Do those who make that assertion think of this question, that one of the greatest difficulties in the farming community at the present moment is the housing question? The houses that are usually filled with the men who work on the farms are occupied to-day, and rightly so, by the dependants of those who are fighting for this country. Is there a man in this House who will get up and say that he wants them to go out of those houses so that the labourers may come from the Labour Exchanges and be put into them?
  I think the House will, therefore, agree with me that the difficulty of going to the Labour Exchange, and of finding men suitable to work on the farm is a grave difficulty and one that is not going to be easily got over. We want to put that clearly before the House to-day. We think if we guard these boys and these girls by useful by-laws from the local authority, and if we utilise them, as we only ask to utilise them, through the period of this crisis, that we are not doing more than we ask to do, and that we are doing this, namely, our best as farmers to grow food for the people of this country as we ought to do. I contend that on those farms where arable laud is now not ploughed and not sown, as it ought to be, that those boys would be of the greatest use and very far from being a nuisance, and if we could have them we should be doing something to lower the cost of the food of the people. That is what we want to do, and that is why we are asking for this boy labour to-day. It is not for the reason that has been hinted at, but not definitely stated, namely, that we are exploiting children from school for the sake of putting money into the farmers' pockets. It is not for that reason. It is for the reasons I have advanced that I desired to address the House and to refute the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. DENMAN: Anyone who has listened to this Debate on boy labour will, I think, have acquired a novel view of human nature, since, according to some of the speakers, there never was such a paragon as this boy of twelve. In the course of the Debate we were informed that he is to take the place of men and horses, that he is to do milking at four o'clock in the morning, and that he can do work that no town hand can do. I hope for their own sakes that the boys do not read these Debates. If they do, the next generation will be a swollen-headed generation. Why I rise is not so much to resume the Debate on boy labour, which we had the other night, as to add my appeal to the Government to the appeals which have come chiefly from the other side to take action and to find some solution of this problem.
  The danger I think that we have before us is that we shall simply drift into the use of boy labour, however little we may like it. I desire to repeat three suggestions I made the other afternoon to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. The first was that they should organise local committees to examine this question in the districts, and that they should not be content simply to wait till the farmers go to the Labour Exchanges and then discover that there is no labour. I agree with those Members who have suggested that that is not the real solution of the difficulty, and I think if we are to avoid boy labour we must actively pursue a policy of finding some other solution. The other suggestion is that the Government should appeal to other classes. I pointed out on the previous occasion that there were, according to the Census of 1911, over 200,000 persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen not in employment. Those numbers are far more than any that can be needed to supply the deficiency in agricultural labour, and though they are not the class from which agricultural labour is usually drawn, I feel certain that they would respond very heartily to a call of the Government to meet a national emergency if they were asked to go and do six months' work in the fields. This source of persons of from fourteen to eighteen years of age seems to me to be a very good well from which to draw the water we need.
  The third point is the desirability of attempting to continue the educational influence exercised over those boys when they go into farm work. The Dean of
  1034
  Lincoln has been quoted as suggesting that there should be a kind of half-time. Cannot the local education committees be encouraged to organise something of that kind if possible? An agriculturist has suggested to me that one of the chief disadvantages of boy labour is that when you put boys on the land at an early age you thoroughly sicken them of agriculture by the time they come to the age of seventeen and they go naturally to the towns. I venture to think that that is a sound argument, and that if you give them too much of this work in the earlier years they are bound to be thoroughly bored with it when they get older. The method of limiting hours, mentioned by the last hon. Member who spoke, is obviously an excellent method, and one which I trust will be copied elsewhere. The danger in this case is that, we shall simply drift into lax administration, as we have already drifted into breaches of the law, and I do there fore ask the Government to proceed actively to find other sources of supply which will avoid those evils.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I think that Members of this House, wherever they sit, must be glad that this topic has come up for discussion, because there is hardly any administrative duty cast upon the local authorities which is more delicate or more difficult than the duty east upon them with reference to boy labour in agricultural districts. We are here not only in this period of truce as regards controversies, but we are here also in the mood of gravity I which is placed upon us by the circumstances of this great War. While the discussion to-day has had great difficulty in avoiding references to strong feeling on one side or the other, that is really, I think, a proof of the difficulty and of the pressing character of this question. We know that this question of boy labour goes back in this country to old time, when it was a very important element in the working of farms, and we know, on the other hand, how the cause of education is one which has moved at the slowest rate of progress. I am speaking now as a member of a local education authority which discussed this question last week, and in the discussion developed more heat than I have ever known them to do, except, of course, on questions of religion. The discussion was not concluded; we have yet to come to our final decision. I do not claim to be a leader of agricultural opinion, nor am I a special representative of the

  1035
  working classes in the sense that hon. Members below the Gangway claim to be; but I am in the extremely unpleasant position of an administrator who has to deal with this question at the moment, while knowing that the more one keeps one's balance, the more unpopular one is certain to be with both sides.
  I suggest that this is one of those cases which largely depend upon the precision and carefulness of the regulations laid down by the local authority. I hope I shall not be misunderstood or thought to be dealing with the matter frivolously if I compare it with the sale of poisons. Everybody knows that the sale of poisons is not only necessary, but desirable, under strict regulations. But everybody also knows that if there were no regulations, ill-advised persons would do themselves and their neighbours very much harm. So it is with this question. I was discussing the matter with an hon. and learned Member on the other side of the House, and I wondered whether some such regulations as I will outline would commend themselves to the Board of Education, and possibly to practical administrators. I am speaking of practical local administrators, as in this case the administration is done locally. All the Board of Education can do is to advise—a most important duty, but a far easier one than that of carrying out the advice given. The by-laws should not be relaxed except under certain conditions. The first is that the demand for labour by any particular farmer or occupier of land is due to the fact that the labourer has gone from that farm to serve his country. We want to connect closely this most exceptional remedy with the exceptional case of the man who has left his work to serve his country, and not to use it in cases where a shortage of labour has arisen through other causes. If you do so use it, you will certainly make it easier for boy labour to be used too extensively, too indefinitely, and for too long a time.
  The second condition is that any person asking for boy labour shall be able to prove that he is paying for adult labour a really fair and adequate wage. There are circumstances and facts known to all Members in the direction of increased agricultural profits, and also of increased agricultural expenses, but no one can doubt that the rate of wage, at any rate in the Midlands and the South of England, ought to be higher now than it has been in recent
  1036
  years. The third condition is that the Labour Exchanges shall be honestly used by the employer. I quite agree with the weighty criticism of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanier) in regard to the question of housing in parishes somewhat remote from great centres. That is a quite legitimate point. But there are hundreds of parishes where labour could temporarily be derived from the Labour Exchanges, if only care and trouble were taken to use them. That care and trouble had been taken should be a condition precedent to allowing boy labour. In the same way the district committees who would be concerned in allowing any relaxation should be satisfied that the labour of neither old men nor women was available for the particular work to be done. Some of us would suggest that the consent of the parents should be indispensable. Lastly, I suggest that any child who was allowed to leave school for this purpose should only be permitted to do so for a month at a time, so that the matter would come up for consideration, not formally but actually, at the end of every month.
  I agree that here and there, though not in nearly so many cases as is often said, for the purposes of spring growing, and also later on for harvest, there may be ground for some relaxation of the by-laws where all these conditions are fulfilled. I hope the House will not think that I have wasted its time in mentioning these conditions which in practice some of us are trying to get adopted, taking the view, which I think the House generally takes, that this is the last expedient to be used, and that it is most unfortunate that it should have to be used, but that in a time of crisis every expedient, even the last and most undesirable, must not be absolutely excluded, provided you confine it to the moment and take precautions against its repetition or continuance.
  Colonel YATE: The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) gave it as his opinion that boy labour on farms was not effective. I would like to ask him whether he has ever studied the agricultural system of Norway. Norway is a great agricultural country, divided up into small farms under peasant proprietorship. There, so effective is boy labour, and so absolutely important is it considered by the parents that the boys should have early education in agricultural pursuits, that in the summer time, while agricultural operations are going on, the schools are closed entirely. The other day I listened with the utmost astonishment

  1037
  to the Debate on this question, when hon. Members opposite argued for hours the petty question whether boys of twelve or thirteen should leave school a month or two before or after passing standard five. They were apparently oblivious of the fact that we are absolutely fighting for our existence. No one seemed to have the slightest idea that an accident to our Armies or those of our Allies might lead up to circumstances which would make an invasion of this country possible, when every school might be swept out of existence, just as they have been in Belgium. No one seemed to think for an instant that if an accident happened to our Navy, through storms or air craft or other means, there might be no food for our children, let alone schools. It is in these circumstances we are wasting two days arguing whether a child shall leave school a month or two sooner than he, otherwise would. I welcome very cordially the statement of the Prime Minister, but I honestly confess that if I had been the Minister for Education I would not have tried to shuffle the question off on to the local education committees, but I would have issued instructions to let the boys go months and months ago.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have no sympathy whatever with the point of view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Yate). It is because we are at war that we desire especially to consider a question so vital to the future interests of the nation. I agree very strongly with the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) to the effect that to accept any proposal made, because the country was in a state of war, without subjecting it to careful consideration, was really to follow a policy almost insane. I believe, very strongly, that if the local authorities in the districts affected follow the constructive suggestions made by the Secretary to the Board of Education and the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister to-day, the employment of boys under fourteen will not be necessary. I want the House to consider whether there is not another class of labour which can be used, if it be found that the services of school boys are absolutely essential. I would put this proposal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Long), who spoke very earnestly on the subject a little while ago. In the agricultural districts with which he is especially concerned there are not only elementary
  1038
  but secondary schools. There would be much less objection, in case of a sudden and real emergency, to taking for a limited time boys from the secondary schools. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is willing for that experiment to be tried in districts where boys at secondary schools are available.
  Mr. LONG: If we were discussing this question in the abstract, with a view to preparing for the condition of things in which we now find ourselves. I should be quite prepared to assent to the suggestion. But I would impress on the hon. Gentleman that it is no time for experiment. The need is urgent. You cannot postpone it for three weeks or a month. I do not think that the demand for boys from elementary schools would be very large, nor do I think it would affect the secondary schools to any considerable number. But it is not a moment for experiments. If you are going to meet the difficulty you must meet it at once.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous interruption. In reply I would say that it is no more an experiment in the case of secondary schools than in the case of elementary schools. It is an experiment in either case.
  Mr. LONG: I used the hon. Members own phrase.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In either case it is an experiment, and there would be no more delay in regard to the secondary schools than in regard to the elementary schools. If you go to the elementary schools, you take boys from eleven to thirteen or fourteen, years of age, when not only their education, but their physique is immature, and real physical harm may be done by some of the forms of labour to which they may be put. If you go to the secondary schools, you take boys roughly from fourteen to sixteen or seventeen years of age. Their education is much more advanced, it will suffer no vital interruption, and their physique is of a much higher stamp. Having heard the views of the right hon. Gentleman—for which I am very grateful—I hope the Under-Secretary for the Education Department in his reply will let us have some guidance on this point. May I also make this appeal to the Education Department? It is quite obvious now that the local authorities have been given some discretion in this matter. The conditions may or may not

  1039
  be fulfilled, but a certain discretion has been given. I want to ask the Education Department whether they will safeguard the interests of the boys by making certain very reasonable stipulations. I think the Board of Education ought to know exactly what boys are being withdrawn from the schools the numbers and the districts. We ought to have full details of the boys. I think that the Education Department should never allow boys who are under a statutory obligation to attend school to be withdrawn without making an examination into the case.
  I would remind the House—and also the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that under the existing law of the land, the Employment of Children Act, 1903, a boy of eleven years of age may to-day be taken for the purpose of agriculture, or any other form of employment, in the early morning, at mid-day, in the afternoon, and in the evening. He may work under the law to-day at the age of eleven, and he may work a considerable number of hours in agriculture, as well as having to attend school; therefore if you want to take him altogether it means that the boy of eleven is going to be worked very long hours indeed—hours as long as an adult. I think that a medical inspection should be insisted upon by the Board of Education. For my own part I look forward with the utmost misgiving to any extension or any weakening of the existing law respecting the employment of school children. I am one of those who believe that already, both in the agricultural and industrial districts, we are taking a very heavy toll by employing children out of school hours, and insisting as well upon their attendance at school. I am one of those—and if mine be the only voice raised in this House it shall be raised!—that believes that no necessity has arisen for the employment of school children, having regard to those other sources of labour which have been so frequently referred to and have not yet been tried. I sincerely trust it will yet be found possible to avoid employing any children below the age of fourteen.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): I think we may congratulate ourselves on this Debate. It seems to have enabled us to reach a considerable measure of agreement between both sides of the House. Perhaps the figures quoted by the Prime Minister have not received that attention which they might have done.
  1040
  We have heard in the course of this Debate—and the same thing was heard the other day—that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education had been unduly lax in his dealings with the local education authorities. I think—without exact quotation—that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford thinks. I will deal with him in a moment. On the other hand, we have been blamed because we have been unduly severe. The average man might perhaps fairly consider that we have steered a fair, medium, reasonable course. The facts are that between 1st September and 31st January, 1,152 boys, in two-thirds of the counties of England, were liberated from school for work on farms. I might remind my hon. Friend the Member for Salford that there are in his own borough of Salford, working out of school hours—children who attend school and are engaged in industrial work—more children than we have released in the whole of these agricultural counties since September.
  Sir W. BYLES: The children who are working in the borough of Salford and I deplore it as much as my hon. Friend—are not released from school. They have to work their full school hours; therefore the cases are not at all parallel.
  Dr. ADDISON: Yes, that is the tragedy of the whole situation! But I am trying to retain some sense of proportion in this matter, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend and the Department he represents cannot, at all events fairly, be accused of undue laxity if that is the total number released since September. We know that in many industrial districts little progress in this matter has been made, and there is wholesale employment of children who are attending school. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Shropshire spoke of the urgent need for the employment of boys in Shropshire. Here, again, we have had in the course of this Debate a good many statements, but I am afraid we have not had very much evidence. It would have been better perhaps if we had had more evidence. Of course I admit the difficulty of obtaining evidence, and the Board of Education is in an exceptional position in that respect. As a matter of fact, in the county of Shropshire, since 1st September to 31st January, there have been released for employment on farms only twelve boys. Hon. Members have perhaps received an exaggerated impression of what is the demand

  1041
  for boy labour. I find it difficult to think that during these five months there should not have been more than twelve exemptions from attendance at school if the demand for labour in the counties had been as insistent as hon. Members represent.
  Mr. LONG: Those figures may be quite true; but I do not think the hon. Gentleman realises that in many parts of the country the demand for exceptional labour has not been made, because of the impression that the use of the boys would not be allowed.
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Member who represents the Division of Shropshire, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will believe me in that; but correspondence with the Board of Education has been going on very actively for several months. Although it has only just now come up in the House, it has been constantly before us as a Board. Perhaps I may have exaggerated the logical inferences to be drawn from the figures. Nevertheless, one cannot but be to some extent surprised that there has not been more than those exemptions if the demand really was so great as some Members think. I know, of course, that there has been heavy recruiting. I do not know what it is like in Shropshire. Still I think on the whole there have been statements made without evidence on both sides of the House which are not borne out on examination, both as to the laxity suggested on the one side and the undue severity on the other. We must all welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) associated himself with the Prime Minister in accepting on behalf of his Friends the general conditions which the Prime Minister laid down as precedent to the liberation of boys from schools to work on farms I sincerely hope that local education authorities throughout the country will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. May I remind the House, without quoting the exact words, what is the general sense of the conditions suggested by my right hon. Friend—

  (1) That every effort should be made in the locality for wages to be raised before they entertain the idea of a lowing the children to leave the schools to work on farms;

  (2) That the employment of the boys should only be given in exceptional cases, and after it has been ascertained
  1042
  that other labour, is not available;

  (3) That there should be no general relaxation of the by-laws;

  (4) That the employment to be given is of a light character, suitable to the capacity of the child; and

  (5) That it should only be given in a definite emergency, and for a limited period.

  I think this Debate has been very useful, seeing that we have reached an agreement in general as to these conditions. I myself as in part responsible for what happens at the Board of Education, and also being one of those, happily like many, brought up on a farm, have been interested by an examination of the evidence tendered in these Debates as to what boys should really do on farms. The hon. Member for Devizes seemed to suggest that boys should do a very great deal. I examined his speech the other day to see exactly what he had said. He went into the matter in great detail. What he suggested that boys could do resolved itself into this: They could help to lead the horses; they could help to attend to the cows and in various operations connected with milking. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division, as a practical agriculturist, will agree with me that it is not at all a sound thing to suggest that a man who is making his living at dairy-farming will be very ready to have untrained interference with good cows.
  Mr. LONG: I did not suggest it.
  Dr. ADDISON: I know; it was the hon. Member for Devizes. A practical agriculturist, making part of his living through keeping cows, would hesitate, I think, to turn boys on to cows that were yielding well. The more time, within reason, given to the milking of cows the better for the supply. Another suggestion is that boys will be suitable for scaring crows. In certain parts of the country it is very important that that should be done. They could also, it was suggested, help in various other jobs. Some of these may be men's work. It is true that the employment of some boys might liberate the men; still, that would not amount to much, even on a good-sized farm.
  The point I wish to make here is that the number of boys that can be fairly employed on boys' work on a good-sized farm is distinctly limited. Under our existing

  1043
  by-laws there are provisions in the agricultural districts for the exemption, under certain conditions, of boys who have passed certain standards. Those seem to me to have been rather lost sight of by one or two speakers. The right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to them. Perhaps I may remind hon. Members that the release of these boys, so far as we have cognisance of it, is not an illegal operation at all. It is the duty of the local education authorities, put upon them by Statute, to administer the law, and they also have to administer the by-laws, which are a part of the law.
  I am not saying—far from it—that it is desirable that a child should work on a farm; but I say that under the existing law it is not illegal, if a child has passed a given standard, for the local authority to release him, and the Board of Education has no locus standi in the matter. The local Authority is carrying out the law, and it is for the House of Commons to alter the law. Neither the Board of Education nor the local education authority can alter the law. So long as the local education authority acts fairly, and with due regard to its responsibility within the by-laws, the Board of Education has no power in the matter. Any action taken by the local education authority against the child not attending school is not dealt with by the Board of Education at all; it is dealt with by the local magistrates. It is for the local magistrates to say whether the law has been infringed or not. But what I am trying to make out is this—first, that the number of boys who could fairly be employed, even on a large farm, is distinctly limited; next, that a considerable number of boys within the proper provisions of the existing law do receive exemption certificates when they have passed certain standards, and so on. And I suggest that the number of boys properly exempt will go very far to supply any legitimate demand for boy labour on farms, and there is no reason to suggest, and I am certain the Board of Education will not suggest, until all these other conditions have been thoroughly explored, anything outside the present law.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) referred to the character of the education which he seemed to think was given in our country schools, and suggested that the children wanted to play the piano and read Shakespeare.
  1044
  I do not see why they should not but I do not think it is a common inclination of theirs. Then he went on to say that what we want is more technical education. The ages of attendance at school in our country districts has been gradually lengthening, I am glad to say, and one of the reasons for that is that the subjects taught in our country schools are becoming more and more applicable to the local life—that is to say, we are doing a great deal more to encourage practical subjects in country schools, and the House may be interested to get these figures. There were 17,000 boys in 1906—seven attending gardening classes in rural districts; in 1912 the number was 57,000. That increase was effected because parents were glad for their children to attend schools to a later age, as they were receiving this kind of instruction.
  There is one other consideration which I am sure we ought to bear in mind. If the child is away from school a month or so it makes a difference, and I think every practical teacher will tell you that if children are released for six months or so when they come back to school the maintenance of discipline becomes much more difficult. Children who have been away from school for some weeks or months earning a few shillings rather fancy themselves grown up when they come back and it is much more difficult to get them again into the ordinary habits of school discipline. It is a minor matter, I agree but still it has to be borne in mind. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends have very distinctly stated that they do not associate themselves in any way with the desire to curtail the length of school life, but rather they wish to see it extended. What we deplore, I think, generally, is that children leave school far too soon. We should not think the education of our own children was anything like complete at the age of twelve. As a matter of fact, I do not think these children begin to learn much until considerably after the age of twelve. I am only too glad that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends associate themselves will, us in desiring to prolong school life.
  Mr. LONG: I do not want any misapprehension on this subject. We associated ourselves with the statement of the Prime Minister, but I must guard myself against being associated with any pronouncement, of the new education policy by the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. ADDISON: Not the new education policy. I said, staying at school as long as possible. If we could get them to stay till fourteen it would be a great advance. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that if it can be done. The effect of labour upon the physique of children is, I think, a matter to be taken into consideration very much just now. As a matter of fact, the children who go out to work on farms whilst they are at school very often get far too little sleep, and if the boy has to get up early in the morning to attend to horses, lambing, or milking cows or something of that kind, he will not get as much sleep as he ought to get.
  Mr. STANIER: I do not think it was proposed that these boys should do this. We proposed definitely that the hours should be restricted and that the hours should be short. We did not ask them to get up fit four or five in the morning and feed horses.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am only saying that the illustrations given were that the boys would be employed in attending to horses, lambing and milking cows. To deal with horses you must get up very early in the morning, or otherwise it is not much use. I am only putting the considerations, which I am sure justify making this the last expedient of all, and one of the considerations is the influence upon the children's physique. I suggest that the evidence before us shows that too little importance may be attached to this subject. I have evidence here of boys of school age in Surrey, their weights and heights being recorded and the hours of sleep taken. It is a very interesting record. It seems that the boys who averaged between seven and eight hours' sleep were 54½ inches high and 71 pounds in weight; that the boys of the same average age who had ten to eleven hours' sleep were 57 inches high and 83 pounds in weight. There were 28 per cent. of errand boys, 14 per cent. of milk boys, and 11 per cent. of horse boys who showed more or less signs of spinal curvature. That is to say, the occupations of boys of this age is very soon reflected in their physique. I am sure that is another good reason why we should adhere to the policy set out, namely, that this is the very last thing we should look to for supplying labour on farms. The Board fully recognise—we all recognise—that the land has got to be tilled, and what the national emergency is. We do not know how long the War is
  1046
  to go on, and I think this is a time, when there is so much waste of adult life, that we should be especially prudent and especially careful in preserving the vigour of our children.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate copies of the Prime Minister's statement to all the local education authorities?

  WAR OFFICE TIMBER PURCHASES.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG: I desire to deal with a matter I consider of very great importance which has been discussed to some extent already in this House. I refer to what is now fairly well known as the Meyer timber buying arrangement, an arrangement which we know was entered into by the Office of Works on behalf of the War Office, for the purpose of supplying timber to the War Office. I shall also, if time permits, make some reference to the whole question in a general way of War Office purchases. Before referring to any of the details of the Meyer appointment, which I ventured to characterise in this House as a most unbusiness like proceeding and contrary to the public interest. I should like to take this opportunity of stating—and I do not wish to make any particular complaint—that both I and the others who have thought it our duty to take this matter up have received but scant courtesy from the Government, or from the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who answered most of my questions on the subject, and who also spoke in both Debates on this subject. If I may be permitted to say so, he has not shown the desire which one might have expected to give information to this House, and he seems disposed to forget that even private Members of Parliament have still some rights left in this House, and even, indeed, duties which they are bound to perform, and which they have not yet entirely abrogated.
  I do not know that I have yet been able to discover exactly what are the duties of junior Ministers, but I gather from the attitude taken up by the two hon. Gentlemen who have represented the Government in this discussion that it is a case of "My Department, right or wrong." They perhaps think differently from me on this subject, but in my opinion, at least, such a course is not the best they

  1047
  could have pursued in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time. Surely the defence of the public Department is no doubt very commendable, and a very necessary adjunct to the position those hon. Gentleman occupy, but in some circumstances it may be carried to extremes, and I am inclined to think in regard to the Meyer timber-buying arrangement this has distinctly been the case. I should be the last person to make an attack upon any of our public or permanent officials, because I believe our public service is more honourably conducted than that of any other country I know of. With regard to the terms of the arrangement with Mr. Meyer, as I have already stated in the House, that agreement is of the most extraordinary character, and the remuneration in the shape of commission is admitted on all hands to be exorbitant and much higher than it ought to be. That is one of my main arguments for pressing—as I shall continue to press whenever I get the opportunity if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Government—that this appointment must be brought to an end and the agreement terminated.
  I should like to deal with this matter on what I may call broad and I hope clear terms, and to make my remarks apply generally to War Office purchases. If the War Office has chosen to delegate part of its duties to the Office of Works, my remarks will naturally apply to them also. Let us consider for a moment the Meyer appointment. The main defence of the two hon. Gentlemen who have represented the Government in this matter has been, whilst admitting that the remuneration paid is too high, the arrangement has been to the public advantage. Notwithstanding the argument of these two hon. Gentlemen they have not convinced me, and I feel certain that they have not convinced a single business man either inside or outside of this House. I do not intend to go into the figures of this contract, but I was quite surprised when the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) came down to this House, as he did the other evening, and, if I may so describe it, floundered in figures which mean and prove nothing in regard to this appointment. I remember very long ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to this House the methods of the Bank of England and how the officials of that great institution were able to detect good bills of exchange from
  1048
  bad bills. He said he had been told in the City that they recognised them by the smell.
  I have handled a good many bills of exchange, and I think that was a very good explanation of how one is able to distinguish good bills from bad bills of exchange and good business from bad business. No business man needs to go far into this contract to discover at once that it is a most unbusinesslike proceeding, and that is how I have judged the whole question. One has only to look at the letters upon which the contract or arrangement is based. I am certain that had such a letter as that written by Mr. Meyer been submitted to any great business house or institution it would never have been considered for one moment, and I doubt whether Mr. Meyer would ever have been invited back to the office where he made such a proposal. When I spoke before, it is quite true I made some remarks in regard to the official who had made this arrangement. I was quite ignorant then as to who had signed the letter, and, of course, I meant no personal attack on anyone. I must say that really it is most surprising how Mr. Baines could have signed such a letter. I see that he signs himself as the "Principal Architect in charge of the Royal Palaces." He may be a very capable architect, but surely when he entered into this agreement with Mr. Meyer he must have been thinking of castles in the air and not Royal palaces! I do not intend to go into any figures at all, and perhaps other hon. Members may wish to do so.
  The arrangement has been condemned and laughed at by the Press of the whole country, and also by the commercial business world generally. I therefore continue to press that this appointment shall be brought to an end without delay. It must be clear that the proper action to take in this matter is to end this arrangement. I cannot understand the position that has been taken up by these two hon. Gentlemen. It has been my experience, and I am sure it is the general experience, that when one makes a blunder in business, or any other direction, the best thing is to admit it, and to remedy it as soon as possible. I will only say that I took this matter up purely as a public duty, and no suggestion came to me from any member of the timber trade that I should put down questions in regard to this matter. I am not looking for any personal advertisement; but I think the two hon. Gentlemen

  1049
  in charge of this matter will see that they ought to treat it in a reasonable way. I warn them that if this ridiculous arrangement is not cancelled and brought to an end there will be something like a wave of indignation throughout the whole country. It is not surprising if discontent is manifested amongst the working classes, find this is a question that was referred to by my hon. Friend who spoke in the last Debate, and I think it is a most important point to be taken into consideration.
  We were brought down to this House with great solemnity to listen to what we all admit was a most important speech from the Prime Minister, and it was one of those very conclusive and able speeches which we always get from him. We were brought here solemnly to vote unprecedented and gigantic sums of public money, and rightly to assent to those Votes. When we venture to criticise the spending of that money in the Press we are accused by some at any rate, although not by many, of wrangling over trifles and wasting the time of the House. If there has been any waste of the time of this House, I again repeat that it has been entirely due to the attitude taken up by the two hon. Gentlemen who have represented the Government in this discussion. I was very glad to notice that the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) referred to this very matter in the speech which he made on Monday last, and he also pressed that this matter should be fully examined by the Prime Minister. This question of the expenditure of public money in my opinion is of far more importance in war time than in times of peace. If I wish to justify my action for having brought this matter before the House, I could not find more suitable arguments than could be found in the speech recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have not got his exact words, but the right hon. Gentleman said this is essentially an engineers' war, because equipment is even more needed than men.
  7.0 P.M.
  Equipment can only be purchased with money, and, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that economy should be practised far more in a great crisis like the present than it is in time of peace. I ventured to put a question to the Prime Minister to-day in regard to War Office purchases generally, and I suggest to the Government, in view of the magnitude of these purchases, that some kind of Committee of business, men from this House, and outside, as the case may be, should be
  1050
  appointed for the purpose of advising in regard to these gigantic transactions. The right hon. Gentleman replied that Sir Francis Hopwood and Sir George Gibb had been appointed directors to supervise the placing of Admiralty and War Office contracts, respectively. He further went on to say that since the outbreak of War, the War Office had profited by the advice of men of proved standing in all the large branches of trade. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I venture to think that that statement is not quite accurate, and has certainly not been applied in the case of the Meyer appointment. Of course I do not want to prophesy, but the time may come when the Government, will regret that they did not accept my suggestion for a Committee of business men to assist the War Office. We all know that Sir George Gibb is a very able man, bur I say, and I feel sure I am stating what is true, that were he six, ten, or even a dozen Sir George Gibbs wrapped into one, he could not properly and efficiently attend to the duties which have been placed upon him. I would press on the Government, with all the earnestness I can in the public interest, to look at this matter from a business point of view and to reconsider it with a view of terminating this arrangement which, in my opinion, is quite contrary to the public interest in every way. If, as no doubt is the case, still further large purchases of timber are necessary, they ought to appoint an expert at a reasonable salary. Mr. Meyer, if he is such a wonderful business man, as he is alleged to be, will get his chance along with other timber merchants of securing the contracts of the Government. I again hope that this matter will receive the serious consideration of the two representatives of the Government, and that they will see that the best way of satisfying public opinion and the whole of the commercial world is to cancel this arrangement forthwith.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not propose to discuss the merits of the question to-day, because I felt it my duty to accept the invitation of the First Commissioner to visit the Office of Works this morning. I have an appointment there to-morrow, and I do not think it would be consistent with my visits there to discuss the merits of the question to-day. I have risen in order to give the Financial Secretary to the War Office a chance of putting himself right with the House and with the timber trade

  1051
  generally. There was a meeting yesterday of the Timber Trade Federation, which I attended on the invitation of the president, and a resolution was passed which, at their request, I shall presently read to the House. It is an answer to observations made by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Baker) on 18th February in this House. A suggestion was made that a Committee of well-known experts in the timber trade might have been consulted by the Government before they plunged into this extensive timber buying with Mr. Meyer. The answer of the hon. Gentleman was this:—
  "I agree that a committee was a possible alternative, but this House and the country is constantly urging us not to put ourselves into the hands of rings, and if we had done that I think very likely this same Debate would have taken place, but the hon. Members who have criticised would have been compelled to put their criticism upon other ground."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1915, col. 1368.]
  Another statement made by the hon. Member in the same speech—and I think the two passages must be considered together—was this:—
  "The Office of Works did not at first accept him in that capacity, but, in view of the obvious attempt on the part of a large section of the trade to squeeze them to the utmost they could, they agreed to give Mr. Meyer a trial and to see what be could do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1915, col. 1364.]
  If that means anything, I think it means that the Government, in order to defeat a large section of the trade who were conspiring against the State to squeeze them to the utmost, have appointed Mr. Meyer. I feel sure that the hon. Member will want to put himself right with the House, because no one can assert that there was anything of the kind. I have no doubt that the hon. Member was misled. I do not think anyone connected with the timber trade, whether for this agreement or against it, will venture to say that those words were justified. What does the Timber Trade Federation themselves say? They resolved, at their annual meeting yesterday, as follows:—
  "That the members of this Federation, representing all branches of the timber trade throughout the country, protest and strongly resent, the unfair aspersions cast upon a large section of the trade by a Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons in connection with the question of the supply of timber for Government purposes, and record their regret that although the Director of Army Contracts stated, on December 30th last, that the principle of consulting leading representatives of the various trades on points where expert assistance was useful had been adopted for some time by his Department, it bad not been applied to the case of the timber trade through the Federation or otherwise."
  I venture to say that resolution, which was carried unanimously, cannot be challenged, and will not be challenged, by anyone
  1052
  in the trade, whether they approve of this contract of not, and I do appeal to the hon. Member that he should see the seriousness of the position in a time when labour unrest—we hope, of course, that it will be checked largely by the influence of hon. Members below the Gangway—is liable to spread. I hope that the hon. Member will see the seriousness of charging a large section of the trade in this way without, at any rate, bringing some proof. I do not know what defence the hon. Member will make, but he, like myself, is the son of a manufacturer, and I would like to ask him with what feelings a woollen manufacturer would read a statement by a Minister of the Crown that there was a conspiracy on the part of a large section of his trade to squeeze the Government to the utmost in a time of national emergency like this. Those remarks gave a great deal of pain. I have not been able to find the slightest evidence for them. The Government have never produced any. I do appeal to the hon. Member—I hope that he has a long and brilliant career before him in the service of the State—if he has been mistaken, and I think that he has, to frankly say so and to make some utterances satisfactory to a trade which has always been conducted with credit to those concerned.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I rise to put before the House, very briefly, the view I, as representing labour, take on this question. I listened to the last Debate, and several speakers, several of my hon. Friends on this side, were very careful to point out that they did not in the least blame Mr. Meyer for making the best of his bargain. They said that the Government was responsible for showing in this matter a lack of business ability, and that so far as Mr. Meyer was concerned he was not to blame; the Government was wholly responsible. I submit that is not the correct view to take. If this House is justified in saying that any man, whether Mr. Meyer or anybody else, may take an advantage at this time of the nation's difficulty and make a particular profit for himself it has no right to condemn the whole body of working men for copying that attitude. I dissent wholly and entirely from that view. I do not take that attitude here alone; I take it with the men themselves. I would say to the men I represent just as frankly, even if I were satisfied that I could get a claim that they made and win them an advance by the pressure that we could apply—I would absolutely refuse to be a party to help

  1053
  them in that transaction if the claim were an unreasonable one, were only made because of the nation's difficulty, and would only succeed because of this particular crisis.
  It is necessary at this time for all sections not to approach any dispute from the standpoint of reaping personal or sectional advantage. It is necessary for the worker to say, "Whilst I am entitled to a certain thing, whilst I am hit in a certain direction, and whilst I am suffering at this moment, yet I want to base my claim for reasonable consideration wholly and solely on the justice and merits of my case, and I do not want to make it because of the difficulty either of my employer or of the country." It is equally necessary that no employer should approach the question from any other standpoint. If he is dealing with his workmen he ought not to be rushed into a situation because of the abnormal period, but it is equally for him to reciprocate the spirit I have indicated. That is the only means by which we can go through this crisis with satisfaction to all concerned, and, I hope, with honour to everybody when the trouble is over. Applying that principle to this particular contract, we cannot disabuse our minds of the fact that the workers do believe, and are satisfied, that certain men and certain trades are not only profiting unfairly, but are not dealing fairly by the State. Whatever arguments may be used about coal, the fact remains, they say, that someone is responsible for creating an abnormal situation. They apply the same principle to food-stuffs.
  Therefore, I repeat that it cannot be too strongly emphasised that if Mr. Meyer is reaping an unfair advantage he is equally as much to blame as anyone else. I do not agree that in this trouble any Member of this House should approach any question from the standpoint of a trade, or an individual, or a particular interest. I do not believe at all in carping, petty, spiteful criticism at this stage. I know some of the difficulties with which I am faced, and how strongly I should resent the little intrigues and jealousies that take place, and I conceive that Ministers, being specially pressed, will resent them as well. But I do say this, that a mistake has been made. It is clearly evident on the face of it that no business man would agree to the conditions that surround this particular contract. The contract may have been made, as many are, hurriedly and without full consideration of all the facts of the case. But it is not a climb down, it is not giving
  1054
  anything away on the part of the occupants of the Front Bench, to say that a mistake has been made and that it will now be rectified.
  After all, no one will pretend that there have not been mistakes in this War. No one will claim that we are infallible, or will suggest that we never make mistakes. A man who never made a mistake never made anything. That being so, I submit, the only way to give satisfaction is to say, clearly and definitely, that this contract is not fair to the nation. People are making sacrifices such as they never made before. That does not apply to any one section of the people. I do not claim, on behalf of the workers, that our sacrifices are greater than those of anybody else. I know rich men are making sacrifices at home, and abroad. It is that spirit which is going to carry us through successfully, and it is a spirit which I hope will find its reflection when this War is over. If there is to be any consolation apart from military value, it will be a better appreciation on the part of all sections of the people of each other's difficulties.
  In short, just as the rich man will feel appreciation of the humble man leaving his cot and incurring suffering and misery through placing his national responsibility before anything else, so will the poor man appreciate the action of the rich man in leaving a life of ease, luxury, and comfort, and risking his life on the battlefield. Just as I believe that the tendency between employer and employed is better to-day because they approach questions not from their sectional or individual interests but in the broader and better spirit of national responsibility, so I repeat I believe that that spirit is going to do good at the end of this War. I will conclude by saying that the workers do view with suspicion any man who is making a profit out of these terrible sacrifices. In my opinion a mistake has been made, and the only way to rectify it, the only way to secure public confidence is not to say, "No, we are going to stick to what we have said," but to say that in the pressure that was applied to us at the moment, a mistake has been made, we are going to rectify it, and, above all, we are going to take steps that will prevent a recurrence of such mistakes.
  Mr. BARLOW: I do not propose to take up very much time with regard to the case of Mr. Meyer, but I should like to say a few words upon the broader aspects of the

  1055
  question of dealings with contractors generally in connection with the supply of war material. I have no great personal knowledge of the case of Mr. Meyer. It seems to me there is rather a tendency to discuss it on the wrong plane. We are all agreed that had this contract been made with proper business care, there would have been a sliding scale, so that when the turnover exceeded a certain amount the commission would be limited. I do not suppose anyone will refuse his assent to that proposal. But it must be borne in mind that this contract was made at a time of great pressure, and nobody assumed that the turnover would attain the proportions it did. What we have to ask is, has the work been well done, and has the State really got value in regard to the timber secured? Anybody who has had to deal with these questions of providing timber for camps, will know the enormous difficulty there was at the outset in getting timber. I am one of those who have been honoured with the responsibility of raising two local battalions, and we are now in the midst of raising a third. I have had the privilege of carrying out that work in association with the committee including the mayor and others. When we came to build huts for the men, we were faced with very great difficulties, and one soon learned that, in dealing with contracts, the essential thing was to see that in return for the money that was spent—and I do not suggest it should be lavishly spent—we got good service for the State.
  With regard to contractors generally, there are serious evils which I will mention presently, and it does seem unfortunate that this discussion should turn on a case such as has been raised, where, although the remuneration has been too high, the return in work for that remuneration has been good. Mr. Meyer was responsible not only for purchasing, but also for distributing the timber, and he had, I am informed, to employ a large staff. Therefore, while he was paid the ordinary purchasing commission, he was responsible for a good deal more work. I would like, if I may, to refer to one or two evils which arise in connection with contracting generally. One or two serious cases have come under my notice, and they have made me feel there ought to be some better machinery for dealing with difficulties that arise with contractors who, to put it mildly, do not render quite that service which they ought to.
  1056
  Take, for instance, that camp which I had the privilege of establishing at Conway. A certain portion of the work was of a technical character, and I asked the War Office to supply me with some of the names of the contractors on their list. Eventually the work was put up to tender amongst certain selected firms, some on the War Office list and some not. Those who were on the War Office list, by some very curious coincidence tendered at a price which was within £2 of one another. Those off the War Office list put in perfectly proper tenders, which differed largely in amount, and I was enabled in get the work done at between 30 per cent. and 10 per cent. below the amount asked by the contractors on the War Office list. The coincidence was a curious one. I am not putting it any higher than that or any lower, but incidents of that sort do arise, and it is only by persistent examination of every avenue of spending money, and by the most careful employment of experts—and these are not always above suspicion—as well as by the checking of every portion of material used that one can make certain that the money is being made the best use of.
  In regard to the provision of boots, most serious troubles have arisen, in my view more serious than in any other respect. For a man to try to make money out of providing defective or unsatisfactory boots for the troops is, to my mind, one of the cruellest things possible. It is not only that the man is corrupt and defrauding the State. It means that many a good fellow's life may be sacrificed in consequence. Many a man on a long march, especially if it be a question of retreating under fire, may have to lag behind if his boots are defective, and that may mean the loss of his life. A much worse and stronger case could be made out with regard to the supply of improper boots than anything else. May I just quote one instance which came under my own personal observation? Boots were supplied to a battalion of which I have cognisance. They appeared to be excellent, they were passed by the local expert, and for them a high price was demanded.
  In appearance they were admirable boots. They were made of leather and looked charming. The only defect was that when they were put on the men's feet they would not hold together. The soles had a curious way of departing from the uppers—a practice which is not considered right in the best boot circles. After a

  1057
  good deal of struggle the contractor was forced to take the boots back. I cannot give their subsequent history, but a month or two later a further supply of boots was required for the battalion, and they were ordered according to sample. The new contractor said he could not supply the whole 2,000 pairs according to sample, but 1,500 were coming along just as good as the sample, and the regiment would, he was sure, be quite satisfied. The 1,500 pairs were supplied in due course, and they turned out to be a portion of the boots which had been rejected in the same warehouse for the same battalion. They were identical in every respect, except that the price in the interval had risen by 1s. 9d. That kind of performance to my mind is utterly discreditable and disgraceful.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): These boots, I understand, were purchased by the raisers of the local battalion under contract made by them?
  Mr. BARLOW: Certainly, I was not suggesting is was a War Office contract. I was rather wanting to broaden the discussion, and to introduce the supply of boots by contractors as one of the matters which require watching. I am not making any case against the War Office. I only want to ventilate in this House the difficulty which has arisen with regard to boots, and to suggest to those who sit on the Front Bench opposite whether it is not possible to set up some machinery for stopping this kind of thing. In the particular case to which I am referring those who were responsible for raising the battalion did stop the mischief. But what I fear is that these very same boots may still find a home in some other battalion.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Why did the raisers of the battalion buy from a manufacturer who had cheated them in the first instance? Why did they go to him for more boots?
  Mr. BARLOW: The raisers of the battalion did not buy from the same man. They bought from another man. In the interval the boots originally rejected apparently had passed through several hands, and had eventually come into the possession of a contractor who, by some curious mischance of fate, tried to palm them off on the original purchaser.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Was this firm on the War Office list?
  Mr. BARLOW: I am unable to say. But I think it is unfortunate there is not some
  1058
  better machinery for seeing that people of this kind do not play these games too long. I am quite sure that the difficulties of this kind, or, if you like, scandals of this kind, do affect recruiting, and for two reasons. When you ask a man to take the most serious responsibility in this life that a man can take, namely, to risk his life in the cause of his country—those who know the conditions under which this War is being waged know what the risk is—you must at least guarantee to him that he shall fight this battle under the safest and surest conditions you can ensure to him. The last speaker suggested, in a speech of most of which I cordially approve, that the men who enlist are apt to be getting very high wages now, and if they feel that contractors are out to make money and to take every possible advantage, that they would ask, "Why do you consider it unreasonable for us to put the monetary argument rather strongly when you appeal to us to recruit?" That is an argument which, unless we are careful to stop scandals of this kind in connection with Army contracts, it is very difficult to answer. The only practical suggestion I can make is this: Whether it would not be possible for some machinery to be adopted for getting complete lists, or something of that kind, for checking and, so far as possible, preventing an improper supply of boots or timber, or whatever it may be, from contractors all over the country. There is not enough co-ordination or tabulation of the people who supply articles of various kinds. If there were, and if the experience of all those who have been raising battalions as well as of the regular War Office authorities were brought together, a good deal might be done to prevent trouble of this kind arising in the future.
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): The position in which the House finds itself and in which I find myself is not quite a usual one. A very strong attack is being made upon a Department and the Department has no official or responsible representative in this House. As hon. and right hon. Gentlemen know, I merely speak as the mouthpiece of the Office of Works and have no responsibility for the management of the Office of Works, either now or in the past. Therefore my Noble Friend the First Commissioner hopes the House will allow me to read to them a statement which he has prepared on the Meyer case. This course may be a little unusual, but I hope the House will

  1059
  be indulgent, remembering that very grave charges have been made against the Office of Works, although I am glad to say that most of them have vanished in the course of our Debates. My Noble Friend and his Department feel that it is particularly desirable that an authoritative statement should be made on their behalf. Before dealing with the few points that have been raised, I will, if I may, read this statement of my Noble Friend:—
  "In October the War Office found itself faced with the necessity of providing with the utmost possible speed a large number of huts for the housing of the 4th New Army. The War Office consulted the Office of Works as to the best method of buying the timber required, and it was eventually arranged that one of the principal architects, who had had considerable experience in connection with timber, should undertake this work for the War Office. The original proposal was that the timber should be bought under contract by the Department in the ordinary course, but, in view of the large demand, it was thought necessary, in the first place, to make inquiry as to the stocks held in the country and as to prices. When answers to these inquiries were received, the conclusion arrived at was that it was doubtful whether a sufficient quantity of timber of the sizes required could be obtained in the country at all, the level of tendering was extremely high, and in the course of the inquiries it was apprehended that, if contracts for the amount of timber of this size to be obtained as quickly as possible were placed on the market, the result would be an appreciation of prices, the extent of which it was impossible to forecast.
  The firm of Mr. M. L. Meyer was asked, among others, to quote, and the head of this firm came to the Office of Works and represented that if the amount of timber required was ordered in the ordinary course, the result on the market would be extremely serious, and the interests of the taxpayer must suffer. He accordingly suggested that the proper method was for the Government to purchase its timber abroad direct, and in the course of discussion the plan was evolved of combining into one operation—purchase, transport by sea and land, and preparation of timber for the huts on the actual sites of the camps and elsewhere as convenient. It is necessary to emphasise the fact that all the steps of the transaction, with the exception of purchase, are outside the purview of an ordinary agent buying on commission. In the course of bargaining he offered to perform these services on the basis of a commission of 2½ per cent. The matter was then carefully considered and the War Office were consulted and gave cordial approval. It was eventually decided that, as the timber had to be obtained as quickly as possible, and as there was no reason why it should not be got as cheaply as possible, the best method was to use Mr. Meyer as buying agent, his position in the trade having been found to be satisfactory, and the deliberate judgment being formed that, from his personality, he was a man who could be relied on to do the business cheaply, quickly, and well. Time being the essence of the business, it was thought better not to incur the delay of preparing a formal contract with him, but to put the terms in a letter, power being taken to terminate the arrangement at one day's notice. It was also arranged that his operations should be checked by an official staff (the chief of which is a qualified accountant), which should work in his office and have access to all his records. The business contemplated under this arrangement was approximately equivalent to 14,500 standards, estimated at that time to be worth £250,000, but
  1060
  which, I believe, has cost not more than £200,000 The question has been asked whether the First Commissioner was fully aware of what was going on. I may say, as I said in reply to a question yesterday, that the matter was mentioned to him and that he told his Department to render all the assistance they could to the War Office, and gave general approval to make such arrangements as they thought best. He was not informed of all the details at the time, but he has since made inquiry about the matter, and he has not the least doubt that a very great saving of public money was effected by the course adopted. There is no question that in an emergency such as the War Office was placed in, a clever agent (not merely to buy, but to perform the whole of the services connected with conveying the timber to the place where it was required) could obtain the wood at a far less price than it would have beer obtained at had the Office contented itself with simply picking out the lowest tenders for the quantity which they were asked to buy. As has already been said, it is quite uncertain whether there was in the country at the time enough wood of the scantlings and qualities required; but, even if the stock had been found to be sufficient, the market would have been left bare, and prices would have been raised against us for the further purchases that we have since been called upon to make on behalf of the War Office. I shall deal with the question of commission shortly, but so far from apologising for the actual net effect of the business transaction as a whole, we feel that the nation has been well served and has effected a great saving. I now turn to the question of the commission which was arranged with Mr. Meyer. It must be remembered, in the first place, that the Office of Works had no idea at the time when the purchases began what a large volume they would attain in the following months. The fact is that the War Office, in hutting the whole of new Armies, had a business of unprecedented size to handle. They found that the timber purchased through Mr. Meyer turned up quickly, in excellent quality, in the right sizes at the widely scattered places where it was required, and that it was to the public advantage to expand the transaction. In the second place, the 2½ per cent. commission included a great deal more than is covered by the ordinary buying commission in the home market. Mr. Meyer had to arrange through the trade shipping agents who do all foreign ordering, for purchases abroad, for sea freight, for insurance, for landing charges and dock dues, for conveying the timber by rail, and for converting it where necessary to the sizes required. He frequently had to send men about the country to look into special local difficulties and get through railway and harbour blocks. All this is outside the ordinary duties of the mere buying broker. The First Commissioner readily admits that a brokerage which is fully justified for a business emergency and for purchases of a comparatively moderate amount, may be deemed to be excessive when the total purchases reach very large figures. He feels that it would be a great detriment to the public interest, as well as a great injustice, after Mr. Meyer has served those interests so well that he should be contemptuously cashiered as some hon. Members seem to desire. The transaction has grown with great and unexpected rapidity. The First Commissioner therefore feels that after the amount of £600,000 is reached some new arrangement should be made. Mr. Meyer very fully and freely accepts that position and puts himself unreservedly in the hands of the First Commissioner. The matter is under consideration and an intimation of the terms arranged will be made at an early date.
  The real question, I must remind the House, is whether the transactions so far have been profitable to the public and are likely to be so in future. The First Commissioner cannot for a moment agree that the Office of Works would have been

  1061
  justified in taking the easy course of accepting simply the lowest tenders, when they believed they could buy much more cheaply by altering their methods. They felt they were trustees for the public and bound to do the best they could for their clients. Had they adopted the course of accepting the lowest tenders first presented, no hon. Member would have objected, and the nation would have been the poorer at the end. Because they had the courage to adopt other and, as the First Commissioner maintains, better methods, they are denounced by men who have not the material facts before them."
  That is the statement which my Noble Friend desires me to make. The House will, perhaps, admit that it is a frank and open statement, only possible during a political truce. The Office of Works, from the beginning, has not attempted in any way to treat this matter as a controversial one. They have taken it for granted that in the grave times in which we live, hon. Members are actuated solely by a desire for the public good. They cannot believe that any hon. Member would raise this question for the mere sake of personal advertisement, or of personal annoyance to the Government.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Thanks!
  Mr. BECK: I maintain that the transaction is defensible in every way, though I, personally, am only able to speak with a very little more knowledge than hon. Members who are critics of this case. I would point out to the House that though we have had speeches from two or three very able hon. Members, so far as I can gather there has been no real criticism levelled at the case my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office and I have put before the House on two separate occasions. We have been spared a strong attack by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth). By our offer to him we have luckily secured, for the moment at any rate, his neutrality. But as regards the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) he is known to all of us as one of the fairest controversialists in the House, but the only criticism he made is one which I think we shall all agree to, that certain men and certain traders are unduly profiting. But he said one thing which I cannot accept and which I believe, after he has examined the facts, he will not be satisfied with, and that is that a mistake has been made and is now to be rectified. He says this contract is not fair to the nation.
  I should like to say a word or two on the point about the contract being fair to the nation. I repeat that the case that has been made against this contract has
  1062
  been destroyed by the defence that has been put up. I do not want to go through the thing again. I think we all feel that quite enough has been said about the case—perhaps too much. But one of the fundamental facts which has been hurled at us has been that 1 per cent. is a usual commission for the sort of work that Mr. Meyer does. That is absolutely an untrue statement. I do not mean that it is deliberately untrue, but it is not justified by facts. I have had a number of letters. Of course, I do not propose to quote them, because they were written by private persons who had no idea that they would be quoted in this House. But I should like to take the gist of one or two of them.
  I have a letter from Liverpool, dated 27th February, in which the writer, a gentleman who has been fifteen years in the timber trade, says that the statement which my hon. Friend (Mr. William Young) read out the other day about the buyer for the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board is really not at all a fair presentation of the case against Mr. Meyer. He says the requirements of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board are more or less uniform—that is to say, that for a period of years they require very much the same sort of wood and of very much the same sort of quality. All this man, who earns 1 per cent. does, is to simply go round to people within a few yards of his office. My informant tells me that a few years ago they were all within a few yards of the offices, though now some of them may be ten minutes away since the dispersal of the trade. My informant goes on to say that this man is really picking up money by receiving 1 per cent. for the trifling service he performs in this way, whereas Mr. Meyer was in an entirely different position. He had to deal with almost unknown specifications and grades, and deliveries were called for in all parts of the country. He had to face widely fluctuating markets—jumping from £11 to £18 per standard. Then he points out that so far from 1 per cent. being a normal figure for buyers, they frequently receive 4 per cent., 5 per cent. or more for performing their duties.
  In certain branches of the trade, 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. is quite a usual amount to pay the buyers. As respected a Member of this House, as the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Balfour) permits me to say, also without quoting names, that in his vast business, dealing regularly, as his firm does, with three or four timber brokers in three or four different parts of

  1063
  the country, they always pay 2½ per cent., although they have striven for years to get the rate down without the least success. I have another very interesting letter from one of the oldest London firms. I can pledge my personal honour to the House that all these letters have come absolutely spontaneously without any seeking on my part, or on the part of my Noble Friend. This letter points out that the Government, by employing Mr. Meyer, have done away with the profits earned by selling agents. We have still another very interesting letter from a gentleman who frankly said he was very disappointed he did not get Mr. Meyer's job, and his computation—and he is also a very experienced man—is that the country has been saved at least £80,000 so far by this transaction. Then we had the unpleasant insinuation about Mr. Meyer's own dealings. I do not want to go into that again, but this is the point.
  Mr. Meyer gave no pledge at all, and was never asked to give a pledge, that he would give up his own business. But the fact is that Mr. Meyer's business has for the time being practically been brought to an end by the fact that he is engaged almost exclusively in doing Government business. Further than that, in a newspaper it was stated on 11th February that Mr. Meyer indulged in certain timber transactions, and this was a sign that he was dishonourably betraying the Government. Those timber transactions were fully known to the Office of Works, were actually undertaken on behalf of the Government, and the wood was secured on behalf of the very huts which are being built. The fact, which is testified by our accountants, is that the business at present being done by Mr. Meyer is 90 per cent. Government business and somewhat under 10 per cent. his own business, and on several small quantities of timber requiring different sorts of wood it has been extremely convenient for the Government to be able to buy a portion of the timber from Mr. Meyer. Another great charge was brought forward in the Press, and I am sorry to say repeated in this House, that Mr. Meyer had defrauded the Government, for it comes to nothing less, by selling them his own stock, making his profit on it and charging them 2½ per cent. on top of that as their buyer.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Who made it?
  Mr. BECK: It was made in the Press.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Which paper?
  Mr. BECK: I am not going to quote papers. We all know the papers. A question was asked in this House about it, and as respected a Member as the hon. Baronet opposite, having seen the statement in the Press, asked a question on that very point. As I was able to assure the House, Mr. Meyer's stock, which was extremely valuable to the Government for the moment because timber was urgently needed, was actually bought by the Office of Works at the actual price Mr. Meyer paid for it, and the only profit that he got out of the transaction was his 2½ per cent., and the fact has to be remembered that at that time prices were over 20 per cent. beyond the prices which Mr. Meyer paid when he purchased this timber, and that on that transaction alone he failed to get a profit of £2,000.
  There is only one other small point to deal with. It is stated, and I do not deny stated on very good faith, and I think the fact is due to a misunderstanding, that firms which should have been asked to participate in this work were not invited, and that although the Office of Works tells us that they have made over 200 inquiries and have received over 1,500 tenders, many great firms never heard anything of this. The Office of Works informs me that they do not entirely plead that there may not be some justification for this complaint, but they think there is a misunderstanding because some hon. Members seem to have thought that when I said there had been inquiries made, it meant that letters had been sent out to these firms formally asking for tenders. That is not so. What happened was this. An urgent demand, and I ask the House to remember how urgent it was, in the middle of October from the War Office for wood to hut the men who were under canvas was received at the Office of Works. They set all their local agents in every part of the country to work. They sent them a circular letter, and begged them to make every possible inquiry from every firm they knew of as to prices and as to stock.
  Further than that, they set their telephone and telegraph wires to work and their own personal staff in the Office of Works, and sent round to as many firms as could be reached asking for prices, and it is on these inquiries, which are on record and which cannot be disputed, that they came to the decision that that method of buying such vast quantities of wood in this country would have been fatal, not

  1065
  only to the public purse, but what is more important, though of course that is very important, to the welfare of the troops. I was very glad the hon. Member (Mr. Montague Barlow) put in that plea for judging contracts by results. I have been able to assure the House that the wood delivered to Mr. Meyer has been satisfactory, and that I believe less than one per cent. of it has been rejected. It has been perfectly delivered under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and it will be the universal opinion of this House that, after the very full explanation which the Office of Works has given of this transaction, and bearing in mind the fact that any hon. Member is at liberty to go and examine their documents for himself, it is time we ceased talking, at any rate at such length, of what has become known as the "Meyer case." The Office of Works might very easily have pleaded that we were engaged in a great War, and it was not fair to burden officials with this additional work. They have not made such a plea, and they do not authorise me to make it now. But I say, from my own observation and knowledge, that these officials are working night and day, and that the public interest will suffer if these investigations are pursued beyond their legitimate extent.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I am disobeying his commands in saying a few words in regard to this subject. If these were ordinary times, I should have been very unwilling to intervene in a dispute which has been carried on entirely on those benches; but I could not listen to a discussion on the purely business side of the War without feeling inclined to say what I think of this transaction and of the general position which has just been taken up. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend behind me said that the sole question is whether or not the country is getting good value for its money. With all deference, I do not think that it is. But I think there is another question, and that is whether the transaction was entered into from the point of view of those who represent the Government with the ordinary care and circumspection which one has a right to expect in regard to a transaction of this kind. I do not agree—and I happen to have read most that has been said about this contract in the House—with a great deal of the criticism that has been directed against the Government. On the whole, I am inclined to
  1066
  think that the method taken was the best method under the circumstances. I am inclined to think that the right thing to do was not to send out broadcast at a time like this, but to employ someone who was trusted by the Government to use his judgment and to act as if he were acting for himself. I think that is the right method, and I agree also with what the hon. Member has said that it is far easier for the Government to adopt a stereotyped rule if they would avoid criticism. There is great temptation to do it. I think it is right that ordinary business men should be alarmed at what was done. I am sure that many business firms at the time knew that prices were likely to rise, they would have let as small a number of people as possible know that they were going to buy, and they would have kept the work as far as possible in the hands of one man. To that extent I quite agree with what the Government has done. But that has to be followed up, for at the same time as they employ this man to buy wood they sent out inquiries all over the trade, and therefore they had the worst of both arrangements. By sending out inquiries their action would tend to raise prices. I am bound to say that, looking at it from the other point of view whether this was an ordinary reasonable kind of transaction, it is impossible that anyone can defend what was done by the Government, and I do think that the hon. Gentleman has practically admitted that it was done too hastily and without proper care. That, I think, is all the House has the right to ask the Government to say. Surely no one will deny that.
  I do not know whether this gentleman's remuneration from the point of view of the commission is too high, but I was under the impression from what the hon. Gentleman said about the work that it was too high. It is clerical work. He sends instructions, I presume, to the people from whom he buys as to where they are to send the wood. That is clerical work, and surely any ordinary business man who had to make a transaction of this kind would have said, "What is he going to make out of this?" He would have said also, "What is the usual commission in a case of this kind?" It is quite true that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had an easier task for their 1 per cent., but never probably was a commission given of so large an amount without the assurance that there was no timber broker willing to do

  1067
  the work on better terms. There is not a timber dealer in the whole of London who would not have jumped at that rate, and who would not have done it for a lower scale of commission. The hon. Gentleman says he did not know how much they were going to buy. That is a condemnation of the transaction. There is no reason why they should have known the amount, but they should have put some limit from the beginning on the amount Mr. Meyer was going to make out of this. I say that this order was given on these terms, and that ordinary business methods were not adopted. But there is another part which I think is worse. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Meyer gave no undertaking, and was not asked to give an undertaking that he would not carry on his own business. But as a matter of fact he has not done it.
  I ask the House to consider what that means. I presume that Mr. Meyer has acted honourably by the Government, and that he has done good service. I have no reason to take any other view. But just think what the Office of Works allowed him the opportunity of doing had he chosen to do it. They put him in possession of the knowledge that this immense quantity of timber was to be bought, and they left him, if he chose, to speculate on his account without check, and to make any amount of money. I say that is not a businesslike way to deal with these things, and the whole trouble arises—it is the old complaint—from the fact that the Government as a whole do not realise that special training is required to deal in a businesslike way with immense transactions of this kind. They have not realised the business ability which would have been available to help them in a case of this kind. I do not entirely agree with the methods which are suggested by some of those who have spoken. I think this is a pretty hopeless business to get Government work done on ordinary business lines. Every attempt you make you will be up against obstacles just now, and I am quite sure that what is going to happen is that we will go on in the old way until the War is over, when there will be an inquiry which will show that there has been an amount of extravagance which will make all our other experience in other wars become absolutely insignificant.
  My own view is this—and as a matter of fact I put it to Members of the Government without any offence—I think that to buy properly requires training and experience
  1068
  almost as great as is required in any kind of work. What happens is that those who transact Government business have no experience at all corresponding to what they have to do. They have certainly to do work which they do not understand, and it is quite impossible to avoid making mistakes. What I myself should have done if I had had the power—as a matter of fact I put this forward fifteen years ago, after the Boer War—I would have hunted out the best business man I could find in the House of Commons, and if he was not available here I would have tried to find him outside, and I would have put him at the War Office and said to him, "Now I am going to trust you to superintend and to be responsible for everything bought and sold." That could not be done except by some Minister who believed in the man who was chosen, and who had faith that the work would be done. But to have committees to inquire after the thing is done will have no effect. The business has to be done more or less on the lines of personal responsibility, and it ought to be done by people who understand it.
  Certainly from what I have heard of him I am not going to join in any condemnation of Mr. Meyer. I have no reason to suppose that he has done his work otherwise than well, and I am quite certain that the method adopted by the Government of putting the work in the hands of one man is right. I am much more afraid of other kinds of transactions which are occasionally heard mentioned in Questions and Answers in the House. I happened to hear a question the other day as to the amount sold by a particular firm to the War Office, and later I found from an answer to another question that they were buying from other people. That is far mere dangerous. At a time like this, if the War Office are buying from one contractor who is placing his sub-contracts all over the country, it is not a question of the amount of the commission. We have no knowledge, of the amount of profit they make, and in my opinion there is only one way of curing that kind of thing, and that is to strengthen the staff of the Government Departments by putting in business men who will give their services for the purpose of saving unnecessary cost to the country.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There are one or two things I would like to say before the Debate closes. We are living in days of innovations. We have had a Parliamentary innovation to-night in the manner in

  1069
  which the representative of the Office of Works has replied to the criticisms made. It is somewhat unusual—indeed, I think it is unprecedented—for a Member of one House to read statements such as we have had to-night from a Member of another House. I would not complain of it in the slightest had the Member of the other House not presumed to lecture the Members of this House with regard to the matter before us. I think myself it was a very extraordinary act on the part of Lord Emmott to do that when not here to hear the reply. This Debate to-night is necessary principally because of the want of candour on the part of Lord Emmott and his Department. We have asked questions time after time, and we have had shuffling, evasive, and misleading replies, and, in my opinion, an intentional want of candour to this House. I say that somethig more important than the contract is the manner in which the Office of Works—I have no doubt under the direction of the President—has tried to kill questions and criticism by denying to this House information it has a right to have. I will not make that statement without trying to prove it. Take one or two questions which we have asked. In passing, let me say Lord Emmott ought to have had more respect for the House of Commons. He was here a good many years, and he had the chairmanship of Committees and an Under-Secretary-ship before he could be persuaded to leave it. The best way to settle this question in the House of Commons is by putting the cards on the table, and not attempting to shelve the question by denying information we have legitimate right to ask for. Take the question. I asked yesterday. I asked—
  "whether Lord Emmott, as First Commissioner of Works, was consulted as to the terms of the contract with Mr. Meyer in regard to the buying of timber before the contract was made; and did he give his authority for the same to be carried into effect?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1915, vol. 782.]
  That is a simple question which could have been answered "Yes" or "No." The hon. Member (Mr. Beck) gave this reply:—
  "The Matter was mentioned to the First Commissioner and he told his Department to render all the assistance they could to the War Office, and gave general approval to make such arrangements as they thought best. He was not informed of all the details at the time, but he has since made inquiry about the matter, and he has not the least doubt that a very great saving of public money was effected by the course adopted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1915, col. 782.]
  Lord Emmott has not the frankness to say that he knew nothing about it until he
  1070
  saw the criticism in the papers. I believe that to be the truth of the matter. He shoves it on to his subordinate. Could he do anything else but take the responsibility for his subordinate? He acknowledged that in this matter he was responsible. He knew nothing about it, but after he looked into the details he said that was an excellent arrangement. He was not treating the House fairly, because he should have told us that he did not know anything about it, and then we would have known where we stood. That was one point upon which we did not get the candour which we were entitled to get. Another point. When this contract was first brought before the House of Commons undoubtedly the impression conveyed to the House and accepted was that Mr. Meyer was not going to do any private business of his own. It is known now that there was absolutely nothing in the contract to prevent him doing so. Therefore, Mr. Meyer has been doing his own business all the time. Since the contract was made, he is taking pages, I believe, in all the timber papers, advertising that he is selling exactly the same goods as he is buying for the Government. At the same time that he is buying goods for the Government at 2½ per cent., he is selling goods himself, and, of course, dealing in goods himself. I observe another advertisement in which he advertises himself as "importer of all kinds of soft woods." Therefore you have the extraordinary position that he is absolutely master of the situation. If a deal goes bad, he can pass it on to the Government. If it is good, he can keep it himself. There is no use in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is the fact!
  Mr. Meyer, in his double capacity, can give what he likes to the Government, and can keep whatever he likes for himself. He is a monopolist. Imagine the position of a man who has a monopoly to buy shares in a £2,000,000 company, and who has the credit behind him to buy the lot if he likes. Do you not suppose that there is not an immense temptation to a man to give hints to his friends? Perhaps not intentionally, but he is bound to be in close co-operation with very many merchants and people around his office, and if you give a man the right to buy monopoly in that particular company, the shares are bound to rise. Therefore, it is very easy for friends or anyone who gets the knowledge to buy or

  1071
  sell. The temptation is one to which no man should be exposed by the Government of the day. Not only that, but there is no limit to Mr. Meyer's power in another direction. He can go to any broker—and it is from the broker that he is buying the stuff that he is delivering—and say: "Have you so and so to sell?" and if the answer is "Yes," he can say: "I can give you 2 per cent. on it if you like, or 3, or 4, or 5 per cent." There is absolutely no limit to the amount of money which he may pay a broker for the goods which he delivers to him. That is a most extraordinary power to place in the hands of a comparative stranger, because he was in effect a comparative stranger to the Office of Works. Then there was a want of candour with regard to inquiries. We were told in the first place that 500 enquiries were made. Now we get it that enquiries were only made of 200 firms. It is easy to bring in the patriotic spirit. That appeals to a lot of people, but it does not cover what I believe to be a very unsavoury job.
  Out of sixty of the leading timber firms in this country, some of them with millions of pounds' worth of stock, who were represented at a meeting yesterday, I understand that only four of them had any inquiries at all, though most of them were engaged in Government business and are doing thousands of pounds' worth of work for the Government at the present time. Who was it cooked the list? Who made the selected list of people of whom inquiries were to be made? That would be a very interesting question, because it is monstrous to say that you can ignore all the leading firms of the country who are engaged in this business. Mr. Meyer was not in this business to any extent at all before this. He had to deal with packing-cases, which are not required in this connection at all. How was it that all the leading firms in the country, men with acres of storage, while Mr. Meyer has nothing of the kind but simply an office, had no inquiries made of them, while the men from whom inquiries were made were unable to supply them?
  Now, as to the nature of the inquiries which were made. In the first place we thought that an ordinary communication had been sent, and that the result, of course, determined the policy of the Government. It was nothing of the kind. All that happened was that they sent certain
  1072
  young men connected with the office, or in touch with it in the country, to various places to inquire whether they had any timber, and what is described as "an elongated youth" went to a large contractor and said: "Have you got timber to sell?" The contractor said: "What kind of timber?" The answer was, "I do not know. Have you not got any timber to sell?" He was told "Yes," and he asked, "At what price?" The contractor replied: "It all depends on what kind you want." That man went away, and I suppose that he reported that conversation to the Government. That is the kind of inquiry that was made all over the place. I am not surprised, because the hon. Member has been good enough to hand to me within the last few weeks a copy of the inquiry that was made. It is a most extraordinary document. After stating what was required, it says:
  "As it will be impossible to purchase the whole of this from one merchant"—
  though a few hours afterwards they did put it into the hands of one merchant.
  Mr. BECK: He is a buyer.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am reading a letter supplied by the Office of Works.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): That is your comment on the case.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: What is the comment you object to?
  Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman said that they put it in the hands of one merchant. That is his own comment.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: That is obviously an understood thing. There is extraordinary sensitiveness on the part of some of the young men on the Treasury Bench, because of the fact that I called him a merchant instead of a buyer.
  Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman must not bully quite so much. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was reading the letter, and we were explaining that certain words were a comment of his own.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find quite enough to do to attend to his own Department. We have had already two Under-Secretaries at this matter. It is very difficult for us to know where to get information from. First we ask the hon. Member for Saffron Walden

  1073
  (Mr. Beck). Then it is handed on to the Under-Secretary to the War Office. It is almost a case of "Pull devil: pull baker." The result is that when we make a comment, still one further Under-Secretary has got to be brought in! I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman has quite enough to do to look after his own Department.
  An HON. MEMBER: The hon. Member is not an Under-Secretary.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am not going to be put down by the interruption of half-a-dozen Under-Secretaries or would-be Under-Secretaries I will bring the House back to the importance of this matter. The letter goes on: "I am making inquiries through the Clerk of the Works," and later on, the writer says, "We were asked whether we would be willing to grant an option upon it, the whole or a portion, until next Wednesday." The important part of this contract business is the question of dates. From the first the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beck) knew who Mr. Meyer was after he had been asked to quote. The date on which the Office of Works sent out this inquiry was 15th October, 1914, and it is rather interesting, when we hear this plea of patriotism and so forth of the rush and worry of the War Office, to realise that once they had settled this contract, they must surely have known before that date the extraordinary amount of timber that would be required. On the 15th October they sent out an inquiry which was received on the 16th in the country by these agents. It was on the 16th that Mr. Meyer's arrangement was made.
  Mr. BECK: The right hon. Gentleman must know that I explained time after time that, in addition to writing to the agents, inquiries were made all over London by telephone and by wire, on the 15th, the moment the information from the War Office was received.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: That does not alter what I am saying. I am referring to the inquiries they were making, upon which, mark you, they based the reason for their new policy, as has been stated in this House, of going to a single buyer, because the timber firms were going to squeeze them, and prices were to be held up. It was on the morning of the 16th that these correspondents in the country were requested to make inquiries at the timber yards. On the afternoon of that day—I presume it would be in the afternoon—
  1074
  Mr. Meyer had an interview with Mr. Baines at the Office of Works, and that night the letter was written which is the basis of the contract. It was not until the 19th that the letter from Mr. Baines was sent confirming Mr. Meyer's letter. It was on the Thursday that the contract was discussed, and the letter was posted that night; it was a Friday's letter, and Sunday intervened. On the Monday Mr. Baines wrote in reply accepting Mr. Meyer. There is no reason to suppose that there was any time whatever to make adequate inquiries between those two dates. It was absolutely impossible.
  As a plain matter of fact, and to all intents and purposes, the deal was completed on the very day the inquiries were sent out from the Office of Works; the whole thing was settled on that day before the official letter was sent out for inquiries. I say that there is reason for a very full inquiry into this matter. No conditions whatever were made with Mr. Meyer, no limitation as to the amount of brokerage, no suggestion as to who was to look after insurance and freight, and no limit as to the amount of overdraft the State might have to pay interest upon. I say that it is most unbusinesslike throughout, it is absolutely indefensible, and no reasonable precautions were taken to make a business arrangement. It would have been respectful to await the replies of the 200 firms. The whole thing was rushed, and no attempt was made to get the information which they said they required.
  It seems to me that that part of the business was probably the most unsavoury of the whole thing. I am very sorry that the Government have not to-night given us the slightest indication as to what their policy is to be with regard to this matter. I presume they are hoping that this matter will die out, that the House will adjourn shortly, and that probably we will not be here to criticise. Our criticism has been justified up to the present, because there is no doubt whatever that had we not criticised the 2½ per cent. it would have run on right to the end. As a result of our criticism we have already got a promise that they are to approach Mr. Meyer to see whether he will modify the 2½ per cent. Therefore, I presume there is going to be some modification of it. I have heard hints that it is proposed to persuade Mr. Meyer to be content with £15,000. But I tell them in advance that would not meet the case. Any man who

  1075
  has got a huge monopoly of this kind, a man comparatively a complete stranger to the Office of Works, has, as a matter of fact, placed in his hands a power which ought not to be given to one man. Mr. Meyer himself says, in his letter which is the basis of the agreement, that should it become known that he was the Government buyer it would be fatal to good prices. It is known pretty well now that Mr. Meyer is the buyer, and therefore on Mr. Meyer's own showing, he cannot be a good buyer. As a matter of fact, it was known within a few hours that Mr. Meyer was the buyer.
  While I criticise the whole arrangement, and think it was most unbusinesslike, it may be said that I should of course suggest what I think ought to have been done. I think they ought to have called in six or eight timber merchants, and appointed them a committee to deal with this matter—a business committee to advise them; but, instead of that, they go to a man, not dealing in this class of timber at all, not known at all among the larger timber merchants in the country, and hand the whole thing over to him, without any competition from men who had been buying for the War Office to the amount of hundreds and thousands of pounds, and who, I believe, compete in the same market. I say that all those things show that there was a want of business common sense in regard to the whole matter. The hon. Gentleman to-night has tried to defend his case by reading a lot of anonymous letters. He did not give the name of a single writer. One timber merchant wrote that he was very pleased with the deal, and was sorry he had not had it. I wonder if this gentleman wrote spontaneously, or whether it had been suggested that a letter might be useful. I think the hon. Gentleman should give the name and address of the firm from whom that letter came. Will the hon. Gentleman do that?
  Mr. BECK: Certainly not. I cannot give the name of our informant. I gave the name of the respected Member for Partick.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am not referring to the hon. Member for Partick; I am dealing with a number of letters which the hon. Gentleman read from people who said that this was an excellent arrangement.
  Mr. BECK: Does the right hon. Gentleman doubt that I received those letters
  1076
  that I read? Does he suggest that I invented them?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Not a bit.
  Mr. BECK: What is the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My point is this. That here was a timber firm spontaneously writing and saying that this was an excellent arrangement—2½ per cent., £13,000 in three months, £60,000 a year. A big timber firm who voluntarily says that this is an excellent arrangement is one of which I would like to know whether they are doing any business with Mr. Meyer. After a quotation from a document we are entitled to have it, and, although I do not press that point, I think we ought to have it. In my opinion, the Government have not made out their case to-night. They have held out little hope that any modification is going to be made. This is not the only case in connection with the Office of Works which they will have to defend in a very short time, and I advise them to reconsider their position in regard to this matter. We are as anxious as they are that nothing should be put in the way, but that can be overdone. As Members of this House, we have still got some rights left, although from the manner in which Cabinet Ministers keep away from the Front Bench when matters of importance are being discussed one would think that there was no House of Commons at all. When legitimate criticism is made not a single Cabinet Minister is present at any of our Debates. How different from the days of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone used to insist that three or four Cabinet Ministers should be here every night, and he used to come in every half-hour to see that they were here. I have seen him myself, scores of times, look in, count them, and go back again. He was anxious that the dignity of the House of Commons should be kept up, and that the Cabinet should be represented at every important Debate. Throughout these Debates we have not had a Cabinet Minister at all but perhaps we ought not to press that point too far.
  I express my extreme regret that the Government have practically refused to recognise the force of the criticism made by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Opposition. There is no political question in this matter. I venture to say that ninety-nine out of a hundred commercial men throughout the country regard this as a bad arrangement. The Government

  1077
  refuse to listen to any suggestion that is put forward. How can you be surprised if you have labour troubles over a farthing an hour, considering that some of the fiery leaders are able to tell the men that the Government have given a job to Mr. Meyer which is worth £60,000 per year, and which may be worth very much more if it goes on at 2½ per cent., because the more disasters we have the more recruits we will require, and that all means money for Mr. Meyer at 2½ per cent.! The longer the War goes on, the more money goes into Mr. Meyer's banking account. Therefore, you cannot be surprised, when working men in the country are asking for more money, that the extreme agitator is able to hold out an example of this kind. I say that the Government have not realised, in my opinion, up to this moment the importance of this question. It is an unbusinesslike proposal from the start. It was rushed through between two men, and two men alone, namely Mr. Baines of the Office of Works and Mr. Meyer of the City. I venture to say that no responsible official in the Office of Works knew anything about it. It was rushed through with disrespect to the firms who were asked and who were treated with complete contempt. In my opinion the Government in this matter will lose a great deal of the credit which belongs to them owing to the manner in which they have dealt with this contract. Even now I again repeat we shall continue to press this matter on them unless it is placed on an absolutely businesslike basis.
  Sir ROBERT BALFOUR: I had not the opportunity of hearing the previous Debates on this question, so that I am not entirely familiar with all that has passed, although I have read to a large extent the reports of those Debates. My name has been mentioned by some hon. Members, and my object in saying these few words is to state what has been within my own experience, extending over the best part of fifty years. My firm has been engaged in importing timber, among other things, during the past twenty or thirty years. We have sold that timber to various agents in London, in Liverpool, and in Glasgow, and in every case the commission we have paid for that service has been 2½ per cent. We have striven many times to get a reduction of that charge, but without success. I am not free to give the names as I have not been authorised to do so by the agents, but I am perfectly willing to give
  1078
  them to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) if he so desires, or to any other Member of this House.
  Mr. W. YOUNG: May I ask if that commission included a guarantee of financial responsibility?
  Sir R. BALFOUR: There was no question of guarantee of payment because the timber was sold by exchange of documents. I should mention as well that there were considerable parcels, and to one buyer in practically every case, so that there was no excessive amount of trouble to the agent. But I have no reason to doubt that he did everything he could to obtain it at the best price possible. It may be argued that there is more difficulty in selling than in buying, but I do not admit that that is so. In our experience it is quite as difficult to buy as to sell, and in many cases more so. We all know that soon after War broke out there were difficulties in the extreme I am not a timber merchant and do not know all its details, but after the War broke out the stock of timber in this country was very small. It is a bulky article and has to come very long distances, and, under the circumstances which arose, some of the markets were closed. Moreover, if I am correctly informed, it was essential that the Government should obtain a supply of certain descriptions of timber which were necessary for their purpose.
  The Leader of the Opposition expressed the view, with which I entirely agree, that the proper course to take was to employ an agent to buy supplies, and that he should proceed about it in the most secret manner. As to the commission, it was stated that the buyer for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Trust charged 1 per cent. but bear in mind that that is an office which spreads over a number of years, and a merchant can afford to do business on more favourable terms when he has got a permanent engagement. In the case of the War Office, an order for War purposes, which may last only a short time, as I hope will be the case, or which, no doubt, may last a long time, is, at any rate, adventitious business and accidental employment, and I am certainly very strongly of the opinion that the commission which has been paid is a reasonable commission in all the circumstances.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Notwithstanding the limit of expenditure.
  Sir R. BALFOUR: I have been engaged in business as clerk and as principal for fifty-two years and I never yet heard in a commercial undertaking of the commission being based upon volume, although, if people know it is going to be a lengthy employment, they may under certain circumstances reduce their regular charges. I have no doubt that if the gentleman had been told that he would have this agency for three or five years he would have been quite willing to accept commission on a smaller scale; but that obviously could not be done. It has already been stated that the amount involved in this transaction might not have been so large as it has turned out to be. I have no knowledge of Mr. Meyer at all. I think some unworthy suggestions have been made about his nationality and so on.
  As far as I know, he seems to be qualified to carry out the business entrusted to him, and the principle of what has been done is, in my judgment, a businesslike one. Attacks have been made upon my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. It seems to me that I could, with full justification, use a stronger term, but I simply say that those attacks have been absolutely unjustifiable. The House should bear in mind that the circumstances were extremely difficult and that if any mistake was made it was one which, under the circumstances, ought to be excused. Every official in the War Office was working at high pressure; they had far more work in hand than they could accomplish. They may have been somewhat forgetful of some points in this contract, but apparently Mr. Meyer has met any difficulty of that kind in a fair and reasonable way by agreeing to modify the contract in order to meet the views of Lord Emmott. As far as I can judge, there is no ground whatever for the complaints which have been made. The contract was a fair and reasonable one, and, on the whole, under all the circumstances, a favourable one.
  Mr. WING: If I may ask the House to proceed from wood to human beings, I would call the attention of the Government to what I think ought to be done in regard to the administration of the allowances and allotments to the dependants of soldiers. The Royal Warrant just issued, whilst making several beneficial allowances and extensions, does not in any way touch one great difficulty—that is in relation to homes where several members of a
  1080
  family have joined the Army There is one case where eight sons in one family have enlisted, and the net income of that house is now some twenty shillings. There is a great amount of dissatisfaction, because the impression had been created on the minds of such as might enlist that if they made an allotment of 3s. 6d. the Government would make it up to 12s. 6d.
  The Government may not have intended to make this impression, but it widely exists. Moreover, even the intentions of the Government are being largely frustrated by the fact that, when an allotment is made in favour of a mother or father, where two or more sons enlist, you have a visit of the pension officer, who seems to have a great faculty for exact book-keeping—a little too exact. In my view the country wants the Government to be generous in regard to these allowances. I have a case here where the pension officer went to a house to ascertain how much the son paid. The mother told him that he paid £1 a week, whereupon the pension officer endeavoured to calculate the various expenses, and, reckoning 14s. for food, left the mother 6s. to draw. These calculations have been made so exactly that in the case where eight sons from one family have joined there is a final allowance of 4s. 11d. made by the Government. I am quite certain that the public expect a home of that sort to be far better treated than that. The War Office has caused a splendid defence to be made for a man receiving thousands of pounds. Here is a case where eight sons have enlisted and 4s. 11d. per week is being paid over and above the sons' allotments of 3s. 6d.
  I do not necessarily desire the Government to take the matter away from the pensions committee; there is a good deal to be said for their having the matter in hand, as they have local knowledge. But some instructions to cut the amount down as fine as possible must have been given to the pension officers, and I would ask the Government to tell us what they are. There is a feeling in some quarters in regard to families in agricultural districts that a comparatively large sum is going into those homes; but that does not apply in the mining districts in Durham and Northumberland where wages are high. I know a case where the usual income was £6 per week; it is now 19s. 6d. The argument of the pensions committee is that they have no longer to maintain the men who have enlisted. That is quite true, but the house remains, and the working expenses are running on.

  1081
  Therefore I ask that the War Office should instruct the pension officers to deal with these people generously, not to be too exact as to the amount of tea the people may drink, or the food that they may eat, but to put the homes, as the Royal Warrant itself suggests, in a position similar to that in which they were before the sons or husbands enlisted. I am not here to nag the Government; I think they have done great things; that it is eating into the hearts of a large number of fellows at the front to feel that their parents are suffering by their having given their services to the country. They do not begrudge giving their services; they are willing to do their very best, and the people of the country desire that they should be generously treated. Mothers have given their sons, and wives their husbands. I have here the case of a widow whose only two sons have joined the Army, and her income, instead of being, as it was before, £3 a week, is the beggarly sum of 13s. 7d. It seems to me out of all consonance with the sentiment of the country at a time of great crisis like this, when men are desirous of doing their best for their country.
  Mr. RAFFAN: The subject introduced by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring is much less exciting than that which his been getting the considerable attention of the House, but it is equally important—
  Mr. BARNES: More important.
  Mr. RAFFAN: As my hon. Friend says, "More important." Since last August men have been encouraged to enlist by being told that their homes will be preserved until they came back, and that they need have no anxiety as to those who remain behind. In some particulars at least there has been a considerable gulf between promise and performance in this matter. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the improvement which has been indicated in the Royal Warrant. I gratefully acknowledge what has been done by the Committee, and by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office to bridge that gulf. I think it is not yet completely bridged, and I should like to direct attention more particularly to one aspect of the question. In my own Constituency I find complaints that there is a great lack of uniformity throughout the country in regard to the treatment of dependants by the different paymasters. It is particularly realised in a Constituency like my
  1082
  own where men do not join one particular regiment, as they do in some districts, but join various regiments throughout the country.
  The Secretary of the Old Age Pensions Committee informed me that in connection with some of these cases he had communicated with no fewer than fifteen different paymasters, and he had found, more particularly with regard to the matter of which I am speaking, a great variety of practice. The inevitable result is that there has been discontent amongst dependants similarly circumstanced who found that they had not received the same consideration as their next door neighbour merely because their male relative belonged to a different regiment. That discrepancy has been shown more particularly in regard to the case of refusal to make separation allowances to mothers on the ground that the family income was sufficient for the needs of the household without the addition of separation allowance. In some cases generous views have been taken, and separation allowances have been granted. In other cases they have been absolutely refused. Here is a case—it is quite true it is somewhat old, as it took place in November—where the Paymaster at Woolwich sent this, as it appears to me, somewhat curt note:—
  "Please note that as yon have a husband to support yon, you are not included in the regulations relating to dependants."
  In another case, not in my own constituency, the secretary of a Territorial Association wrote:—
  "I beg to state that separation allowance cannot be issued in your case as you have apparently other means of support."
  9.0 P.M.
  As recently as last week the secretary of a Territorial Association gave the information that cases of this nature were being "held-up" at the request of the War Office pending a decision in regard to them. Quite recently, too, the secretary of one of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Associations wrote to say, that "one of our cases has been refused allowance on account of her son, because the income of the family was high. The War Office is dealing strictly with the matter, and her claim was disallowed. When the pension officer visited her he estimated her income at 12s. 6d. per week." The fact that I have been able to quote so many cases shows that this practice of refusing separation allowance to mothers because they have husbands to support them, or because, it was alleged, the family income was sufficiently high for the

  1083
  maintenance of the home without the addition of the separation allowance, is an extremely widespread practice. I put a question to the hon. Gentleman to-day. I cheerfully admit that he gave me what on the face of it is a very satisfactory answer. He informed me that—
  "an instruction has been issued stating that a dependant otherwise eligible is not in any sense barred by the possession of an income from other sources."
  I presume that that instruction has been issued during the present week, or at any rate quite recently. If it was issued even as recently as a fortnight ago it is quite evident it has not been acted upon in a number of cases. Obviously if the instruction is an old instruction, it is clear that it has not been acted upon. I should like to press upon the hon. Gentleman that paymasters and secretaries of Territorial Associations should have their special attention drawn to it, for they have been acting in a contrary sense. I take it, also, that, in the cases which have been "held up," separation allowance should at once become payable.
  I should also like to have the point quite clear as to the cases where applications have been definitely refused. Are those applications now to be renewed? If so, what is the machinery for the purpose? If there is easily accessible machinery—as I hope the hon. Member will be able to assure us there is—is it now possible that this woman, who was curtly told she was entitled to nothing because she had a husband, shall in future receive her separation allowance? As to the matter of arrears. The application to which I have just referred was made in November. The woman's neighbours in the same town, under similar circumstances, have been drawing separation allowance all along. Is this applicant to be paid separation allowance from November, or, if she puts in a fresh application now, is she to be treated as a fresh applicant, with the payment only to commence now? Another point I regard as extremely important. What is the position of the paymasters when they are asked for forms by applicants who are willing to make allotments any desire to make separation allowances? Can the paymasters, of their own volition, refuse these forms? Can they adjudicate upon the claim? I myself have endeavoured to obtain information, and I find that the Army Order says that, "if the claim appears to be
  1084
  good the paymaster shall forward the declaration to the pension officer for report." I am sure a great many people interested would be very glad to have some definition as to what is meant by the phrase "if the claim appears to be good." Does it mean that the paymaster has to supply the necessary form, and is to send the declaration to the pension officer in every case where the claim is not an obviously bad or absurd claim, or is he to adjudicate upon the claim?
  That leads me to my last question, with reference to the machinery which we are informed has now been set up for the purpose of enabling appeals to be made. I have endeavoured so far as I could to understand that machinery. I am bound to say that it appears to me on the surface—and I shall be glad to have further information to correct me if wrong—that no provision really has been made for hearing appeals, but merely machinery for rehearing cases by the same people as have already decided them. For instance, this statement says that anybody who is dissatisfied with the present amount can go to the post office, get a form and send it to the paymaster, and if the question raised be a question of regulation the paymaster is to decide. But is he not the person who has already decided? And, if so, what reason is there to suppose he will revise his decision, and, in any case, if he refuses to reconsider, the applicant has absolutely no appeal. If this proposed machinery is set up the paymaster is to be the judge in his own case—the judge in the Appeal Court. Is there no opportunity for the applicant to get behind the paymaster if the applicant believes he or she has a perfectly valid claim? As to the question of amount, we are informed it has to be sent back by the paymaster to the pension officer, and if there is agreement the decision will stand. But what happens if they disagree? If the pension officer takes the view that the amount ought not to be increased, does the matter go to the old age pensions committee at all? and, if it does go to the old age pensions committee, have they any right to overrule the decision of the pension officer? And if they have not, does it not amount to this, that the pension officer who originally came to a conclusion with regard to the amount is merely given an opportunity of going over the matter again, and from the decision there is no appeal in the real sense of the word, and no opportunity of taking the matter to a higher tribunal?

  1085
  I would be greatly obliged if the hon. Gentleman would clear these matters up, because they are naturally attracting attention of members of old age pension committees all over the country, and naturally they are of great interest to a very great number of applicants. No doubt it will be admitted readily that the allowances fixed in the early stages are nearly all, or, at any rate, a very large number of them allowances which ought to be revised. They were fixed under somewhat different conditions, and, no doubt, if there is any machinery for reconsideration, that will be useful. I do not complain of that, but we were led to believe that there would not only be machinery set up for purposes of reconsideration, but machinery set up for purposes of appeal, and I should like to be assured that there is some real machinery for purposes of appeal. I would be very greatly obliged if the hon. Gentleman would set us right with regard to that matter. I should like some assurance as to what is to happen to mothers under the circumstances I have described who have been refused allowances to which under the rule, if I may put it in that way, they are obviously entitled, and what action is to be taken with regard to arrears? I should also like some information with regard to this subject of appeal.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to support the appeals which have been made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) and the last speaker with regard to this matter, and I want to call attention to one or two points in connection with this new Army Order. There is no doubt as to the first instruction issued with regard to dependants that a very large number of speakers at recruiting meetings did give the public to understand that, if a man contributed 1s. 9d. towards the maintenance of his mother or anyone dependent upon him, the State would contribute 5s. 9d., making 7s. 6d. per week, and also that, if he contributed 3s. 6d. the State would contribute 9s., making 12s. 6d. That, I think, was a genuine statement made by all speakers. I know I made it myself and was taken to task afterwards, and I did it in all good faith that there was no revision with regard to this.
  The mistake that has been made is this: I believe that instructions were given to the old age pension officers to inquire into the amount of money the man paid the
  1086
  mother, and also as to the cost of his keep out of that money. Those instructions were given, and in a very large number of cases the pension officer never attended a meeting of the old age pensions committee. There was no appeal from his recommendation so far as the old age pensions committee was concerned and, therefore, there was conflict. I am given to understand from the statement of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes)—who I am glad to see present, because he has been a very active member of the Pensions Committee, and we are all very much indebted to him for what he has done—that, under the new order of the Pensions Committee, which is sitting under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in future the old age pensions committee will have some power in this matter of revising—that is to say, if an appeal is made to them, they will have the final word in the matter. I was given to understand that that was the new order.
  Mr. RAFFAN: That is what we want to find out.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell us. But what I was surprised to find was this: If that was the new recommendation of the Pensions Committee, although we have seen nothing about it apart from what the hon. Member has himself stated, there is nothing in this Army Order with regard to it. I want to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the fact that there is nothing in this Army Order giving any instruction to the Old Age Pensions Committee as to their power in the matter. That is a very serious matter, and further—I have only just seen this Army Order—I should like to call the attention of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division to this fact, because I understand, so far as the Committee upstairs is concerned, they have not really dealt with the new administrative part. I find in this Army Order, in Article 13, that instructions are given with regard to dependants, and that if they want to make any inquiries they must make them of the pension officers or the Soldiers and Sailors Families' Association or other local committee.
  I want to ask my hon. Friend why he brings the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association into this. He knows that the War Office had practically decided before

  1087
  this Committee sat to inquire into the administrative part with the War Office, and he had decided, along with the permanent officials, to alter the whole system, so that you could have one committee in every district to deal with these matters. Now I am sorry to find that you have practically here three committees to whom the persons may have to make application for information. There is no instruction in this Order as to where they must apply for the form to fill up. That is a very important matter. It is, I think, a very defective part of this Order, and one which should be rectified. I suggested to-day at Question time that, if any instructions are given to the Old Age Pension Officer with regard to payments to dependants, those instructions ought also to be sent to the members of the Old Age Pensions Committee. That committee would be able to see exactly the instructions sent either from the War Office or the Treasury to their officer, and, in my opinion, it would obviate any conflict between them.
  What the Old Age Pensions Committee complains about is that they are kept in absolute ignorance of what is being done. These recommendations are made to them, and very often the officer does not attend, and I think the whole thing should be put upon a more permanent and a better basis, that is to say, that the officer should attend the committees, make his recommendations, and the men and women who sit upon that committee, knowing the circumstances, should have the right to supervise and alter, if necessary, his recommendations and make a final report to the War Office. That would be a much better plan that the existing system. I should like to call attention to the Army Order which has been issued. We are delighted with the important changes made as regards separation allowances, which are very much more generous than they were before. If the Financial Secretary to the War Office will look on page nine, I think he will agree that we have a right to strongly object to the terms of reference. It says that the Army Orders 441 and 440 of 1914 will be amended accordingly. How can any person in the localities look at those Orders to see what they mean? I think this Army Order should be self-contained. I am sorry these references are made, because it is important that the members of the Old Age Pensions Committee should have a thorough knowledge of what the War Office proposes to do, and, therefore, these Orders should be
  1088
  self-contained, and then with these alterations much smoother working would be carried out in the future.
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Members who have addressed the House on the subject of separation allowance have had such great experience of its actual administration that any suggestion coming from them deserves very careful attention from the Government Department. My hon. Friend who has just sat down regretted that a suggestion which he made some months ago has not been adopted, namely, that there should be an information bureau set up in districts to which those concerned might go and get their questions answered.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: And get in touch with the War Office.
  Mr. BAKER: That suggestion was sympathetically considered. It is true it has not been carried into effect, but my hon. Friend must remember that the whole activities and initiative of the War Office in these matters have been temporarily suspended since the reference to the Select Committee. With regard to the points raised in connection with the Army Order, I will certainly consider them most carefully, but I would point out that an Army Order is a formal official document, and it will be issued in the form of a leaflet. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Durham drew a picture which I am sure touched the House, of a family from which eight sons had been sent to the front, and yet those who are left behind were receiving what in comparison with the enormous services rendered to the country and the sacrifices made by the household, appeared a very inadequate sum, and he asked what instructions had been given to pension officers in such cases
  With regard to the basis of payment, that has been carefully considered by the Select Committee, and much as we admire the sacrifice of those who send a large number to the front, at the same time the basis decided upon is not that of the number sent, but actual dependence. That recommendation comes with the signature of the Select Committee, and we are bound to proceed on those lines. The pension officers have received two instructions. One given to them some time ago was that they were to be very careful indeed not to strain cases against the applicant, and that instruction has been reinforced in forms with which the House is

  1089
  familiar, to the effect that within the assigned limits they are to do their best to bring to the household the same standard of comfort enjoyed before the soldier went away. These instructions are explicit and clear, and should be interpreted by pension officers in the spirit in which they are sent.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Do the pension committees know about these instructions?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot say whether they do or do not. I imagine they do, and at any rate they are public property. They have appeared in the Report and in answers to questions as well as in the Interim Report of the Select Committee. The hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire (Mr. Raffan) raised a question about the want of uniformity in dealing with dependants. I told the hon. Member, in answer to a question, that there had been a change of policy in this matter, that originally dependence was interpreted in a different sense to that in which it is now interpreted. There are two perfectly different meanings to the term "dependence." In the first place, there is the obvious and popular meaning that someone is relying on somebody else for their support.
  There is also a technical and legal definition which was established by a decision of the House of Lords under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That decision was to the effect that where any member of the family contributed to the common fund of the home, each other member was partially dependent upon him. That carries the thing very much further, and we have from the Select Committee an expression of their opinion that we should take the technical and the legal sense of "dependence," and we are now doing so. I do not know the exact date but, at any rate, instructions have been issued and I hope that within a very short time my hon. Friend will be able to see from his own observation complete uniformity in this matter. I was asked a question as to what would happen to those who had had their applications refused. I think they would have no difficulty in making a fresh application after finding that their first application has been rejected. They can avail themselves of the new machinery for making an appeal.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: To the Old Age Pensions Committee?
  Mr. BAKER: I mean the machinery of appeal set up by the Select Committee which was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). My hon. Friend behind me asked one or two questions on that subject, and in reply I may say that no mention is made of the appeal in the Army Order, because so far as possible Army Orders are made to deal with only one subject at a time, but the procedure is settled. It has been announced, and I hope that it will soon be in working order. There is a final tribunal in the shape of the War Office in case of disagreement in what I may call the inferior Courts below.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Are the local committees or the people in the district to understand that the appeal is to be made in the first instance to the local pensions committee when they are dissatisfied with the recommendations of the pensions officer, and will the local committee then have the power to make recommendations to the War Office?
  Mr. BAKER: I did not know that this subject was going to be raised, and I am afraid it is very difficult to deal with all the points which my hon. Friend puts to me, but if he will communicate to me the precise difficulty in which he is about this matter, I will see that he gets a definite and a certain answer upon it.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say just now that the composition of this first tribunal had been announced to the House. If so, could he not repeat it to-night, and say what people are to assist?
  Mr. BAKER: I should be very unwilling to do so for fear I made a misstatement. I have no documents here from which I could get the facts, and I cannot pretend to have them with any certainty in my head at this moment. It was the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) who gave them on a former occasion, and, if I had been given notice, I should have been only too glad to have obtained the information. I hope that I may now be allowed to pass from those matters and turn to the subject which my hon. Friends who have just spoken consider, I think possibly with some reason, is of less importance than the question of allowances to the wives and dependants of our soldiers who are fighting or are going to fight in the field. I hope that I shall not be accused of any want of

  1091
  courtesy if I deal with some brevity with the case of Mr. Meyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On the last occasion on which this subject was debated in the House I spoke with great brevity, and I did so not from any want of courtesy, but simply and solely because I knew, and I thought that hon. Members knew, that my hon. Friend representing the Office of Works (Mr. Beck) was about to follow me and would deal in full detail with the case. I certainly had no intention of showing any discourtesy to the House in general, or to any hon. Member in particular. I say that I will deal very briefly with the matter, and I am glad to observe that it would be to the taste of many hon. Members that I should deal briefly with it. A very different complexion has been put upon it this afternoon, first by the statement of the First Commissioner himself, and secondly, by the very remarkable testimony borne by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire. There you have someone who is a real business man, and in this particular branch of trade, and I think the few and decisive words that he spoke should be allowed to weigh against a vast quantity of journalistic and misconceived criticism.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the hon. Member realise that the hon. Baronet was speaking of selling timber, and the agent paying his expenses and taking the risk of the debt? This is a case of buying timber, which is a very different matter.
  Mr. BAKER: The right hon. Gentleman may put his experience in this matter against that of the hon. Baronet, but for the moment, at any rate, I prefer to take the hon. Baronet as an authority. There was another point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). He made a very courteous and personal appeal to me which I find it very difficult to resist. It was an appeal to deal with certain statements with regard to the timber trade made by me on a former occasion. He referred to the remarks which I then made, and he quoted them in terms. The inference to be drawn from the first passage to which he referred I thought was quite obvious, but he proceeded to draw quite a different inference. The only reference I made to a ring was to say that if we had put ourselves into the hands of a Committee we should have been accused of having fallen victims to a ring. The hon. Member then went on to refer to a conspiracy.
  1092
  I do not think that I ever used the word "conspiracy" in that connection the whole way through my speech. He ended by quoting a passage in which I spoke of an attempt to squeeze the Government on the part of a large number of firms in the timber trade. I did use those words. Perhaps they were rather more forcible than the occasion warranted, and I certainly am quite willing to withdraw them in so far as they are taken as a collective accusation against the trade as a whole; but I do think the suggestion that very high prices, excessive prices, were being asked of the Government by a great number of firms is fully justified by the facts which were then within my knowledge, and which I assume will be, if they are not yet within the knowledge of the hon. Member. I certainly meet with sympathy the appeal which he made to me so far as to say that I have not the slightest intention of suggesting that there was anything in the nature of an unpatriotic conspiracy on the part of the timber trade.
  The Leader of the Opposition, in the course of a very interesting criticism, part favourable and part unfavourable, which he made, said, and I confess it surprised me rather, that he thought an inquiry after this War would reveal a greater degree of extravagance than appeared in any other war. It will be a very astonishing thing if it exceeds the extravagance in the South African War. With the opportunities and knowledge which I have, I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a rather pessimistic view of the results of any such investigations if they take place. Of course, it is impossible to dogmatise about such a thing, and it is not wise to prophesy, but any inquiry after the event might lead to some discovery of a way in which small savings could have been made. I certainly do not say on behalf of the War Office that no mistakes have been made. Many things have had to be done in a great hurry, and in some cases at any rate it has been so important that the troops should have the particular things needed at the moment that we have been compelled to submit to prices which otherwise would not have been acceptable or indeed accepted. But for hon. Members, and even the Leader of the Opposition, to continue to suppose, as he appears to suppose, that the War Office is still acting without considerable and valuable advice from business men drawn from outside is a great mistake.

  1093
  I think that a good deal of the criticism directed at the War Office arises out of contracts which have nothing whatever to do with the War Office at all. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Barlow), in the extremely interesting speech which he made, showed how much Army local contracts lend themselves to this construction. He told a story about boots, and I was compelled to ask him under what contract those boots were obtained. He replied, without any desire to conceal the facts, that it was under a local contract made by persons who had undertaken to raise a battalion, and was a contract with which the War Office had absolutely nothing to do. I believe if I had not made that interruption hon. Members would have seen the passage in the hon. Member's speech in a great number of newspapers, and would have inferred that the War Office is providing troops at the front with bad boots. As a matter of fact, Army boots are subjected to the most rigorous inspection. I do not think there has been a single case at the front, with the exception of the remarkable one about abnormal sizes, as to which I answered a question the other day—there has not been a single case in which bad boots have been served out. Of course, the conditions there are such that the best boots in the world can only have a very short life. But the House must rest assured that, so far as boots are concerned, the troops are being supplied with the kind and quality which is necessary for them in the very difficult circumstances in which they find themselves.
  I wish, finally, to add one sentence on the question of business advice. We have, almost from the beginning of the War, been continually helped by people with a full knowledge of the particular branch of trade as to which their advice has been asked. We have not widely advertised the fact, but we have taken great care to choose men whose advice we knew we could trust, who we know to be disinterested, and who had a single mind and patriotic purpose in coming to our aid. That has been going on continually, and the only change I think it is desirable should be made—and I hope it will be made soon—is that that advice should be systematised a little more, and that those who, in an individual form, have been giving advice should be combined together and be able to render it perhaps through a committee. I venture once again to assure the House, when complaints
  1094
  are made, as they have been made by the hon. Member for Perthshire, that business men are put on one side and that their advice is not taken, that that is not the actual way in which the contract work of the War Office is carried on. Whatever mistakes may have been made have arisen from other causes, and among those causes will not be found any failure on our part to get the best possible civilian advice on problems which arise, whatever branch of trade may be concerned.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I want to say a word regarding the recent advance which has been promulgated by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in respect of certain men employed in dockyard towns. I desire to deal with the men who are termed "skilled labourers." The advance which has been promulgated has been an advance of 1s. per week to men who receive the minimum rate. That minimum rate is 24s., and it is now raised to 25s. The men are very dissatisfied indeed with the very scanty advance that has been given to them. Many employers up and down the country are giving advances infinitely greater than those which have been sanctioned by the Admiralty. Not only is it so, but by the use of a particular term covering a certain section of men, men are termed "skilled labourers," who, in private employ, would receive infinitely higher wages than are paid in the dockyards of the Admiralty. The wage these men are paid varies now from 25s. to 30s. per week. We recently had a case of a man employed at Chatham who answered an advertisement put in the newspapers by a particular firm for machinists. This man was in receipt at Chatham dockyard of about 26s. or 27s. a week, and he got a reply from Messrs. Brotherhood, of Peterborough, offering him not less than 36s. per week, and 2s. as a war bonus on top of that. But because this man was employed on Government work, and the firm in question were Government contractors, they would not engage him. There can be very little doubt, as far as this particular workman is concerned—and I believe this would apply to a very considerable number employed in Government dockyards—that this man to-day is losing at least 10s. per week, that being the difference between the wage private employers are prepared to give to men of his particular ability and skill and the rate of payment in the Admiralty dockyard.
  This, undoubtedly, is creating a very great deal of dissatisfaction among the

  1095
  men. They know, of course, the rates that are being paid by Government contractors. Those contractors are compelled to pay these high rates under the Fair-Wages Clause. The rates have been negotiated between the unions, on the one hand, and the Engineering Employers' Federation on the other. After much negotiation and many conferences, these are the rates that to-day are recognised as fair between the men's union, on the one hand, and the employers' federation on the other. Many of the men in the Government employ who are covered by this term "skilled labour," after a considerable period of service in the dockyard, acquire a skill and ability which in a private contractor's yard would enable them to receive the same wage as a skilled mechanic. There are men in Government employ today in dockyard towns who are receiving the wages of skilled mechanics and are working on exactly the same, machine and doing the same kind of work as the skilled labourer, and in some cases I venture to say the skilled labourer may be turning out more work than the skilled mechanic; yet the latter will be receiving no less than 38s. per week, while the average wage of skilled labourers is 25s. 6d. A condition of things like that is very difficult indeed to defend, and the first thing the Admiralty ought to do is to put their own house in order. They should take the ordinary private employer as a pattern in these matters, because I am convinced that the private employer who is a Government contractor has in hundreds of cases, and possibly in even more, to pay far higher wages to men who are classed as skilled labourers than is paid to-day in the Government dockyards.
  Let me give an illustration of what is happening to-day. It may be argued, of course, that there is a great shortage of labour of this particular kind. With that I agree. On 12th February this year the Admiralty advertised for men of this kind—for skilled labourers—and the wages they offered in their advertisement ranged from 26s. to 28s. per week, while men of a very high order of skill were to be given the magnificent sum of 31s. per week. Mark what they are prepared to offer in addition to these wages! If a man comes from a town far away from a dockyard town, he is to receive 20s. a week as a subsistence allowance. I agree that there should be some subsistence allowance in a case like this, and I am not quarrelling
  1096
  with the amount, but what an eye-opener it is to men who are living in dockyard towns, that men can be brought from a distance who are comparatively new to the work in the great dockyard towns, and who to that extent cannot be expected to be equal to the men who for many years have been employed in the dockyard, and yet are offered wages higher than the average wage and 20s. a week as a subsistence allowance as well. I have a number of cases here of men who are skilled labourers working slotting machines at Chatham in the machine fitting shop; two of them have 24s. a week, one 25s., one 26s., three 28s., and one 31s. per week, while mechanics in the same shop working the same machines are receiving 38s. a week. This is strange enough to those who are not conversant with the engineering trade.
  My own experience has taught me that many of the men classed as "skilled labourers" in the machinery shops in the dockyard towns are to-day, in many of the engineering shops up and down the country, receiving the same rate of wages as men who are termed "skilled mechanics"—that is to say, that men who have probably been there for a considerable, number of years, and have become thoroughly efficient in the manipulation of their machines, are able to command the same rate of wages as the ordinary skilled mechanic. That was at a period when I was a young man—indeed, when I was serving my time at the trade—a matter of considerably over twenty years ago. Men who were then working the ordinary type of slotting or planing machines in the machinery shops were receiving exactly the same wages as the skilled mechanics, yet we find that in the dockyard towns to-day the average in the Chatham works is 25s. 6d., and the highest wages these men can receive is only 31s. per week. I want to suggest that this condition of things is not fair to the people who are employed by the Admiralty. The method of classifying these men is wrong, and the men themselves think it is wrong.
  When the War is over—we are all praying that it may be soon—there is not the slightest doubt in the minds of many in this House that the services of a large number of these men will be dispensed with. They will leave the dockyard and engineering shops as skilled labourers. The ordinary term employed in the engineering industry of this country is a "machine man." If a man adopts the

  1097
  name of the machine which he works, a slotting, planing or milling machine, he is a machinist, but the man who has work in the dockyard towns will leave as a skilled labourer. It would be infinitely fairer to the man if he were given the same title that is applied to the man employed by the ordinary employer and contractor and was not prejudiced because at one time of his life he may have been a labourer. The man who works in the general engineering shop may only have been a labourer at one time of his life, but he becomes a machinist, and the fact that he has been a labourer is not definitely labelled to him for the rest of his life to his detriment in competition for employment with the outside market.
  The same argument applies to men who work milling machines. The advance of wages given to these men has been 1s. on the minimum This means that a very large number of these men, who have put in many years of service, are passed over without any advance at all. There is no Member of this House, and there is nobody outside it, who can justify such a condition of things as exists in the dockyard towns to-day. It is commonly accepted on both sides of the House that the cost of living has bean increasing for a considerable number of years. I have had cases given to me of men working in the dockyard towns who for nine years have received no advance of wages whatever. There is no hon. Member listening to me who is not prepared to admit that the cost of living has increased. Altogether, outside house rent and other things, there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living during the last few years, and since the outbreak of War there has been a further increase in the cost of food stuffs, admitted by the Prime Minister in his speech in this House on the 11th February to amount to between 20 and 24 per cent.
  The advance of wages granted to skilled labourers and others in the Government employment in the dockyard towns was promulgated only a few days ago. I do not know whether the recent increases in the cost of living have been taken into consideration; on that point we are given no information whatever. So far as these men are concerned it would indeed be a very difficult thing to keep them working. We have had some evidence of what has taken place at Glasgow recently, where the men revolted, even against the officers of their own unions, and took action on their own responsibility against the advice
  1098
  of the leaders of the unions of which they are members. I can assure the House that it is going to be a matter of great difficulty to keep these men, who are undoubtedly labouring under the idea that they are not receiving anything like the same fair reasonable consideration which the ordinary private employer is giving to men in similar circumstances in his employ. So far as the work turned out by these men and their skill are concerned, they will compare favourably in every way with the men employed by outside employers, therefore I hope that some real consideration will be given to them. The shilling that has been given is given to the newcomers, that is to say, the men who for a short period of time have been employed at these particular shops, whilst the men who had been there for the greatest period of time, acquiring great experience in following their ordinary occupations, have received no direct advance whatever. I hope some notice will be taken of this matter. A very strong case indeed can be made out on behalf of these men, and I hope those here who represent the Admiralty will give some consideration to the matter, and let these men have some peace of mind and know that they will have treatment similar to that meted out by the private employer, and thus get the best out of them, and let them go to work and feel that they are getting fair consideration for the labour and the energy they are putting in. They say it is no use to praise them for the manner in which they have diligently applied the whole of their force to the production of war material. These men have been working seven days a week ever since the War broke out. They have had very little, if any, time away from their work, and it is no use praising them for the diligence and perseverance with which they have done their duty. Praise does not pay any grocers' bills, and that is what they have to meet, and putting it in that way I hope the case will be received in a favourable manner, and that some real consideration will be given to them.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: In reply to a question by the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) this afternoon, the Prime Minister promised certain increases of wages to the men employed in the Arsenal. I want to know whether the increase will apply to the men in the Works Department, or whether it will not?
  Mr. ACLAND: In intervening, I think I do not risk being told for the second time

  1099
  to mind my own business, because, although this is not my Department—one is an Admiralty and the other a War Office question—yet, at the moment, there are no representatives of those offices here, and I think, with regard to the speech we have just heard, the hon. Member does not say that he has given any notice to the Secretary to the Admiralty so that he might have been able to deal with it. The position of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is really rather difficult from one point of view. His name is on the back of the Bill which is under discussion, and I am certain if in these Debates he were absent the House would very soon say, why is not the representative of the Treasury here, and if he takes any part he is liable to the accusation that he is interfering with things which are no concern of his. As I understand the matter, the answer to the question which has just been asked is that the increase in the rate for unskilled labour is 2s. The minimum which is now, in the London district, 25s., is in the future to be 27s. This is to apply all through the London district. It is not confined to one part of the Arsenal or anything of that kind.
  With regard to the points raised during the speech we have just listened to, it is not claimed that the increases which have recently been announced were in any sense war advances. They were the advances due to the annual review which the Secretary to the Admiralty makes after hearing a very great number of petitions from workmen, which he generally hears in the spring and the summer. The decisions upon them were postponed because of the hard work falling upon him and everyone else owing to the War. The increases have been dated back to about the time when they would have come into operation if the decisions had been given at the usual times of the year. They have been dated back to the end of October. They are meant to cover such increases as were considered to be fair and right before the War period, and are not meant to have anything to do with any modification which it is certainly our view ought to be made on account of the War. It is no doubt true that many men have not had increases of wages for a long time, but all the same these annual increases do cost the taxpayers considerable sums of money. If I remember the figures rightly, the annual increase made in the dockyards this year, as recently announced, will come to
  1100
  something like £120,000, and that has been a steady increase, because the figures, again if I remember rightly, were £80,000 last year, and £40,000 the year before that.
  An HON. MEMBER: £500,000 altogether.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. ACLAND: Not this year. Since 1906 or something of that kind the annual increases in wages have been something like £500,000. I want to make one point which the hon. Member did not make. I do not suggest that he left it out purposely, but it is rather an interesting point to be borne in mind, and one not generally borne in mind. He admits that now a great deal of overtime is being worked, and it is being fairly steadily worked, by a very large percentage of those employed both in Admiralty and in War Office establishments. The effect of that is very curious, in view of the fact that the normal War Office and Admiralty week is a week of forty-eight hours, whereas a very common week still outside is a week of fifty-four hours. When you come to work it out, that means, of course, that persons working inside the Government establishments begin to get overtime paid six hours sooner than persons working outside the Government establishments.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Private employers pay the same.
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, they pay the same, but, whereas a man has to work only forty-eight hours inside the Government yard for his week's wages, very often a man working for an outside employer has to work fifty-four hours.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Fifty-three.
  Mr. ACLAND: Sometimes.
  Mr. DUNCAN: And forty-eight.
  Mr. ACLAND: And, of course, in some cases forty-eight; but no one would claim that forty-eight was the generally established outside hours of work. On the contrary, I was talking it over with Sir George Askwith the other day, and he says that fifty-three and fifty-four are still very common indeed and could not be taken as anything but the ruling hours of labour outside. I am very sorry that, although the Government week of forty-eight hours was set up so long ago as 1892, it has not been followed in a greater proportion of cases by outside firms than it

  1101
  is, but where everybody is working inside and outside, not a week of forty-eight, not a week of fifty-three or fifty-four, but, perhaps, six twelve-hour shifts—that is seventy-two, perhaps even more—the fact that overtime begins earlier in the Government works than in very many cases outside, the fact that you arrive at the hourly rate by dividing the weekly rate by forty-eight in the case of Government work, and very often by fifty-four in the case of the outside workmen, results in the workmen actually taking home—and, alter all, you ought to have some regard to that—although his rates may be lower, a larger amount at the end of the week than he would do in the same number of hours, and, therefore, presumably the same amount of work, in an outside job.
  Mr. DUNCAN: My right hon. Friend is not aware that the first two hours that these men work overtime in the dockyards is not paid the overtime rate at all. It is only paid ordinary time.
  Mr. ACLAND: I know. But whereas it is paid at ordinary time for men in the yard, it is not paid at all, because it would be included in the fifty-three or fifty-four, outside I am quite aware of that. The actual rates, whether it is time or time and a quarter or time and a half, vary, and that has to be taken into account. But if I may, just to clinch the matter, I would give one little instance which I have been trying to work out. Take a man now at Woolwich on the, minimum Government rate for unskilled labour—27s. Take an unskilled workman earning, for the sake of argument, also 27s. for his week's work outside. Owing to the fact that the payment for overtime begins earlier inside than outside a man on a weekly rate of 27s. who is actually working six twelve-hour shifts—seventy-two hours—will, I believe, be taking home, if he is working, say, at Woolwich, something like 46s. 6d., and if he is working on the same weekly rate outside, working the same hours, 40s. 3d. It is within 2d. or 3d. of that, giving an advantage of something like 6s., owing to the Government week being shorter than the outside week, and therefore the rate on which overtime payment is based, being higher because it has to be divided by a smaller number of hours. I do not say that that is in any way conclusive, or that it ought to weigh very much in considering this question of wages, and particularly the question of
  1102
  increases. But I do think that it is not unnatural to have some regard to the actual amount taken home. Where a large amount of overtime is worked, the amount taken home must be larger by persons working a short week than by persons working a longer week. I know that there is something to be considered in regard to the question of skilled labour. That is a very old case. The point of view of the Admiralty is just as well known to the hon. Member as the hon. Member's point of view is known to the Admiralty.
  The defence of the Admiralty is that, although these men are sometimes employed on work which outside is paid at a rate a good deal higher than the rates they actually receive, yet at other times they are engaged on different work. The Admiralty cannot allow the most skilled rate to apply over all the work the men do at different times, whether unskilled or not. The Admiralty claim that these man by being given inside real continuity of employment in good times and bad times, in times of unemployment, and being paid for overtime, are on the whole as well treated as men of similar skill outside. That is a very difficult question which I wish my hon. Friend had been here to argue out. There is a case which I think might well be considered, for we recognise the force of what has been said. I had some remarks to make on the Meyer case, but as the hon. Baronet, who is chiefly concerned, is absent, I think it would be a little bit unfair to him to reply to some of the things which have been said.
  Mr. BARNES: I shall not go into any technicalities. I should like to say one thing. I think it is rather unfair to be reminded, as we are so often reminded from the Front Bench, about forty-eight hours being given in Government workshops while longer hours are worked elsewhere. I will tell you why. As a matter of fact, as much work is done in forty-eight hours as in other places where longer hours are worked.
  Mr. ACLANDwas understood to assent.
  Mr. BARNES: That emphasises my point. The Government have no right to speak as if they were the only persons giving the forty-eight hours, for many of the largest, best, and most prosperous firms in this country do work forty-eight hours, and they start overtime from the forty-eighth hour. I see the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman on the Front

  1103
  Bench, and I would like to say a word or two to him. I want to speak of the lower-paid workman in the Government employ, and to suggest that the time is ripe when the Government should do something for them. I will take one class of workmen as an instance, not because they are the most numerous, for they are rather small, but because their case is stronger, and because the hon. Gentleman who has recently been translated to a higher position committed himself to give to that particular class of men a higher rate of pay. I refer to the pensioned messengers. In November last I had a question on the Paper about these men. I think it was about the twentieth time I had the question on the Paper during the last few years.
  I was induced to take the question off the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman, who gave me to understand that there was no need to put the question because these men were going to get a rise of wages. A few weeks afterwards I met him at the Treasury, when he told me that there had been some delay, that he thought the delay had then disappeared, and that the matter would be all right in a week or two. Nothing happened until the House met, and I put a question again on the Paper. I was told by the Secretary to the Treasury that the matter was under consideration. I think I have had the question down since then, and I was told that the matter was still under consideration. When I took the question off the Paper I understood that the matter would be settled satisfactorily. To-day, when the Prime Minister made the announcement, which we all welcomed, about the men at Woolwich Arsenal getting a 2s. or 3s. addition to their wages, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if other men paid even lower than those at Woolwich Arsenal were to have like consideration. He told me to put a question on the Paper. He knew nothing about the question on the Paper. I suggest that the matter should be settled. I have also been asking questions about port watchers and ship inspectors around our coasts who are getting a wage similar to the pensioned messengers, £1 or a guinea. The Pensions Committee have decided that old messengers are to have 25s. It is not a halfpenny too much. In fact, it is not enough. But here you have a man in your employment, devoting all his time to it, and you give him only £1 1s., or 4s. less than the old soldier.
  1104
  These men are taken on in the prime of life, at about forty years of age. After a certain number of years they may rise to a higher wage, but the men who are old soldiers and have very small pensions of about 7s. a week cannot put in the time necessary to qualify for the higher wage. So it amounts to this: You are giving the old soldier a few shillings a week, and then you take a paltry advantage of that fact to pay him a wage of £1 or £1 1s. a week, knowing very well that he cannot possibly live on that wage. I want attention given to that particular class of man. Another class who require some attention are the clerks to Labour Exchanges. You select men from those making applications. You put them through their facings. They have got to pass a doctor and have a certain amount of technical knowledge of bookkeeping and shorthand, and so on; and then you give them £60 a year, a great deal less than what is given to the unskilled labourer in Woolwich Arsenal.
  I do not say that the unskilled labourer is getting too much, but the other man is getting far too little. These men deserve some consideration. It seems to me a lamentable fact that these questions of human interest should be left over to the last hour of the day. The day has been very largely taken up with matters of comparative unimportance in my estimation. I believe that if these men had done long ago what the Clyde men have done just recently, they would have received a more sympathetic consideration. I do not say that they would be justified. I say, on the contrary, that they would not be justified in doing as the Clyde men have done; but all that has happened in regard to these low-paid workmen employed by the Government during the last few years convinces me that it is only in proportion as men can make their influence felt, or at all events only in proportion as they are organised, and in a position to strike oven if they do not strike, that they will get attention from that Front Bench.
  Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps it is too bad at this hour to open up a new subject, but it is a subject of some importance. I will content myself by simply asking a question or two. The House will recollect that the Select Committee which dealt with separation allowances and pensions has submitted a Report to this House. The first portion of that Report is already in operation,

  1105
  and presumably so far as date is concerned, the second portion of that Report dealing with pensions is also in operation. I understand that the Select Committee has bean considering the nature of the body to be set up to administer those pensions, and that the body which they have in contemplation is a body which will be absolutely cutside Parliamentary control, just like the Road Board and Development Committee. That is to say, a Select Committee of the House of Commons is now proceeding to erect the machinery of an executive administrative body which will spend public money which we vote in this House, and that as soon as that is set up we shall have no opportunity at all of discussing what takes place. If one looks at an actuarial estimate dealing with separation allowances and pensions, one sees that it runs into millions. It is a much larger figure than that which was required to deal with old age pensions. My hon. Friend above the Gangway states that it is taking at any rate £31,000,000, and the whole of the scheme, I believe, will cost something like £250,000,000. We are to rise on Wednesday next if we get through our business in time, and according to the Prime Minister we are to reassemble on the 13th April. The Committee may be set up during the Easter recess, and may be at work before we return. Are we not to have any opportunity at all, as Members of this House, dealing with public money, in deciding what is to be the nature of the body which is to be responsible for these pensions so long as these people require them? If you look at the Report which has been submitted to the House it is perfectly obvious that not only the wives and children of soldiers, but also those of officers killed, will require, at the public expense, to be maintained, probably for very many years. Can anybody on the Front Beach give us an undertaking that we shall be allowed to discuss this particular organisation before it is actually Settled. I think that is fair to the House, and not asking too much. The Under-Secretary for War (Mr. Tennant), who is probably responsible for this part of the question, knows that an arrangement has been made whereby the widow of a soldier who is killed will have her separation allowance continued for at least twenty-six weeks, or until she is provided for during the remainder of her life. The matter, therefore, involves a large amount of public money, and a body
  1106
  might be set up outside Parliament something like the Road Board or the Development Commissioners. If we wanted to raise questions in regard to the subject, we might be told that we could not do so, as the body was outside the control of the House, spending public money, and we had no more influence with them than we have at this moment with the Kaiser. I do not want a Committee of that kind. I want that the House should have some opportunity of reviewing the proceedings of the body from year to year; and, as I see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the Front Bench, perhaps, having heard what I have said, he will bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues in the Cabinet.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Montagu): In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes), to whom I have listened with great attention in reference to obtaining better terms for pensioned messengers, I may point out that it is a matter with which I have nothing to do now. When I left the Treasury a scheme had been submitted in which increases of pay were recommended for those people, and the only question that remains to be settled is as to certain conditions of service, and that question must necessarily take a certain amount of time, because of the different Departments which are concerned. I agree with the hon. Member. I hope his efforts may be rewarded with success in a very short period, and the patience is very much to be commended on the subject.
  Mr. BARNES: Would the right hon. Gentleman be disposed to recommend that the increase shall date back to the time he gave me the assurance?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I believe the proper reply is that all relevant considerations will be taken into account. I can promise my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Hogge) that I will convey his question to those responsible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (8th March).

  INJURIES IN WAR COMPENSA TION (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

  INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) (NO. 2) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Committee to consider the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Pensions and other Allowances to certain persons in respect of disablement due to causes arising out of the operations of the present War whilst they are employed afloat in connection with the telegraphic and postal services, and to their dependants, under any Act of the present Session to provide for the grant of such Pensions and Allowances."
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (PART II.) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I.) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. MONTAGU: This Bill of three operative Clauses is quite uncontroversial, and I believe it will be of very great benefit to the approved societies working the Act. The first Clause carries out the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, which has been considering the question of pensions and separation allowances. They fixed as the pension for soldiers who were totally disabled a sum of 25s. per week, and they recommended that that should be inclusive of, and not in addition to, any disablement benefit which the soldier might receive under the Insurance Act. In other words, they recommended that the approved societies and the Insurance scheme should be relieved of disablement benefit, having regard to the disablement pension which they recomended should be given to the soldier. This Bill carries out that recommendation, and a provision is inserted by which it is proposed to deal with any delay there might be in giving to the soldier the pension for disablement to which he is
1108
entitled. Pending the settlement of that pension, he will continue to get under the Insurance Act full benefit, and the reduced sum will only be payable when the pension has been settled, and it is provided that both payments will be adjusted between the Army Votes and the Insurance Fund. Clause 2 is similar to various other provisions, of which we have had one example to-night, under which payments comparable to workmen's compensation arising out of the War are treated in the same way for insurance purposes as workmen's compensation itself; that is to say, an insured person is not entitled to get the benefit of the Insurance Act as well as Workmen's Compensation, and he will not be entitled to get war injuries' compensation as well as Insurance benefit. Clause 3 is a little complicated, but, like Clauses 1 and 2, will have the result of relieving the funds of the approved societies. Under Section 46 of the Act, which deals with soldiers and sailors, the State contribution was paid to the Naval and Military Fund whether the soldier was insured in an approved society or in the Naval and Military Fund. That remarkable provision was inserted because it was anticipated that the vast majority of soldiers and sailors would be insured in the Naval and Military Fund. The prediction has not been substantiated by the fact, as the majority are in approved societies, and this majority will be enormously increased during the War. It is therefore proposed that the State contribution shall be given to the Naval and Military Fund only when the soldier is insured in it, and to the approved societies when the soldier is insured in an approved society. In Clause 3 there are two sentences in italics, but that does not mean that this Bill imposes any extra charge on the Exchequer. It is merely a redistribution, and not a new grant.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman referred to soldiers who are permanently disabled. But there is another class in the scheme of the Select Committee called the partially disabled. During the time of partial disablement, will these people be entitled to receive the five shillings disablement benefit under the Insurance Act?
Mr. HOGGE: This Bill raises the point to which I was addressing myself on the Consolidated Fund Bill. A part of this Bill deals with the provision required to

1109
be made because of the suggestion by the Select Committee that the disablement portion of the insurance should be paid not by the national insurance scheme, but otherwise. If we insist on the national insurance scheme paying that 5s., we shall retain to the House the right to criticise the pensions from year to year. If we allow it to be taken out by this Bill, we shall enable the Cabinet to get rid of a responsibility of which they have no right to divest themselves. Unless I get an assurance that this body is not to be set up without consideration, I shall be obliged to put down a great many Amendments to this Bill for the Committee stage.
Mr. BOOTH: I hope my hon. Friend will not do that. I do not see the connection between the two things; it may be that the Scottish mind can. But I rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill, to welcome him in his new office, and to asure him, on behalf of the approved societies generally throughout he country, that they will be prepared to give him that loyal support which they gave to his predecessor. Not only in this matter, but during his term the valuation will come, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to have the sympathetic support of those who are actually working the Act. I want to ask when it is intended to take the Committee stage of this Bill? It has only come into our hands to-day, and although I quite appreciate that it is a Bill in the interests of approved societies, yet I should like time, so far as I am concerned, to consult some of the larger approved societies before it is taken into Committee. I do not know whether the Government intend to take it on Monday, but I would suggest that during the week-end important consultations will take place, and if we have the opportunity on Monday of putting down any Amendments that seem desirable, and the Bill is taken on Tuesday, I will withdraw any opposition to taking it now.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: May I inquire whether there has been consultation with the representatives of the large approved societies? They are somewhat suspicious in the matter, and perhaps it would be desirable to have a short interval between now and the Committee stage. Certain regulations have been passed by the Commissioners, and the big approved societies are getting more suspicious every week as to what the powers of the Commissioners
1110
may be. Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the representatives of the large societies, and will he delay the Committee stage of the Bill?
Mr. MONTAGU: First of all, with regard to the question put by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. Samuel), if a man is only partially disabled—by which I do not mean temporarily disabled—he is not entitled to disablement benefit under the Insurance Act. Therefore this Section would not apply. In regard to the questions of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Hogge), I really do not see what object he will achieve in controlling the pensions if you allow the man to get 5s. a week pension in addition to the 25s. —
Mr. HOGGE: I shall be able to discuss it in Parliament. In the other event I cannot.
Mr. MONTAGU: You will be able to discuss 5s. of it under the Insurance Act, but not the 25s.
Mr. HOGGE: That is the fifth of it.
Mr. MONTAGU: With regard to the other question, I can only say that this Bill is in all its three Clauses of financial benefit to the approved societies, and, therefore, I cannot conceive their having any objection to it. But there is no intention on the part of the Government of taking the Bill before Tuesday, so I hope there will be ample opportunity for discussion.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. In the original scheme of the Government I believe it was the intention to pay for the first twenty-six weeks if a person was injured or came home wounded from the War. Then if the person was totally disabled, the 5s. per week would be continued. That has been removed now, and the charge put upon the pensions. If a man comes back from the War will he be entitled during the first twenty-six weeks to the 10s. per week in addition to partial disablement benefit; then, if he continues to be partially disabled and unable to work, will the payment be continued beyond the twenty-six weeks?
Mr. MONTAGU: If a man is only partially disabled, the disablement benefit under the Insurance Act does not apply to him. So long as a man is temporarily but totally disabled, he gets his

1111
disablement allowance from Chelsea Hospital, or the War Office, or wherever it may be, and during that time he cannot draw any disablement benefit under the Insurance Act.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the, Chair.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Short Title and Construction.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Universities and Colleges (Emergency Powers) Act, 1915.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression "the end of the emergency period" means the end of the calendar year in which the present war terminates, or if the war terminates after the thirtieth day of June in any year, then the end of the next succeeding calendar year.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "the" ["end of the calendar year"], to insert the word "next."
I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper, but instead this one which I have handed in in manuscript. I do not propose to move the fifteen months, because the Attorney-General has convinced me in private that, in certain cases, this would act against the interests of the university; but, on the other hand, I think the provision in the Bill is not satisfactory. It exposes the financial arrangements of the university authorities to great uncertainty, and it may give them very little time to turn round and set their financial affairs in order. For example, the effect of its operation would be that, if peace were declared on 30th June in this year, or in next year, they would be given a six months' period in which to exercise their powers under this Act. If peace were declared on the 1st July, they would be given an eighteen months' period. I submit that this would place them in a position of very great disadvantage. They must have more time in
1112
any case than six months. For one thing, it is more than probable that the first few months after the War is over will be a period of even greater financial stringency than the present, and they will want to try and defer their necessary borrowing powers to a more convenient time. In the second place, things will not settle down at once.
One very important reason for this Bill was that income dues have been so much diminished. That will not come back to the normal for a long time after the conclusion of peace, but that is another reason why there should be a more extended period. Again, with regard to fellows of colleges and scholars who are absent at the War, it does not at all follow that they will be able to resume their academic life immediately after peace is concluded. There may be some serving in Egypt and India who must necessarily remain on active military service for a considerable time after the War is over. The object of the Amendment is to allow them twelve months in any case, and in possible cases anything up to two years. After all, there is no compulsion about this. The whole powers are discretionary, and I only ask that they shall not be limited by the present provision to a possible six months to turn round in, and that they shall, at any rate, have twelve months. I understand for certain technical reasons, which I need not go into now, that any fixed period would not work necessarily in their interest; but if this Amendment and the following be accepted, the Clause will run as follows:—
"For the purposes of this Act the expression 'the end of the emergency period' means the end of the next calendar year after that in which the present War terminates."
The result of that will be that, if the War terminates in June, they will have eighteen months; if it terminates in November, they will have fifteen months, but in no case can they have less than a year. I submit that it is better they should have the longer period, and I. therefore, commend this Amendment to the Solicitor-General.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): This is an emergency Bill, and it is, of course, essential both to define the emergency period and to secure that it is of such duration that the real purposes of the Bill may be effectually

1113
carried out. I think that what the hon. Member has said has much good sense behind it. Unless you allow the universities a sufficient period of time to enable them to get the full advantage of this Bill it may be very materially destroyed. On behalf of the Government I am prepared to accept both the hon. Member's Amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "year" ["the end of the calendar year"], insert the words "after that."
Leave out the words "or if the War terminates after the thirtieth day of June in any year, then the end of the next succeeding calendar year."
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

ARMY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.
The following Section shall be inserted in the Army Act after Section one hundred and eighty-four:—
(Relations between Military and Naval Forces Acting Together.)
184a. (1) Where an officer or petty officer in the Navy is a member of a body of His Majesty's naval forces acting with or is attached to any body of His Majesty's military forces under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Admiralty and Army Council, then, for the purposes of command and discipline and for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to superior officers, he shall, in relation to such body of His Majesty's military forces as aforesaid, be treated and have all such powers (other than powers of punishment) as if he were a military officer or non-commissioned officer as the case may be.
(2) Where any officer or soldier is a member of a body of His Majesty's military forces acting with or is attached to any body of His Majesty's naval forces under such conditions as may be so prescribed as aforesaid, then, for the purposes of command and discipline and for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to superior officers, the officers and petty officers of such naval body shall, in relation to him, be treated
1114
and have all such powers (other than powers of punishment) as if they were military officers or non-commissioned officers.
(3) The relative rank of naval and military officers, petty officers, and non-commissioned officers shall, for the purposes of this Section, be such as is provided by the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the time being in force.
Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE of WAR (Mr. Tennant): The object of this Amendment is to provide for the mutual relations between naval and military forces acting together and to confer reciprocal powers of command upon military officers or non-commissioned officers and naval officers and petty officers over a naval force and military force respectively, when such forces are acting together. At present two such forces acting in the same place have no defined relation to one another, and a deadlock might ensue from the absence of any definite designation of any officer as the officer in command of all the forces. A military force is, of course, subject to the Army Act, and a naval force to the Naval Discipline Act, and at present a naval officer has no power of command or discipline over soldiers acting with or attached to a naval force, and similarly a military officer has no power of command or discipline over naval ratings acting with or attached to a military force.
The Amendment is devised to meet this difficulty, and a corresponding Amendment to the Naval Discipline Act is being made by the Admiralty in a Naval Discipline Bill which has recently been introduced. As regards carrying out discipline the intention is to confer only the power of arrest, the military or naval offenders being dealt with under the Army Act or Naval Discipline Act respectively, for trial and punishment. The relative rank, for purposes of precedence of naval and military officers, petty officers, and non-commissioned officers is provided in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instruction. The effect of the provision is therefore to bring about temporarily and within definite limits a coalescence of the two forces. The provision only applies to joint operations on land, and must be

1115
brought into force by a Joint Order specially made by the Admiralty and Army Council for the purpose. The relations between two Forces (military and naval) when the military are embarked on board ship is already provided for under Section 88 of the Naval Discipline Act and an Order in Council made thereunder.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ARMY (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCES) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Eleven o'clock, till Monday next, 8th March, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.

WAR.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  MILITARY SHELTERS (IRELAND).
  MILITARY SHELTERS (IRELAND).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  RESERVE BATTALIONS.
  RESERVE BATTALIONS.
  GERMAN PRISONERS.
  GERMAN PRISONERS.
  BRITISH AND GERMAN CONSULAR OFFICERS.
  BRITISH AND GERMAN CONSULAR OFFICERS.
  ANILINE DYES (COTTON SPINNING COMPANIES, INDIA).
  ANILINE DYES (COTTON SPINNING COMPANIES, INDIA).
  Small Holdings.
  Small Holdings.
  Prison Warders (Pay).
  Prison Warders (Pay).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Dockyards (Riggers).
  Royal Dockyards (Riggers).
  National Education, Ireland (Merit Marks).
  National Education, Ireland (Merit Marks).
  Omnibus Service (London).
  Omnibus Service (London).
  Customs Licence.
  Customs Licence.
  Labourers' Cottages (Moira District Council, County Down).
  Labourers' Cottages (Moira District Council, County Down).
  Canada (Postal Rates).
  Canada (Postal Rates).
  Kirkcudbrightshire Telephone.
  Kirkcudbrightshire Telephone.
  Cattle Diseases (Ireland).
  Cattle Diseases (Ireland).
  Technical Instruction, County Meath.
  Technical Instruction, County Meath.
  Gooseberry Bushes (American Mildew).
  Gooseberry Bushes (American Mildew).

NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
Message from the Commons for leave for His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given to His Grace to attend if he think fit, and His Grace
610
consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 23) BILL.
Reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
SPENNYMOOR AND TUDHOE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.