Sitting of 8 March 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
The following notice of Motion stood upon the Paper in the name of the Deputy-Chairman:—
"That the proceedings on the Second Reading of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill [4th March] be null and void:
That the Bill be read a second time Tomorrow."
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I am informed that an agreement has been arrived at between the parties, and, therefore, I do not move.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rules as to the Employment of Centre Superintendents [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scot-
1118
land, dated 5th March, 1915, providing for the recognition of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Commercial College as a Central Institution for the purposes of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Sixth Report of the Royal Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on their Proceedings and Business under the Weights and Measures Acts for the year 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 148.]
SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1915 [by Act].

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of Vesey Hassall Parke Bennett, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN PRISONERS (REPATRIATION).
    Mr. POLLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether leave is being given to German men under seventeen or over fifty-five years of age and to Austro-Hungarian men under eighteen or over fifty years of age to return to Germany and Austria-Hungary, respectively, from this country; whether he will state at what date the above standards of ago are calculated; and whether there is evidence that German and Austro-Hungarian men both below and above the standards of age specified are being employed at the present time in fighting against this country or our Allies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Neil Primrose): Under agreements with Germany and Austria-Hungary, German and Austro-Hungarian men have, within the age limits specified in the question, and subject to certain exceptions, been allowed to return to Germany and Austria-Hungary respectively. The standards of age have been calculated, in the case of German subjects, from 28th October, the date on which the agreement with Germany was concluded, and, in the case of Austro-Hungarian subjects, from 4th October, when the agreement with Austria-Hungary was concluded. His Majesty's Government have no evidence in support of the suggestion made in the last part of the question.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Before repatriation, is any condition asked for or undertaking given by the men or their Government that they shall not be employed against this country or our Allies?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I understand that no conditions are asked for, or undertaking given, on either side.

    ANILINE DYE INDUSTRY.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked (1) the President of the Board of Trade whether the option held by British
    1120
    Dyers, Limited, on the works of Messrs. Reid, Holliday, and Company contemplates the continuance of the manufacture of synthetic drugs by the new company; and, if not, what, if any, provision is being made by the Government to secure from other sources a sufficient supply of such drugs; (2) whether the option held by British Dyers, Limited, on the works of Messrs. Reid, Holliday, and Company would enable the present proprietors to resume business on their own account; and whether, especially, these proprietors would be able to act as agents or be interested in any agency for the sale, after the War, of German dyes in which they possess an unique experience; (3) whether the general public will be allowed to invest in the Government dye scheme; and whether, seeing that they are unable to give any orders for dyes, a special class of stock will be issued for such investors; and (4); whether, in view of the fact that there are many small firms in the country who use aniline dyes previously imported from Germany who have no free capital for investment in the Government dye scheme, it is intended that provision should be made for participation by such firms in the scheme if they are prepared to make a contract to obtain all the dyes they need which can be supplied from the new company?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The option relates to the terms on which the business of Messrs. Reid, Holliday and Sons can be acquired if the new company think fit to do so, and it makes no reference to the products to be manufactured by the new company. I am advised that no provision such as that suggested by the hon. Member to secure the supply of synthetic drugs is necessary. The option includes the right to retain the services of the present chairman and managing director of the company or cither of them at the discretion of the new company. I understand that the new company invites applications for shares from users of dyes and colours and from others willing to assist in providing a supply thereof. In the case of the latter class of subscribers the question of taking dyes from the company does not arise and no special class of stock is contemplated. I am informed that no hard and fast rule is contemplated by the directors of the new company with regard to the scale of subscription which will entitle a participant to a supply of dyes. Cases in which firms

    1121
    dependent on a supply of dyes are bonâ fide unable to subscribe more than a limited amount of capital will, I am assured, be sympathetically dealt with on their merits.
    Mr. HEWINSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House if any proposals have been made on behalf of the Indian Government for the participation of Indian dye-users in the Government dye scheme; and, if so, will he give particulars?
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether dyes imported to this country from Germany will be paid for in gold; and, if not, what kind of goods will be allowed to be exported from this country to Germany in payment for such dyes?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No exchange of commodities is allowed, and direct payment is, of course, impossible. Otherwise holders of licences make their own arrangements as to mode of payment.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is a neutral country in the same position as this, or are we stopping dyes going to neutral countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I know we are not stopping dyes going to neutral countries. I am not aware of any in transit.
    Mr. HEWINSasked (1) the President of the Board of Trade how German dyes and other enemy commodities for which licences are being granted are to be imported into the United Kingdom; in particular, whether these commodities are being obtained from stocks in neutral countries or from cargoes on enemy ships interned in British ports; (2) what is the earliest date on which it is expected that the new dye scheme will be in effective operation; and whether he can give any estimate of the proportion of the total British consumption which that scheme will provide at the end of twelve months from the present date; and (3) in respect of what commodities of enemy origin or manufacture licences to import into the United Kingdom have already been issued?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it is to the public interest to give the details asked for with respect to enemy goods imported under licence. To give details would furnish the enemy with precise in-
    1122
    formation as to the German products of which we stand in most urgent need and lead him to take measures to frustrate our efforts. For the same reason it is inexpedient to make any statement as to the sources from which and the charnels through which goods are obtained under licence. I may, however, say generally that these licences are only given in very exceptional circumstances to meet urgent British needs which cannot otherwise be satisfied. The Board of Trade are fully alive to the desirability of restricting the grant scope and duration of such licences as far as practicable. I regret I am not in a position to estimate the rate of progress likely to be made by the new company in supplying the needs of dye-users, but I think I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no avoidable delay in meeting this urgent problem.
    Mr. HEWINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he himself mentioned aniline dyes and explosives, two very important matters?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I used the word "explosives" as an illustration. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have further particulars of the items, I shall be glad to let him see them privately, but I am sure he will see that it is objectionable to name them publicly.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Royal Society is both willing and anxious to undertake the organisation of the experts and students in chemical research now available in the universities, the university colleges, and technical schools throughout the United Kingdom, with a view to providing the technical assistance necessary for the success of any national dye scheme; and whether he will consider the advisability of availing himself of the services of that body for that purpose?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have just received a copy of a memorial forwarded on 4th March to the Prime Minister by the President of the Royal Society which is doubtless that to which the hon. Member alludes. The subject referred to in the Memorial will receive my careful consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Royal Society to simply

    1123
    report as to the educational substratum of this trade in Germany, that is to say, the whole technical education of Germany, which has contributed to their seizing the practical monopoly of this trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I scarcely think that arises out of the question. I think we are all glad to receive the opinion of the Royal Society on the subject.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government of India proposes to participate in the Government aniline dye scheme; and what steps, if any, are being taken to supply India with dyes other than such as are the natural products of the country and available in sufficient quantities for commercial purposes?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The Government of India are not participating in the aniline dye scheme, and their action has consisted in bringing the scheme to the notice of Indian manufacturers and traders. In this connection I would refer to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool on Thursday last.
    Mr. HEWINS: Has the Secretary of State made any proposition at all to the Dye Committee?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. I think the opinion of the Government of India has been obtained, but that no proposition has been made by the Secretary of State.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are spinners at present getting dyes for their wool other than indigo?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think some dyes have been exported under licence, with proper permission already obtained.

    LIVERPOOL DOCKS (CONGESTION).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that congestion in the port of Liverpool has greatly increased, and that on 27th February not less than fifty steamers were waiting for berths in the Liverpool docks; whether he can state the cause of the increased congestion; whether he is aware that many steamers,
    1124
    after completing the loading of their outward cargoes, have been prevented from sailing for several days owing to their inability to load bunker coal and are still being delayed; whether this state of affairs is due to the refusal of men to work notwithstanding they have been granted an increase of wages equal to 6s. per week; whether he is aware that steamers in Government employment and wanted for military purposes have been detained in Liverpool through their inability to obtain coal and have consequently been diverted to other ports for this purpose, thereby causing disorganisation and delay; and whether the Government propose to take measures to remedy this state of affairs and prevent its recurrence.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board that there has recently been some increase of congestion in the port of Liverpool, and some delay in the shipping of bunker coal, and that this was due partly to a difficulty as regards the terms of employment of the coal heavers, which I am glad to say has now been overcome owing in large measure to the patriotic appeals of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool and the Trades Union leaders, and that the men returned to work on Friday last. I trust, therefore, that occasion will not arise for exceptional measures by the Government.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several large steamers owned by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which prior to the War were employed in the South American trade, have for a considerable time past been laid up in the port of Liverpool and elsewhere, notwithstanding the need for steamers to carry food-stuffs to this country and the rate of freights obtainable from the Argentine; and whether he can state why these steamers are not employed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company that two of their vessels, which are probably the ships referred to in the question, are unemployed at present, owing to the fact that they were designed largely for the carriage of passengers, and in view of the almost entire cessation of the passenger traffic to and from South America, it would not be possible at the current rate of freight for meat to employ them in this trade without serious loss.

    PILOTS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade under what conditions of compensation pilots are placed who, in the performance of their duties, are either killed or injured by mines, torpedoes, or other hostile operations during the War; and he is aware that in several cases up to the present time pilots have been on board of ships that have been either mined or torpedoed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Compensation in accordance with the scale laid down for officers and men on Fleet auxiliaries would be payable in respect of British pilots on British merchant ships who are killed or injured by mines, torpedoes, or other hostile operations during the War.
    Mr. JOYCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the pilots have to go on board neutral ships as well as British ships, and, in the event of such neutral ships being mined or torpedoed and injury thus caused to the pilot, may I ask whether any compensation would be given?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider that point sympathetically There are difficulties about those on board neutral vessels, but if neutral vessels are performing services to us we ought obviously to treat those who pilot them as we treat those on our own vessels.
    Mr. JOYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that pilots are placed in a very peculiar position, as they have to give their services to every ship that comes along?

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dockers' Union has submitted proposals to the London shipowners for an increase of 2d. per hour in their wages to meet the increased cost of living, and that the shipowners refuse to meet the men's representatives; whether he is aware that the Government Committee recently appointed to obviate disputes during war time has also been approached in this matter, and has replied that it is outside their terms of reference and should be submitted to the Board of Trade; and whether, seeing that the men's
    1126
    union is willing to have arbitration on the questions at issue, thus responding to the Prime Minister's appeal, what steps it is proposed shall be taken to bring the parties involved together with the view of an amicable settlement, or to what tribunal, if any, can the matter be referred?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am still in communication with the parties concerned, but am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that neither employers nor workmen are represented on the present Arbitration Committee, he will consider the advisability of availing himself of the services of the Industrial Council in cases where disputes arise between workmen and employers during the War?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The members of the Industrial Council were included in the panels of the Court of Arbitration, and are eligible for appointment to Courts when the parties to industrial disputes desire to refer their differences to that form of arbitration. Two members of the Industrial Council—Mr. T. L. Devitt and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division—are to-day sitting as members of an important Court of Arbitration in Scotland.

    HERM (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked if the States of Guernsey have now terminated the lease of the Island of Herm granted to the West Bank Leignitz, Limited; if this German company has terminated the underlease to Prince Blücher von Wahlstatt; and, if so, who is now in occupation of the island?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The lease has not yet been terminated. Legal questions of much difficulty are involved, and the rights of British subjects who hold charges on the property would be affected. As I stated in reply to a question last Monday, the island is now in the occupation of the military authorities.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MESSRS. LYONS AND COMPANY).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the Admiralty have a meat contract with Messrs. Lyons and Company, Limited, to supply meat to the Navy men who are stationed at the Crystal Palace; if he is aware that the War Office have cancelled their meat contract with the above firm who were supplying meat to the Territorials stationed at the White City in consequence of the firm supplying the troops with putrid meat; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The first part of the question was dealt with in the reply given to my hon. Friend's previous question on the 1st March. As regards the second part of the question, it is understood that the contract held by Messrs. Lyons for catering for the troops at the White City was with the Territorial Association, and that it was not cancelled, but expired by effluxion of time on the 1st December. The condemnation of a certain quantity of meat referred to in the question took place some time before that date. It is understood that at the request of the military authorities, who took over the victualling of those troops on the 1st January, Messrs. Lyons continued the catering for a short time longer. All food supplied at the Crystal Palace is carefully inspected, and, as already stated, the catering there has been carried out quite satisfactorily. Consideration is now being given, however, to the question whether the result of the recent proceedings against Messrs. Lyons in respect of the White City contract renders any action necessary in regard to their Crystal Palace contract.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Messrs. Lyons and Company are contractors to supply meat to the troops in camp at Trensham; and, if so, whether the War Office will consider the advisability of striking them off the meat contract list in consequence of their being deprived of the meat contract for the Territorials at the White City through supplying them with putrid meat?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Messrs. Lyons held the contract for cater-
    1128
    ing (including the supply of meat) at Trensham camp until the 17th November last. Since that date there have been no troops encamped there. It is a matter for serious consideration whether any further contracts should be placed with this firm.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of those officers on the permanent list of the Royal Naval Reserve who prior to the War had seen no naval service, their present time in active service will count as qualifying for the annual retainer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is in the affirmative.

    MINE SWEEPING (TRAWLERS).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) if he is aware that several of the owners of steam trawlers whose vessels have been requisitioned for mine sweeping have refused to sign their charters, as the hiring amounts offered are insufficient to adequately recompense them for the loss of their services and the owners have never received payment for their hire nor anything for the stores; whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this state of affairs; and (2) whether he is aware that the owners of the fishing vessels at the various ports have readily placed their vessels at the disposal of the Admiralty for mine sweeping and other purposes, and that the terms for hiring the trawlers have not in all cases been satisfactory to the owners; will he state how, if the vessels are lost, the amount to be paid is calculated; if, upon the return of the vessels to their owners in a damaged condition, the Admiralty will pay the costs of the necessary repairs to enable them to be used for their original purpose of fishing; and will the authorities promptly settle the agreed amounts for such repairs and renewals?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards rates of hire, in all cases in which claims have been rendered payment has been made at the Admiralty rates of hire. I understand that there have been cases where owners would not render claims on this basis

    1129
    fearing they might thereby prejudice their application for reconsideration. They have been asked to forward claims upon which payment would be made to them without prejudice to any representations which they might hereafter wish to make. As regards payment for stores, these have in point of fact been passed in nearly all cases. As regards vessels lost, the amounts payable have been fixed on the basis of the value of the hull and outfit, and the machinery and boilers, as ascertained by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, with a depreciation on the residual value for each complete year of the vessel's age. The terms of the charter party provide that the vessel, her outfit and machinery shall, at the cost of the Admiralty, be handed back to the owners in the same condition as when they were taken up, ordinary wear and tear alone excepted. I am aware that some objection has been taken to the rate of hire and to the amounts to be paid in the event of loss. Arrangements will be made to give trawler owners an early opportunity of stating their views.

    GERMAN PAMPHLETS.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a pamphlet emanating from a German source in New York, and purporting to give an account of diplomatic action in Belgium, which attributes treacherous action to this country and to our Allies, is being distributed, through the English Post Office, throughout this country; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the dissemination by such agency of literature of such a kind?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am aware that the German agencies have been making great efforts to introduce into this country pamphlets of the same nature as that referred to in the question. The pamphlets in question probably do little harm in this country, where the true facts are generally known, and my information is that even in neutral countries their effect is now the reverse of what their authors intended. It has not hitherto been considered necessary to establish a censorship on postal matter coming from the United States, and to do so would involve an enormous addition to the censorship staff.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MILITARY PAY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the inquiries being made by the Paymaster-General into the time served by Members of this House in the Army and Navy; and whether he can say for what purpose such inquiries are being made?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): No such inquiries are being made by the Paymaster-General.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is anybody making such inquiries?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think that possibly the officials of this House are inquiring into the military pay of Members, in order to make the necessary deductions from the civil salaries.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Where is there authority by any Statute for any official of this House to concern himself in the matter?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think there is authority for persons in receipt of civil salaries under the Votes having the amount of their military pay deducted before those salaries are paid.
    Mr. HEALY: But where is the authority? These gentlemen—Division clerks, and so on—are appointed to look after Divisions and other matters connected with the journals of the House. Where is their authority for going into this matter?
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Does the hon. Gentleman proceed on the ground that as there is no statutory authority to pay these salaries, so no statutory authority is required to interfere with them?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Treasury does not proceed on any ground. I was answering a question as to what authority there was for dealing with these salaries.
    Mr. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that certain officers of the House are detailed to go into the matter of Members' salaries. I wish to ask whether you, Sir, have any authority, assuming that they are acting under your directions, to pursue this inquisition?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say on the spur of the moment under what authority I am acting. I will have it looked up; I rather

    1131
    think it was under the authority of a Treasury Minute. I am not quite certain, but as far as my recollection goes there was a Treasury Minute to the effect that in allotting the salaries to Members the amount they are receiving as military pay must be taken into consideration.
    Mr. HEALY: Are we bound by the Minute of a Treasury clerk at 30s. a week?

    SHORTAGE OF LABOUR (LOCAL WORKS).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the shortage of labour, particularly in rural districts, and the desirability of only undertaking work of urgent national importance during the War, he will suspend the orders to local authorities to erect buildings for the accommodation of workhouse children?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am about to issue a circular to local authorities with regard to the desirability of restricting public works in view of the shortage of labour and other circumstances connected with the War.
    Mr. PETO: Will that circular cover the point in my question?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, that and other matters.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Solicitor-General if a cablegram from the Canadian correspondent of a London newspaper, containing an account of Canadian comment on the appointment of a Member of this House to command a brigade including Canadian troops, was stopped by the Press Censor without notifying the proprietor or editor of the newspaper until inquiry was made with regard to it; if he will say for what reason the publication of the message was prohibited; whether it is the usual procedure of the Press Censor to suppress dispatches from newspaper correspondents abroad for which payment has to be made without communicating the fact of their receipt and the reason for their suppression to the addressee; and, if not, why this procedure was followed in the instance in question?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): One message on the subject of the appointment referred to in this question to one paper was stopped because its publication would, in my judgment, have been contrary to the national interest. It is not usual to inform an addressee that a message has been stopped or to communicate its contents, but in special cases it has been done. The usual course was followed in this case.
    Mr. McNEILL: I will refer to the matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the Solicitor-General inform the House that no messages were stopped?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is exactly the opposite of what I informed the House. I informed the House that one message was stopped, and just as I have informed the hon. Member now so I informed him two days ago.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any references in the messages of "Eye-Witness" have been stopped?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I know nothing about it.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND BELGIUM.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minster whether his attention has been called to the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that Great Britain would not have declared War but for the invasion of Belgium, and that Great Britain has nothing to gain by the War; and, if so, whether these statements accurately express the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer the hon. Member to the speech which I made in this House on 6th August, which explained fully the policy of the Government and the reasons which led up to the War.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will not the Prime Minister repudiate a statement so different from that to which he has just referred the House, so prejudicial to recruiting, and so unacceptable to our gallant allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

    LABOUR DISPUTES.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of distributing leaflets amongst the men who have ceased work in England and Scotland bringing home to them the danger caused to the country and their fellow countrymen by their divisions and the responsibility which rests upon them by their action; and if he will consider the practicability of special addresses being given on this subject by some leading members of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will give the hon. Member's suggestion my careful consideration.

    ARMY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister if representations will be made to Sir Francis Hopwood and Sir George Gibb that in considering Army contracts, all work, wherever possible, should be given to British firms of British origin, and that firms of German origin should not be employed during the War?
    Mr. BAKER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The policy uniformly followed is to give preference to firms whose capital is entirely British-owned, but not to refuse to deal with firms, part of whose capital is owned by alien enemies, in cases where there is no satisfactory alternative source of supply. In these cases the firm is required to give an undertaking to observe the Proclamations on trading with the enemy, including that relating to the transmission of moneys.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Are we to take it that an alteration has been made, and that German firms or firms with German directors will be struck off the list?
    Mr. BAKER: The policy that I have just stated has been followed uniformly since the outbreak of war.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: On what ground is the hon. Gentleman giving contracts to any firms of German origin?
    Mr. BAKER: I have endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member that preference is given to English firms which have no connection at all with any firms abroad.

    DEFENCE OF REALM ACT (ACQUISITION OF LAND).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, under the present provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act and Orders in Council, the War Office are able to acquire land and buildings for military purposes and themselves decide whether any and, if so, how much compensation should be paid to the tenant or owner of the premises; and, in view of the undesirability of a Government Department acting in the dual capacity of judge and defendant, he will arrange for a third party, who is in no way interested, to decide what compensation should be paid?
    Mr. BAKER: The position is as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the latter part, the matter is at present under consideration.

    "FACTS ABOUT GERMANY AND THE WAR."
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a pamphlet, published in Bremen under the title of "Facts about Germany and the War," which has been circulated by German agents in neutral countries, largely consists of a reprint of an article written by a Member of this House and published in an English journal, and that the article in question, of which such use is being made by Germany, contains charges against the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Government generally, and that the publication of the article in question and its distribution in this country in broad sheet form was, and is, calculated to discourage recruiting; whether copies are still being circulated in this country; and what steps the Government have taken, or intend to take, in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I much regret that a paper containing such grave misrepresentation of the policy of His Majesty's Government should have been published at a time when these misrepresentations could have no effect but to encourage the enemy. I think the hon. Member is inclined to exaggerate the importance of the matter, as the pamphlet does not appear to have had any influence in discouragement of recruiting or otherwise in this country.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT).
    Mr. BARNESasked whether, in view of a probable high percentage of unemployment at the close of the War, preparations will be made to retire all Civil servants of the age of sixty-five in order to make room for as many unemployed men as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Retirement from the Civil Service is obligatory at the age of sixty-five. A very few exceptions are sanctioned, and only on clear grounds of public interest.

    SHORTAGE OF CARGO SHIPS.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the existing deficiency in the number of ships available for the purposes of British commerce, the Government will adopt measures, and if necessary obtain legislative power, to prevent British ships from carrying cargoes of food-stuffs and other materials to any ports in Europe except those of the United Kingdom or the Allied Powers unless by special permits from the Board of Trade, such permits to be issued only in cases where satisfactory guarantees are forthcoming that the goods carried to neutral ports are not destined for and will not reach enemy countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I do not think that the adoption of the particular measures suggested in the question would produce a satisfactory result, but the hon. Baronet may rest assured that all practicable steps are taken and will be taken to prevent goods destined for enemy countries being carried in British ships.

    CATTLE TRADE (IRELAND).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that Irish cattle exporters complain of the cost of war risk insurance; and if he will represent to the Government the necessity for placing the Irish cattle trade upon an equal footing with the trade in frozen and chilled meat by allowing Irish exporters to participate in the benefits of the State-aided scheme of insurance against war risks?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Ireland): Inquiries are being made into this matter and I will communicate with the hon. Baronet.

    BREAD AND JAM (QUALITY).
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that numerous complaints have been made of the quality of the bread and jam served out to the 5th Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division; if he is aware that, in consequence of the bad quality of the bread, the men are buying bread when possible, one battalion alone buying daily 400 loaves; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No, Sir. No such complaints have been received. On the contrary, the reports from the front with regard to the food supplies invariably testify as to their excellent quality.

    MILITARY HUTS.
    Mr. WHELERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the average cost of the new hutments, including drainage, furniture, and lighting, etc., as provided for a battalion of Infantry of the New Army or Territorial Force?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not yet in a position to give the exact average cost, but it is estimated not to exceed £15,000 for huts (including water supply, drainage, and lighting), and £2,500 for furniture.

    WHITE CITY.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what amount of money has been paid for the use of the White City for Army purposes; and what amount is being paid per week for the same?
    Mr. BAKER: The rent paid by the County of London Territorial Force Association during their tenancy of the White City from 19th October, 1914, to 31st December, 1914, was £6,300. For the lease from 1st January, 1915, to 30th April, 1915, the War Department pays £6,000 in addition to £100 weekly for maintenance and cleaning charges.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is the White City looked upon as satisfactory quarters for these men?
    Mr. BAKER: Not entirely satisfactory, but they are the best that can be got.

    DONINGTON HALL.

      STATEMENT BY MR. TENNANT.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as soon as the electric light has been suitably installed at Donington Hall for the use of German officers and their servants, it will become possible to extend a similar convenience to the English officers and men in the Hyde Park barracks at Knightsbridge; and why it was necessary to provide electric lighting for the Germans when one of our principal barracks for Englishmen has been so long without it?
      Mr. TENNANT: There was no lighting installation at Donington Hall. Electricity was chosen as being the best and safest illuminant, having regard to the necessity of external powerful lighting in connection with the fencing round the house, of which the hon. Gentleman may perhaps realise the necessity. Hyde Park barracks is lighted with gas. In substituting new forms of illuminants in permanent barracks it is the practice to deal first with those lighted by oil, and not to deal with those lighted by gas until those lighted by oil have been furnished with a safer and better illuminant.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer. Has he any idea of when the appropriate time will arrive for the installation of the electric light at Knightsbridge?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is very difficult to give a forecast of that kind to anyone; first of all, it depends on the end of the War; and, secondly, how we proceed and progress with other matters.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Why did you select Donington Hall first, instead of Hyde Park?
      Mr. TENNANT: I think that is sufficiently obvious from the answer which I
      1138
      have given. It is necessary to have a powerful illuminant outside the building for protection.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many contracts have been entered into by the War Office for the extension, repair, and renovation of Donington Hall; whether the sum of £13,000 alleged to have been expanded is merely in respect of a first or preliminary contract; whether a supplemental contract has been or is about to be entered into involving further expenditure upon the property; and will he inform the House of the nature of such last-mentioned works?
      Mr. BAKER: There is only one contract which was to cover all the work so fa as could be estimated. This included the provision of furniture and equipment. Proposals have recently been made for certain hospital accommodation and extra accommodation for the guard, and these are now under consideration.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the lease or agreement under which Donington Hall is held by the Government and the contract or contracts for repairing, altering, and furnishing the mansion for the reception of prisoners?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am making a statement to-day on the subject of the expenses incurred on Donington Hall, and if, after the hon. Gentleman has heard that, he still desires information I shall hope to be able to furnish it.
      Mr. ALDEN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice:—Whether he has made further inquiries into the expenditure on Donington Hall, the number of prisoners there, the cost involved, and the cost actually incurred?
      Mr. TENNANT: Taking the main items of expenditure seriatim, the following points may be mentioned:—
      1. Repairs to Drainage.
      Complete tests of the drainage: Were-made by the agents, and their report re-

      1139
      veiled the fact that an entire overhaul was necessary to render the house fit for occupation. No more was done than was necessary.
      2. Repairs and Alterations to the House.
      The house had been unoccupied for many years, and in some places the walls showed signs of damp and required distempering. No decorations or unnecessary work was ordered.
      Additional latrines had to be erected both for officers and men, but these were of the plainest description, out in the courtyard.
      A few baths were installed in one room, at the rate of one bath per fifty officers—not an extravagant allowance.
      An additional boiler was put in for the supply of hot water to the baths, as the existing supply was quite inadequate.
      3. Electric Lighting.
      It was necessary to provide electric light for illuminating the barbed wire fence at night, and as there was no artificial light in the house it was considered the most economical plan to utilise the current from the plant installed for lighting the fence.
      The wiring of the house was carried out in an economical manner, and if, when the house is relinquished, the landlord does not wish to take the installation over, it can be removed and made use of elsewhere.
      4. The fencing includes several pairs of iron gates, and sentry posts at the corners of the fence.
      5. The officers have been given rather less floor space in the bedrooms than is allowed per man in a barrack room in peace time, and the large, bedrooms are distinctly crowded in appearance.
      In the wooden huts it is proposed to put as many as twelve officers in each, without any partitioning.
      Each officer has a strip of cheap carpet by his bed, and a plain washstand and half a cheap chest of drawers, so that the style of furnishing the bedrooms corresponds to that in servants' bedrooms and cannot be described as luxurious.
      Although the general scale of equipment follows that laid down for sergeants'
      1140
      messes, in which billiard tables are authorised, no billiard tables have been provided at Donington Hall. The majority of the servants are housed in a large loft over the coach-house. The figure for hutting includes the cost of half a dozen wooden huts for officer prisoners, exactly similar to those in which the men in the New Armies are housed, and it also includes quarters for officers and men of the guard and staff. I should estimate the cost of putting up huts for the whole of the prisoners and guard, etc., without fence or furniture, if done on the same lines as the officers' and men's huts in the New Armies, at over £20,000. The numbers provided for now at Donington Hall include:—

      Prisoner Officers

      …

      …

      320

      Prisoner Servants

      …

      …

      105

      Staff and Guard

      …

      …

      160

      Total

      …

      …

      585

      By putting up extra huts for more prisoners, a total of 700 could be accommodated. When the place is full, the rent will come out at about 15s. per head per annum.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (BANDMASTERS).
    Colonel WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the services now rendered in connection with recruiting by bandmasters of the Territorial Force, he will permit these bandmasters to hold similar rank, and to draw similar pay, as bandmasters of the Regular Army?
    Mr. BAKER: I gladly recognise the services which these bandmasters have rendered, but regret that I do not see my way to change their status as suggested.

    MILITARY CAMPS (WASTE OF FOOD).
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the principal waste of food at our own military camps takes place in bread and jam, which are not only being thrown away and sold, but given away wholesale in the villages; and whether the

    1141
    inquiry he proposes to make into the subject is to be Departmental?
    Sir J. D. REESasked what steps are being taken to prevent the waste in military camps of food provided by the taxpayers; whether experienced caterers are engaged whenever possible; and whether more food than is wanted is often given out, instead of such amount as each individual wishes to consume?
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to cases of extensive waste and thefts of food in connection with Aldershot camp; and, if so, whether he will give assurance to the House that these cases will be immediately and stringently investigated?
    Mr. TENNANT: The wastage complained of, in so far as it is avoidable, is due to faulty regimental arrangements caused by lack of experience. Steps have been and are being taken to instruct units how to utilise the ration fully. In any well-fed community it is almost impossible to secure the complete consumption of every particle of food provided. In regard to Aldershot and the cases which the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division has mentioned, no reports of extensive waste and thefts of food have been received; but if my hon. Friends can give me information on which they can rely, I will of course have full inquiry made.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Are the recipients of what is called stolen property prosecuted?
    Mr. TENNANT: That would appear to be a matter for consideration if we had any information of the kind on which we could proceed.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIRWAGES RESOLUTION).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Messrs. R. Ainsworth and Sons, Cleator Mills, Cleator Gate, Cleator, are contractors for the War Office; whether he is aware that this firm, which makes khaki and other thread used in the manufacture of uniforms, pays adult women workers a wage of 7s. to 8s. a week, with a bonus of 1s. to 2s. for 60 hours' work, and that the women sometimes work as many as eleven and twelve hours a day and suffer from
    1142
    overstrain and exhaustion; and whether, in view of the Fair-Wages Clause, he will cause investigation to be made with a view to a remedy?
    Mr. BAKER: The firm in question holds contracts for the War Office. My attention has already been drawn to the labour conditions alleged to prevail at their works, and the matter is now being investigated.

    CANADIAN CONTINGENT (HORSES).
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked the number of horses that were sent to this country from Canada with the first Canadian contingent?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not expedient to publish the information asked for by my hon. Friend.

    SOLDIERS' FURLOUGH.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to extend the furlough of five days to men whose families live in Sutherland and the Northern Highlands of Scotland, as the five days' leave is occupied almost entirely in travelling to and fro?
    Mr. TENNANT: The rule is that the leave shall be so arranged as to give each man four clear days at home. The application of the rule must be subject in each case to military exigencies, but I am not aware that there has been any general failure to apply it in the case of the men to whom my hon. Friend alludes.

    SERGEANT-INSTRUCTORS.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make arrangements for sergeant-instructors detached from their parent battalions to receive a proper allowance for clothes, as at present, being detached, they get no allowance and are suffering much in consequence; and whether these sergeant-instructors are debarred from promotion, extra pay, or any encouragement for their services to the country?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not able to identify the case to which the hon. Member refers. Since mobilisation clothing is issued to all soldiers in kind as required and there is no cash allowance.

    TROOPS IN ONGAR, ISLE OF MAN.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any complaints have been made as to the overcrowding of troops in Ongar; what is the population of Ongar and the maximum number of troops billeted in the town at any one time; whether, when the police have fixed the number of the billet, these numbers have ever been exceeded by the military authorities; whether the limit of 400 cubic feet per man has been observed in every case; and whether, having regard to the strain imposed upon the inhabitants for several months past, the Secretary of State for War can see his way to decrease the number of troops billeted in Ongar and in other neighbouring places?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that no complaints of overcrowding have been made at Ongar. The number of billets was fixed by the police and no alteration was made. A limit of 300 cubic feet was observed in all cases. Steps have been taken to reduce the number of men billeted at Ongar and I understand that the number at present is only 445 and that there is no overcrowding.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has spotted fever broken out in Ongar?
    Mr. TENNANT: Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many cubic feet of German shell and how many cubic feet of German stench have been received by these troops?

    CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICANTS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what quantity of rum has been supplied to the troops at the front; what is the total price paid for it; and will he give the names of the firms from whom it has been purchased?
    Mr. BAKER: The total quantity sent overseas is 509,079 gallons. The purchases were made through the Government brokers. I will inform my hon. Friend of the cost as soon as it can be calculated.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any
    1144
    steps are taken before its issue to ascertain from soldiers entitled to the rum ration whether they desire it or not; and whether any and, if so, what alternative is provided for those who do not desire rum?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have repeatedly stated, rum is issued only to those who desire it and on recommendation of medical officers. No alternative is provided.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Could not arrangements be made by which the soldiers can be provided with tea and coffee—
    An HON. MEMBER: Or soda water!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Or any other refreshments of the kind if they require them?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of issuing rations of cocoa?
    Mr. TENNANT: Coffee, perhaps.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if canteens are being established in France for the supply of troops; if so, how many and through what contractors; and whether, in view of the expressed opinion of Lord Kitchener against the consumption of intoxicants by soldiers and the physical and moral injury arising therefrom, intoxicating liquors will be excluded from all canteens or, if not, under what restrictions will their sale be permitted?
    Mr. TENNANT: An organisation has been approved for the supply to the British troops in France of small comforts and articles such as they are used to purchasing in their canteens or regimental institutes. The Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited, with whom for the purpose Messrs. Dickeson and Company, Limited, are associated, have consented to form this organisation, which is to be called the Expeditionary Force Canteen Co-operative Society. Neither the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society nor Messrs. Dickeson will take any share of the profits, the whole of which will be devoted to the-good of the soldier and his dependants. The business will be entirely under military control. The only beverage sold which might come under the category of intoxicants is the light French beer, and I am advised that the intoxicating power of this is very slight.

    ROYAL FUSILIERS (EMPIRE BATTALION).
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the proper official to whom to send a Report on matters concerning a battalion within the area of the Eastern Command is the General Officer Commanding within that area; whether General Woollcombe was that officer on 30th October, 1914; and, if so, for what reason has the War Office remained in ignorance of the substance of that Report?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that General Woollcombe was General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Eastern Command on the date mentioned. The Report in question has not yet been submitted to the War Office.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dishonourable imputations and suggestions of corruption are being made against distinguished officers and also against Members of this House in relation to the Empire battalion of the Royal Fusiliers; and whether he will, without further delay, make himself acquainted with the report presented to General Woollcombe on 30th October, 1914, by the Committee and communicate the substance thereof to the House?
    Mr. TENNANT: Any imputations which have been made have been in the nature of innuendo and have not been definitely formulated. Until the investigation which is in progress is completed, I cannot announce what action I shall take.
    Mr. NIELD: May I ask whether the Tight hon. Gentleman will be in a position to-morrow to discuss the whole matter upon the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill? I desire to take this discussion before the Adjournment.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say my imputations are by innuendo?
    Mr. TENNANT: What I mean is that there have been no formulated charges. I understand my hon. Friend and other hon. Members hold strong views as to what has occurred, but, so far as I am aware, no one has formulated any definite charge. If my hon. Friend desires to do so, it is quite within his competence. With regard to the question whether I shall be able to deal
    1146
    with this matter to-morrow, I think it is impossible. We are carrying on an investigation into the circumstances attending the raising of this battalion, contracts, and various other charges that have been made, and it is impossible to complete a very difficult task, involving the search of documents and the taking of evidence, in a very short time, and therefore I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to have patience.
    Mr. NIELD: Is it not true that a long typewritten precis giving the whole of these facts was lodged with General Woollcombe, on the 9th of February, for communication to the War Office?
    Mr. HOGGE: My charges are quite definite. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Devereux and Watson accepted illicit commissions from the contractor to this battalion? The War Office know that, and Devereux is still on the War Office List and is evidently not to be removed.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad to have it quite "pat," if I may say so.
    Mr. HOGGE: I said so long ago.
    Mr. TENNANT: Now we know where we are. As regards the hon. Member's question it may be true, as he states, and no doubt is, as he knows, that this report was handed in to General Woollcombe, but it is quite a different thing to hand in a report to a general officer commanding-in-chief of a district, and handing in a report to the War Office. It does not happen to have reached me until this morning.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Report of the British Empire Committee upon the question of alleged illicit commissions was handed to General Woollcombe on 30th October, 1914, and when he first became aware of that fact; and whether he has made himself acquainted with the substance of such Report?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware, on what date the British Empire Committee handed the Report mentioned by the hon. Member to General Woollcombe. As I have already stated, it has not yet been submitted to the War Office and I have not had an opportunity of making myself acquainted with its contents.
    Mr. NIELD: Was this question not put as far back as 25th February?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that is quite true, but no Report has yet reached the War Office, although I have, by the courtesy of Sir Bindon Blood, been furnished with a copy.
    Mr. HOGGE: If there is a Committee of Inquiry, what charges will be inquired into seeing that the right hon. Gentleman says that no charges have been made?
    Mr. TENNANT: The inquiry will be made into the aspersions cast upon the honour of those mentioned in the questions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why have I not been informed of that fact?
    Mr. TENNANT: I informed my hon. Friend two or three days ago that we were inquiring into this matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do you propose to call me?
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall give that matter my serious consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: On account of these answers I must, in any case, state my case to-morrow, if I am allowed, on the Third Heading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the use to which money paid by a contractor to battalion funds is put; and whether he can say if any such money was paid by the contractor Devereux to the funds of the Empire Battalion Royal Fusiliers?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is usual for the contractor to pay a proportion of profits to regimental funds. I cannot answer the second part of the question until further investigation has been made. This is now in progress.
    Mr. HOGGE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to do so?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot do anything till the investigation is complete; it is not possible for me to say how long that may be?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he is making this investigation?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is being made Departmentally.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the circumstances in which Lieutenant and Quartermaster Frank Willard, 17th (Service) Empire Battalion Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) was removed from the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: The officer commanding 17th Service Battalion Royal Fusiliers, being dissatisfied with the manner in which Quartermaster and hon. Lieutenant F. Willard performed his duties, preferred charges against him. These were investigated by a Court of Inquiry assembled under the order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Command. The proceedings and findings of the Court having been carefully reviewed by the Army Council, it was considered necessary in the interests of discipline that Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard should be removed from the Army.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any evidence was taken from the men of the regiment?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I have not seen the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, but I imagine that evidence has been taken from all sources which were considered desirable to get information from.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole regiment regrets this man having been removed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether General Woollcombe was informed by General Sir Bindon Blood, chairman of the British Empire Committee, of the charge preferred against two members of the Committee of having demanded and received money from the equipment contractor; whether he was also informed that the Committee had given the contracts for victualling and hutting to the two members of the Committee; and whether, in view of this, did he advise the return of these contracts to the two members, as reported to the general Committee of the Empire Committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand Sir Bindon Blood did make a communication to General Woollcombe, but as it was verbal I am uncertain as to its nature. I believe General Woollcombe was informed regarding the allocation of the contracts for hutting and messing and that he told

    1149
    Sir Bindon Blood that the huts were progressing very well and were in his opinion superior to any he had seen. He further stated that he saw no reason for breaking the contracts for hutting and messing. Since I drafted that answer to the question, by the courtesy of Sir Bindon Blood I have received a copy of the report which he furnished to General Woollcombe. I have not had time to make myself fully aware of its contents.

    HOME DEFENCE (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
    Mr. HODGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener issued an order that business men who joined the Territorials for Home defence would be granted forty-eight hours' leave every fourteen days for business purposes; if so, whether he is aware of the discontent of such business men caused by commanding officers ignoring the order referred to; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; no such order was issued as that referred to by the hon. Member. The matter is obviously one which cannot be withdrawn from the discretion of commanding officers, but I have no doubt that every consideration possible, that is consistent with military exigencies, will be given to those having urgent business affairs requiring their attention.

    SOLDIERS INCAPACITATED WHILE TRAINING.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what provision will be made for men in the New Armies who become partially or wholly incapacitated on account of illness or injuries received while undergoing training?
    Mr. BAKER: Men of the New Armies are entitled to the full benefits of the regulations in these matters, like other Regular soldiers.

    POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHISTS (TERRITORIAL UNITS).
    Mr. POLLOCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Post Office telegraphists who joined and are
    1150
    now serving in various Territorial units in many cases are being transferred to signal sections of the Territorial Royal Engineers; and, if so, whether they will be entitled on transfer to carry the rank and pay that they at the time of transfer hold in the units they leave, or whether they will be transferred as sappers?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such transfers are only carried out with the consent of the men affected. Men accepting these transfers join the signal units of the Royal Engineers as sappers, and receive the pay sanctioned for Post Office telegraphists employed in such units.

    WINCHESTER CAMP (SURPLUS EQUIPMENT AND RATIONS).
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, on the recent departure of certain units from camp at Winchester, their harness, tents, blankets, and surplus equipment, though perfectly fit for further use, were left on the ground or burnt; and whether the resources of local pig-keepers have been widely augmented from their surplus rations?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. So far ass is known at the War Office, the surplus equipment left behind by the units referred to was collected and returned to store. As regards the local pig-keepers, it is well known that such individuals in the neighbourhood of barracks, as of any other large community, invariably make arrangements to purchase cook-house refuse for the purpose of pig-feeding, and I am not aware of anything beyond this having occurred at Winchester.
    Mr. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information which prompted this question came from a responsible military source, and that the reference to pig-keepers was as to actual rations which had been over-estimated?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to let me have the report which has reached him, and then I will be able to have further inquiries made.
    Mr. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent it to the right hon. Gentleman's financial colleague?

    SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the fact that the Government have now accepted the definition of a soldier's dependant as anyone who is found as a fact to have been dependent on him, he will see that the Army Order of 27th October last, which defines dependants as members of the soldier's family, is cancelled and that a fresh order is circulated in all Post Offices and other necessary places?
    Mr. BAKER: The Army Order in question was amended on 26th February in this particular, and a fresh leaflet has been issued to all Post Offices and other necessary places.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that it is circulated to all Post Offices'? To my certain knowledge it is not at all the Post Offices yet.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the practice in cases in which a mother is granted allowances where she has more than one son at the front; is she entitled to a sum on behalf of each son equal to what his earnings contributed to her comfort before his enlistment; and is there any monetary limit which binds the mother who has three or four sons in the Army down to the allowance level of another who may have only one so serving?
    Mr. BAKER: The mother is eligible for allowances for each son according to the support actually given before enlistment, but the total contribution from public funds is limited to the grant for a wife. When there are several sons they may increase the total by separate allotments.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I understand that where two sons enlist, one can make an allotment to his mother and the other to his father. If more than two sons enlist, can the third make an allotment to a sister, and the fourth to a brother, and so on?
    Mr. BAKER: I would like notice of that question.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what instructions have been issued to the pension officers as to the method of arriving at the separation allowances for dependants; whether any similar instruction have been communicated to the pen-
    1152
    sions committees; and whether those committees are informed whether their recommendations have been adopted or not, or any other guidance given to them in the performance of their duties?
    Mr. BAKER: As regards the instructions issued to pension officers, I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire on the 10th February, of which I will send him a copy. I understand instructions to pension committees have been given, or will be given, by the Local Government Boards concerned. It is not the general practice to inform committees of individual decisions unless some point of principle is involved affecting their future proceedings.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Can the hon. Gentleman send me a copy of that?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some people, at any rate, find it very difficult to discharge their duties in the absence of all indication as to what line they ought to take?
    Mr. BAKER: The instructions to pension committees are issued by the Local Government Board. I understand arrangements have been made for more frequent conferences between pension officers and pension committees.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is it really impossible to communicate to pension committees the instructions given to pension officers?
    Mr. BAKER: They are under separate authority, but I understand the instructions are similar if not identical.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have arrangements yet been made to reimburse these pension committees in the matter of granting all these allowances?
    Mr. BAKER: I am afraid I did not hear my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will give notice.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Pension committees are put to certain expense, and are they being reimbursed?
    Mr. BAKER: That is a question that should be addressed to the Local Government Board.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Are these Departments of State watertight Departments?
    Mr. BAKER: No, Sir, there is frequent communication.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I give notice that I shall call attention to this, in order to obtain a fuller statement from the Departments concerned.

    AUSTRALIAN ORES.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that efforts are being made to bring to this country from Australia for smelting zinc and other ores which have hitherto been sent to Germany, but these schemes are delayed by the uncertainty prevailing as to whether the contracts entered into before the War with German smelters would be legally enforceable in this country at the conclusion of the War; and if the Government will take steps to resolve these doubts, so that the companies concerned may proceed with their arrangements?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I am presenting, at the commencement of Public Business to-day, a Bill which should enable any doubts which may exist as to the effect of War on such contracts as these to be rapidly resolved by judicial decision. As the advantage to be secured by this Bill largely depends on its being promptly passed, I am arranging to provide Members with the print of it forthwith.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we should go on with the Bill right away?
    Sir J. SIMON: That will be entirely for the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House to decide. If they prefer that the Bill should not come on till later, of course it will not come on.

    Southern Manchuria (Manchester Goods).
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the figures for the last five years of the amounts of Manchester goods imported into Southern Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am unable to supply the particulars desired
    1154
    by my hon. Friend, as separate and complete statistics of the trade of the regions mentioned are not available.

    Sight Tests (Board of Trade).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been lately drawn to the inefficiency of the sight tests used by the Board; whether these tests have been adversely commented on by a great number of authoritative members of the medical profession; whether he will take steps to secure the best type of lantern available; whether it is found that the wool test allows over 50 per cent. of dangerously colour-blind candidates to pass and produces the rejection of over 50 per cent. of normal-sighted candidates; and whether he will abolish this test altogether?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have reason to believe that the sight tests employed by the Board of Trade are efficient for their purpose and that the criticisms made on the lantern are unfounded. The lantern test was submitted about a year ago to a rigorous practical test at Shoeburyness in the presence of representatives of ship-owners, shipmasters and others who had raised objection to its use, and as a result these objections were formally withdrawn. The figures as to the operation of the wool test are not entirely accurate, but the wool test has now become quite a subordinate part of the examination and no candidate is finally passed or rejected on this test alone. The question whether the wool test can be dispensed with as superfluous is receiving consideration, but in present circumstances I should prefer to have somewhat longer experience of the new system before finally deciding the matter.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to defend the wool test scientifically?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that I should prefer to have some longer experience of the new system before expressing any opinion upon it.

    Delhi Conspiracy Case.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an application has been made to the Privy Council in the Delhi conspiracy case for leave to appeal against the convictions; whether the hearing has been adjourned until a fortnight after the arrival in this country

    1155
    of the documents connected with the case; and, if so, whether the execution of the sentences will be deferred until after this application has been decided by the Privy Council?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer to each of these questions is "Yes."
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any appeal lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against conviction and sentence passed by a Chief Court in India; and whether there is any precedent for delaying execution pending the hearing of an appeal or petition for reversals of any such sentence and conviction?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not a Court of Criminal Appeal and no appeal lies as of right to the Judicial Committee from conviction and sentence by one of the Superior Courts in India. The question of the functions and duties of the Judicial Committee as a Court of Review in criminal cases was fully dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in the case of Mr. Channing Arnold, and I beg to refer the hon. Member to Law Reports 41, Judicial Appeals, pages 172 and following. In 1912 an execution in India was postponed at the request of the Lord Chancellor in order to give an opportunity of being heard to the convict, who had lodged a petition for leave to appeal at the office of the Privy Council.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the Judicial Committee is not a Court of Appeal, how is it that it has the power of delaying execution and sentence in order to peruse the records and, presumably, to pass orders upon them?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Judicial Committee has certain powers as a Court of Review in these criminal matters, the nature of which has been fully explained in the judgment to which I have referred.
    Sir J. D. REES: As a result will such appeals be allowed in future where it is clear there is no scandalous denial of justice, but merely an ordinary appeal?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no power to interfere with the existing powers of the Judicial Committee.

    Elementary Schools (Drill).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether medical
    1156
    opinion other than that of the medical branch of the Board of Education has been sought in order to confirm the opinion of such medical branch to the effect that for children up to fourteen or fifteen it is most desirable that military drill shall not be introduced into elementary schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer is in the negative, as no occasion has arisen for such consultation. In 1902 the Board issued a "Model Syllabus of Physical Exercises," which was largely based on military drill. In 1904 an Interdepartmental Committee, which included two medical men, unanimously reported that they did not consider the "Model Syllabus" suitable for use in schools, and recommended the adoption of a scheme based upon well-defined physiological and educational principles. When considering the revision of the; syllabus in 1909, the Board had the advantage of informal consultation with a number of medical authorities.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement in this question as to the opinion of the medical branch of the Board of Education is correctly given?
    Mr. PEASE: I cannot say as to the precise words without reference to the medical report, but I know that the opinion of my medical adviser is that the physical system at present in use in the elementary schools of this country is much the best kind of exercise and drill which those children can undergo.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words quoted are his own words?
    Mr. PEASE: I believe they are absolutely correct, but without reference to the words I did not like at the moment to commit myself to them.

    Welsh Church Act.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Welsh Commissioners have yet arrived at any decision as to the border parishes of Rhydycroesau and Llansilin, or if there is to be a second ballot taken?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part of the question, the Commissioners have not yet decided what further steps should be taken.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked what course the Government proposes to take with regard to the present position of the Welsh Church?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am unable to make a statement to-day.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the statement will be made?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the matter will come up for consideration to-morrow in another place.

    Telephone Service (Engineers' Wages).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the total number of men in the Engineering Department of the General Post Office telephone service under the control of the superintendent engineer for the Metropolitan area; and whether he can say how many are receiving 26s., 27s., 28s., and 29s. per week, respectively, and the total number receiving under 30s. per week?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The respective figures are: 3,914, 487, 270, 439, 462 and 1,658. The figures relating to men receiving 26s., 27s., etc., include all those whose normal wage is as much as 26s. but less than 27s., 27s. but less than 28s., etc. In many cases the normal wage (covering the normal daily attendance) is increased by overtime. The figures refer to the adult staff of workmen and labourers.

    Housing of Working Classes (Ireland).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether loans will be granted to municipal authorities in Ireland under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the County Borough Council of Limerick have applied for a loan to build thirty houses under this Act and have already acquired the site for those cottages, and are now waiting for the Irish Local Government Board to send an inspector to hold the usual inquiry; and whether, taking into account the distress and want of employment owing to the War and the need of houses for the working classes, the Treasury will signify their intention to grant this loan so that the inquiry can be held as soon as possible?
    Mr. ACLAND: The question as to whether any further loans from the Local Loans Fund can be made to local
    1158
    authorities in Ireland during the current year depends on the demands made on the Fund during the next few months, on account of loans already sanctioned. No application has been received by the Board of Works from the borough council. Limerick, for a loan to build thirty houses, nor would the Board be able to consider such an application until the scheme had been passed by the Local Government Board.
    Mr. JOYCE: Has the Treasury made clear to the Local Government Board the necessity for sending down an inspector as asked in the question?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is rather the business of the Local Government Board than that of the Treasury. The Treasury does not like to suggest anything which might lead to unnecessary expenditure.
    Mr. JOYCE: The Local Government Board tell me that they will send an inspector when they know that the loan will be granted if the inspector's report is favourable. When will the Treasury send that inspector?
    Mr. ACLAND: I will consider that.

    Uncertificated Mental Patients.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet taken, or is now ready to take, such administrative steps as he stated to a deputation on 16th July, 1914, he would not hesitate to adopt, for the provision of greater facilities for the treatment of incipient mental cases without certification?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question on 1st March.

    Shantung Railway.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the British interests involved, he will use his good offices with the Japanese Government to induce it to suggest to the Chinese Government the open port of Chefoo as the terminus of the proposed new Shantung railway instead of the adjacent undeveloped harbour of Lungkow?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: His Majesty's Government feel sure that in discussing the matter with the Chinese Government, the Japanese Government will take into account the advantage of Chefoo as the terminus for the railway in question.

    Old Palace Yard (Roadway).
    Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the First Commissioner of Works is aware that the surface of Old Palace Yard is now of such a character as to make it used chiefly for testing the springs of newly-made motor and other vehicles; and whether it is proposed to restore this roadway promptly to a condition admitting of ordinary and safe use by the general public?
    Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): It is intended to put the work of repaying this roadway with wood blocks in hand within the next few weeks.

BILL PRESENTED.
  ENEMIES (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS) BILL.
  "To facilitate Legal Proceedings against Enemies in certain cases." Presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Tuesday).
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  As amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Extend Period for Repayment or Replacement of Money Borrowed or Applied.)
  It shall be lawful for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries at any time before the end of the emergency period, upon the application of the University or a College, in any case where the Board determine that it is expedient for some reason arising out of the present War to do so, and where in the case of money borrowed the lender consents—

  (a) to extend the period within which the outstanding part of any money borrowed, or purchase or other capital money applied, before the passing of this Act under any of the Universities or College Estates Acts, 1853 to 1898, is required to be repaid or replaced, by such period not exceeding ten years as the Board hay determine;

  (b) to suspend the obligation to make such repayment or replacement for such period not extending beyond one calendar year from the end of the emergency period as the Board may determine, with a corresponding extension of the period of repayment or replacement.

  Amendment made: Leave out the words "for some reason arising out of," and insert instead thereof the words "owing to circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to."

  CLAUSE 4.—(Power to make Emergency Statutes.)
  (2) Every emergency Statute made by the University shall be binding on the University and on every College which has consented thereto, and every Statute made by a College shall be binding on the College and on the University if it has consented thereto, and every emergency Statute shall be effectual notwithstanding any instrument of foundation, or any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, decree, order, Statute, or other instrument or thing constituting wholly or in part an instrument of foundation, or confirming or varying a foundation or endowment, or otherwise regulating the University or a College.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "every" ["every Statute made by a College", insert the word "emergency."
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. J. A. Pease.]
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I want to appeal to the older universities who are now having these powers conferred upon them not to allow one of the best parts of their work to lapse during the period of the War. I refer to the magnificent work the universities are doing in connection with their tutorial classes. Oxford has some eighteen and one essay class, and Cambridge also has a number of them, and they do shed the light of their countenance upon the working classes in co-operation with the Workers' Educational Association. I know that it throws some financial strain upon Oxford in particular, but I trust that the work which is being done right throughout the country will not be allowed to fall off, especially as the Board of Education is paying something to keep them going through this difficult time, and that the universities will use their powers to take some of the money they may raise by the sale of their properties to keep themselves in touch with the working classes through the tutorial class movement.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I only want, in one sentence, to support as strongly as I can the appeal made by my hon. Friend. If there ever was a time, when these classes and this valuable touch between Oxford and Cambridge and the workers of this country were of the highest importance it is during this War, when various problems

  1177
  of history and philosophy will arise in connection with which this work is of the highest character.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Sir F. BANBURY: I think we ought to have some explanation of this Bill. The Government no doubt have some reason for bringing it in, but it does seem to me a rather extraordinary time to introduce a Bill which deals with the discipline of the Navy. I was under the impression that the discipline of the Navy was all that could be desired. If it is not, and if it is necessary to amend the Naval Discipline Bill, surely something of this sort ought to have been done before the War began. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Lambert) is in his place, because it will give mo the opportunity of obtaining from him some of the reasons why this Bill is introduced. I remember once we were told that what the House of Commons suffered from was that we had the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. It is now day-time, and I do not know why we have not had the greater light to explain the Bill. But I will ask the lesser light, if he will slay for a moment, a few questions. I want to know why it is necessary to bring in a Bill of this sort at the present moment:, whether it is wise to alter the discipline of the Navy during the War, and how it is that in Clause 1 the penalty of death is done away with. As I read the Bill, if there is a mutiny on the ship the death penalty could not be inflicted. It is possible I have misread the Bill, but, if I have not, it might be amended in Committee. It is a serious thing to alter the rules of discipline in the Navy at the present time, and I think we ought to have an explanation from the Government.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I should like to ask one or two questions about this Bill. I do not think there is anything much in it except for the first Clause, which says,
"A sentence of death shall not be passed on a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act for striking, or with any
1178
weapon attempting to strike, or drawing or lifting up any weapon against, his superior officer, and accordingly for Section sixteen of that Act the following Section shall be substituted."
The Clause further says,
"Every person subject to this Act who shall strike or attempt to strike, or draw or lift up any weapon against, or use or attempt to use any violence against, his superior officer, whether or not such superior officer is in the execution of his office, shall be punished with penal servitude or such other punishment as is herein-after mentioned."
If that threatening attitude of a junior officer to his superior be accompanied by mutiny, I imagine that the Naval Discipline Act holds as it was, and that the penalty of death would still be enforced. But a man may lose his temper and strike, or attempt to strike, an officer or a senior petty officer. The death penalty for such an offence would be outrageous, but if that action be accompanied by mutiny—which we should all agree is the greatest possible offence you can have on a ship—the whole sentiment of the Service would be averse to having the penalty of death abrogated. I should, therefore, like a clear exposition of the Clause.
4.0 P.M.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The Noble Lord will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) prefers to explain the Clauses of this Bill, and I do not want to take upon myself that which he is prepared to do. Clause 1, if my recollection serves me rightly, provides that the penalty of death shall not attach to the offence of striking, or raising a weapon for the purpose of striking. The phraseology is familiar to those who know the Naval Code. As long as there is the possibility of the penalty of death attaching to an offence against naval discipline, it can only be dealt with by the machinery of court-martial. It is quite impossible for the officer commanding a ship to exercise disciplinary punishment, or deal summarily with an offence which involves that possible consequence. Of course, in a very grave case, such as that of striking, which was directly associated with mutiny, of course, a court-martial would be inevitable, because mutiny is a more serious offence than striking. On the other hand, if it be only some explicable, or mistaken, action, then it is better not to make a court-martial,

1179
with all its formalities, an absolute necessity, but to deal with the offence summarily. That is the object of the Clause. I think the Noble Lord will see that the Clause, while it maintains the traditions of good discipline in the Navy, on the other hand adds considerably to the machinery which he knows so well.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I understand exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I think he sees my point also. This ought to be put in the Clause, as you may have a very great amount of confusion at a moment of extreme urgency and some lamentable occurrence, such as mutiny through irritation, in which the penalty of death ought never to be relaxed It would appear that, under this Clause, under all circumstances the penalty for mutiny would be penal servitude and not death. It should be made more clear, unless indeed the Government are of opinion that the penalty of death should be done away with altogether.
Sir J. SIMON: Oh, no.
Lord C. BERESFORD: Then it should be made more clear in the Clause.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The House will see that the Bill proposes certain amendments of naval law which are recognised as necessary and expedient as a result of war conditions. We propose to take the opportunity afforded by this Amending Bill to make some further alterations, not necessarily the result of war conditions, but which appear to be desirable as a result of experience. I will state quite broadly the principles on which we are altering the Act of 1866, and I will take care to answer the question put by the Noble Lord as to how far the death penalty is relaxed.
Lord C. BERESFORD: When?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Now. Under Section 16 of the Act of 1886, the maximum penalty for striking or with any weapon attempting to strike or drawing or lifting up any weapon against a superior officer in the execution of his office is death. As the Noble Lord knows, that Section deals with certain other offences which are punishable with regard to the maximum sentence by penal servitude. The maximum penalty for attempting to strike
1180
otherwise than with a weapon, or for using or attempting to use violence against an officer being in the execution of his office is penal servitude. The maximum penalty for striking or attempting to strike, or drawing or lifting any weapon against, or using or attempting to use violence against a superior officer, not being in the execution of his office, is penal servitude. All this is provided for in Section 16 of the Act of 1866. We propose to substitute the following for Section 16:—
"Every person subject to this Act who shall strike or attempt to strike, or draw or lift up any weapon against, or use or attempt to use any violence against, his superior officer, whether or not such superior officer is in the execution of his office, shall be punished with penal servitude or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."
The broad effect is that penal servitude will be the maximum penalty in all cases contemplated by Section 16, and the death penalty disappears in this case. It has this other aspect to which I will call attention: Death no longer being the maximum penalty, it is open to the commanding officer to deal with the case summarily, if in his judgment the circumstances justify, and to award, as he can do under his proper authority, up to three months' imprisonment or detention. Of course, he can also apply for a court-martial if he thinks the circumstances justify it. The Noble Lord will know that the gravity of striking cases varies very considerably. The offence sometimes arises between men very nearly related in rank who fall out on some small point of difference of opinion and dispute. We desire to have the power of discrimination as to the method of trial. We desire to place it in the discretion of the commanding officer to deal with such cases by summary jurisdiction; otherwise, of course, there must be a court-martial, and in any case the maximum penalty is to be penal servitude. I gather the Noble Lord wants to know whether the death penalty will still remain in any other part of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866. Certainly it will remain as the maximum penalty for mutiny or incitement to mutiny, for spying, for treacherously aiding the enemy, for misconduct in the presence of the enemy, and for desertion of post in the presence of the enemy. I think these are all, but I am not quite sure, and, at any rate, in those cases the death penalty will remain, as these offences are not affected

1181
by this Clause. I think I have made the object of this first Clause perfectly clear, that in those cases mentioned, where the death penalty has been the maximum penalty, it will no longer be so, but penal servitude will be the maximum penalty for all purposes arising under Section 16 now to be amended by Clause 1 of this Bill.
As regards Clause 2 of the Bill, I wish to point out that, under the existing law, the punishment for absence without leave is limited to ten weeks' imprisonment or detention. Undoubtedly that is sufficient in time of peace, but absence without leave in time of war is a much more serious offence—indeed, it is almost as serious as desertion—and therefore, in Clause 2, we propose to amend Section 23 of the original Act so as to make it possible, where it seems desirable, to impose a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment in war time only.
Section 46 of the original Act sets out a number of places other than those on the high seas in which men of the Fleet may be assembled, and it enacts that all offences committed in such places may be tried and punished under the Naval Discipline Act, whether they are offences against ordinary law or against naval law. Clause 3 of his Bill adds to the list of such places, the addition being necessary as a result of modern developments in the work of the Fleet. The precise alteration proposed is that we shall add to the list of places mentioned in Section 16 of the original Act these words—
"or in any other premises held by or on behalf of the Crown for naval or military purposes, or in any canteen or other place frequented by seamen which may be prescribed by the Admiralty."
Then we propose an addition to Section 46, to cover a situation concerning which there has been some doubt—the taking into custody, trial and punishment, by naval law, for an offence against naval discipline, of a person after he has actually left the Service. We propose to make this proviso by adding these words:
"That except in cases of offences of mutiny or desertion, proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act must be instituted within three months after the person affected has ceased to be a member of the Service."
We adopt this provision from Sub-section (1), Section 158, of the Army Act. Section 56 of the original Act sets forth the
1182
authorities having power to try offences, and it enacts that the power vested by the Section in an officer commanding a ship may under certain circumstances devolve on others who may be in command for the time being of detached parties. We propose to amend Section 56 to cover all possible cases not fully provided for in the original Act where devolution of authority now appears necessary, and consequentially we shall amend Section 50, which sets forth the persons having power to arrest offenders. These particular proposals are the explanation of the necessity for Clauses 5 and 7 of the proposed Bill. I come to the next point. Under the Act of 1866 there are cases where imprisonment may be accompanied by subsequent dismissal from the Service and there are cases where imprisonment cannot be so accompanied. We propose to add to Sub-section (7) of Section 53 of the original Act, which reads, "the punishment of imprisonment may be inflicted for any term not exceeding two years," these words—
"and may be accompanied with a sentence of dismissal from His Majesty's Service."
Clause 6 therefore gives discretion in every case to accompany imprisonment with dismissal. Take, for instance, a charge of embezzlement. It is not now necessarily punishable by dismissal from the Service. I think I am right in saying you cannot accompany the punishment of two years' imprisonment for embezzlement with dismissal.
Lord C. BERESFORD: Except by court-martial.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am speaking of the punishment of two years' imprisonment. We say that in every case there shall be discretion to say that a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding two years may be accompanied with a sentence of dismissal from His Majesty's Service. That is the justification for Clause 6.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does that mean that a man may be dismissed without a court-martial on a sentence inflicted by a commanding officer?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, up to two years.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Over two years or under two years? Is any officer to have power to sentence a man to two years'

1183
imprisonment and to accompany that sentence with an order of dismissal from the Service without a court-martial?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the summary jurisdiction of an officer only goes up to three months' imprisonment, but if a Court awards two years' imprisonment then we propose it shall be in its discretion to accompany it with a sentence of dismissal.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You are now speaking of a court-martial?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then this applies only to sentences by court-martial?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I think so, as at the present time the summary jurisdiction does not go beyond three months. But a court-martial may award up to two years' imprisonment for particular offences. It may not say now that the men shall be dismissed from the Service, but we think it desirable that in future it should have that power. I come next to Clause 8. Here we have the necessity for an amendment of the original Act which has been revealed by war experience. Under Section 59 of the original Act a court-martial must be held on board ship; that is an established rule from which there is no variation. We propose to add these words—
"unless the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial in any particular case for reasons to be recorded on the proceedings otherwise direct, in which case the court-martial shall be held at such convenient place on shore as the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial may direct."
The reason for that modification will be obvious. In war time it may be necessary for a ship on which a court-martial is being held to go to sea in the middle of the hearing, and therefore that is an impracticable method of dealing with these cases. Again, you may have to hold a court-martial where for the moment there may not be a ship at all, and in view of these possible disabilities we propose the addition to Clause 8, which I have just read to the House.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is that against the wish of the accused?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether he would have power to appeal under any other Regulation, but if I were
1184
asked the question on the matter off-hand I should say "Yes."
Mr. HEALY: He might desire to be tried by his own officer on his own ship.
Dr. MACNAMARA: The Regulations will not give him that power. As he has not got that power, we are taking nothing away in that respect.
Commander BELLAIRS: Are you taking power to try a man by court-martial anywhere—in London, for instance?
Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member will see the provision in the Bill is this—
"unless the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial in any particular case for reasons to be recorded on the proceedings otherwise direct, in which case the court-martial shall be, held at some convenient place on shore as the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial may direct."
That is the proposal. I put that forward as very urgently necessary, or it may be necessary as a result of experience.
Sir JOHN JARDINE: Will the ordering of the court-martial to take place at any place on shore include the cae of foreign States? For instance, supposing a ship is near or at the coast of an allied State, can the Admiralty or the officer commanding order the court-martial to be held on shore?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not sure, and I do not wish to give any answer of which I am not quite sure. In Clause 9 we propose to insert a provision, the absence of which has caused trouble. We propose to adopt the practice already in vogue in the Army under Section 163 (d) of the Army Act. We propose to take power to produce the "Navy List "or the "Gazette" as evidence of the status and rank of an officer and to make these documents legal evidence. Section 73 of the original Act provides that where a sentence, has been passed by court-martial and the offender is serving it, a second court-martial can impose punishment to commence at the expiration of the previous sentence; but if the offender is undergoing sentence as the result of summary punishment, then the court-martial cannot impose a sentence to commence at the end of the summary punishment. It must commence at once.
Lord C. BERESFORD: Are there to be two courts-martial?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not say that. If the offender is undergoing punishment for one court-martial, the next court-martial can make the sentence commence at the end of the first; but if he is undergoing punishment awarded by the summary jurisdiction, the court-martial sentence must begin at once.
Lord C. BERESFORDmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. In any case the sentence of court-martial must begin if the offender is undergoing summary punishment. It would have to begin at the moment, whether he serves the whole of the summary punishment or not. We propose to take power, in regard to persons already undergoing summary punishment, that if a court-martial is then held for some other offence the court-martial punishment may commence at the close of the sentence of summary punishment. We propose to take that power by substituting the words "under this Act" for the words "by court-martial" in the original Act. Let me explain the reason for that. Supposing you have a man in detention barracks for an offence for which he has been punished by summary jurisdiction, and supposing that, while there, he commits an offence by striking a superior officer, he is court-martialled and under the existing law his punishment by court-martial would have to commence at once. We think it might be desirable to let him finish in that case the punishment inflicted by the summary jurisdiction and commence the court-martial punishment at the end of it.
Lord C. BERESFORD: It is only three months.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I know, but we think it may be better he should finish his punishment and then commence the punishment inflicted by the court-martial. That is the reason for the alteration of the words "by a court-martial" into "under this Act." Clause 11 makes an interesting proposal which will specially commend itself to everybody. We propose to take power to enable the coming into operation of a sentence to be suspended until the order of committal is issued. That will be affected by the words in Clause 11:—
"the case may at any time and shall, at intervals of not less than three months, be reconsidered by the Admiralty or committing authority, and if on
1186
such reconsideration it appears to the Admiralty or committing authority that the conduct of the offender since his conviction has been such as to justify a remission of the sentence the Admiralty or the committing authority shall remit the whole or any part of it."
That power will be valuable in the case of good men who, perhaps after a time of great strain, have done something very wrong for the first time in their career. It introduces a kind of probation into the service, which will be of great value in enabling a man to regain his character if by his subsequent good conduct he wipes out the offence for which he has been sentenced. It would also have another effect, although I hope, believe and trust that this will not often arise. If such case arose, it would enable the awarding officer to deal effectively with a man who may conceivably commit an offence and thus secure detention or imprisonment with a view to escaping from distasteful duty. The provision will have a twofold effect. It will enable an order to be made suspending the sentence until the man has performed the distasteful duty, although I believe the most likely application of it will be to enable a man to restore his character. The new proposal deals also with the possible case of the imposition of a new sentence during the time the actual operation of the previous sentence was in suspense. Clause 12 deals with the change of the place of confinement of a prisoner. Under Section 75 of the original Act of 1866, it is for the Admiralty or the Commander-in-Chief on a foreign station to make an order in writing if any change is sought to be made in the place of confinement of any offender in prison or sentenced to be in prison, or detained under the Naval Discipline Act. The necessity of obtaining the approval of the Admiralty at home or the Commander-in-Chief of a foreign station may involve undesirable delay, so we propose to add to the original Act in Section 75 the words empowering also "the Senior Naval Officer present" to exercise the power which the original Act gives.
Lord C. BERESFORDmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I think the Commander-in-Chief at a foreign station will have the only power to determine that We do not affect his jurisdiction. Under

1187
Clause 13 of the Bill we propose to add to Section 90 of the original Act a provision affecting both the Army and the Navy, so that when bodies belonging to either of the Forces are serving with or attached to the other Force, they may be properly subject to the disciplinary control of the senior officer, irrespective of the Force to which he may belong. At present an officer in one Force is not a superior officer within the meaning of the Naval Discipline Act as regards members of the other Force of a lower rank than himself. Under Clause 13 regulations will be framed which will define the conditions in which such power may properly be exercised. Here we are adopting a new provision similar in character to one which has already been added to the Army (Annual) Bill for the purposes of the Army. Section 90 of the original Act makes provision respecting hired ships in His Majesty's service in time of war, and invests the commanding officer of every such hired vessel with the powers which an officer commanding has, in the matter of naval discipline, in respect of the members of the crew of the ship he commands.
Under Section 90 of the original Act, if it should arise that a hired ship in His Majesty's service in time of war went to sea, and a deserter, for instance, was left behind, no provision is clearly made for the punishment of such a person. He has signed on for a particular ship, whereas the naval rating agrees to serve in His Majesty's Navy. The distinction between the two terms of service would create, and possibly has created, a difficulty in the sort of case I have suggested. In the case of the deserter belonging to the hired ship his commanding officer has gone, and there is no jurisdiction for bringing him to trial. We propose, therefore, that in the absence of the officer commanding the hired ship, the offender may be dealt with by the officer commanding the ship or vessel, or station, in which he may, for the time being, be held in custody. I am sorry to have to go into such detail, but I think the subject demands it. I have stated fully the consequences of the Clauses in this Bill and their full purpose. The Bill makes an interesting rectification which I have to state to the House. Under the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, the Preamble to the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, was struck out. These words have been used as a Preamble to every Naval
1188
Discipline Act since 1661. These are the words:—
"Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the government of the Navy, whereon, under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depend,"
then follow the words,
"Be it enacted,"
and so on. Those words were proposed to be struck out and I have no doubt were struck out, literally and legally, by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893. Notwithstanding that fact, I have to stand here and say that that Preamble has ever since appeared in the Naval Discipline Act. Clause 15 of this Bill proposes to give due and proper authority for the retention of those words. Clause 15 further gives due and proper authority for the continuance in Section 86 of the original Act of the definition of the terms "Admiralty" and "Lord of the Admiralty," which definition, curiously enough, was similarly struck out by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, but which definition, singularly enough, has continued to appear in print ever since. We now propose in the Bill before the House to give proper authority for its retention.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite certain that everyone who values the history and traditions of the Navy will welcome the announcement that the famous and moving Preamble used in every old Naval Discipline Act is to be restored by this Bill to its proper position. As regards the general question, I would like to make one observation. There is a tendency on the part of His Majesty's Government to use too freely the indulgence which the House is anxious to give to them in these difficult times. It was a misfortune for the House, and especially for those Members who have already spoken, that they were obliged to intervene before there had been any statement from the Minister as to what this Bill was about or what the meaning of these Clauses was. The right hon. Gentleman very courteously offered his apology to the House. He had been taken by surprise by the rapidity with which business had passed, and he made a very full and frank statement the moment he was ready to rise. I suggest to him that in a Bill of this character, under present circumstances, there is more than usual reason for following a not unusual practice and prefacing to the Bill a memorandum explaining its provisions. The

1189
statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is just that class of statement which, in ordinary times, Ministers, in order to suit their own convenience and to save their own time, put into a memorandum and not into a speech, and the fact that the House is treating Ministers with exceptional indulgence under present circumstances is not a reason for Ministers failing to supply the House with the information they can in the way that is most convenient to the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will receive that very gentle and mild protest in the spirit in which it is made, and, if they have occasion to introduce legislation of this kind, will circulate a memorandum with the Bill which will give the House an explanation which the Bill itself does not afford.
On one or two specific points raised by the right hon. Gentleman I should like to make some observations. First in regard to Clause 1, which amends Section 16 of the previous Act. Section 16 of the original Act is one of a series of seven Sections grouped together, and my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and my Noble Friend (Lord C. Beresford) feared that Clause 1 applied not merely to Section 16, but to Section 10, the first of the Sections of the original Act so grouped under a single heading. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that that is not the intention of the Board of Admiralty. I hope he will satisfy himself before he proceeds with the Bill in Committee that he has done nothing in the new Bill to alter Section 10. I speak as a layman and subject to correction on points of drafting, but I think it would be worth while that Clause I should be especially stated as modifying Section 16 and having no reference to the other Sections of the original Act.
Dr. MACNAMARA: That is our view, but the point is a very good one.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be satisfactory if that is done. Then I turn to Clause 3, which is intended, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, to extend the provisions of the original Act which relate to offences committed on board ship and in other places over which the Admiralty has jurisdiction to places of a type not described or covered in the original Act, but in which the Admiralty now has jurisdiction.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Sailors congregate there, but we have not the jurisdiction
1190
without altering the Naval Discipline Act which we have in respect to places already mentioned in the Act.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite understand their desiring to take this power in respect of other premises held by or on behalf of the Crown for naval or military purposes, or in any canteen. But then you go on to say, "or other place frequented by seamen." Those are extremely wide words. I do not know what they are intended to cover, but they would apply to the whole City of London.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Take a Royal Naval Air station.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not that show that this Bill requires very careful consideration in Committee, and that there is at least a possibility that the Admiralty are doing a great deal more than they are prepared to defend, and, I hope, a great deal more than they intended? A Naval Air station would be a place under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and it would be premises held by or on behalf of the Crown. But do they mean to apply these words to any public-house in London where seamen who are in London happen to be? Do they mean to apply them to any street in London where a group of seamen may happen to be? The words are so wide that I think the right hon. Gentleman must give us a much more exact definition of what I believe the Admiralty want, and what I think they are entitled to ask, than is given in the words as they are here. The one illustration which the right hon. Gentleman has given is one on which everyone will agree. The words are so wide that wherever you find half a dozen sailors, if there was no naval establishment in the neighbourhood, I believe they would cover that case, and I think that is more than the Admiralty ought; to have, and I believe it is more than they have any intention of demanding.
I would make one other observation on Clauses 8 and 9. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill was not absolutely strictly limited to the new needs arising out of the War, but was in part intended for subsequent regulation of the Navy during times of peace. I am not quite certain how far he includes Clauses 8 and 9 under the one or the other category. He suggests, in regard to Clause 8, the difficulty of holding courts-martial on board ship in time of war, but it seems rather odd that we should legislate in Clause 8

1191
about courts-martial, and in Clause 9 about the Navy at the very moment when the Government have abandoned the uniform practice of the Service of holding courts-martial, and have abandoned the publication of the Navy List. The action of the Admiralty in legislation and in administration does not seem quite consistent, and I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, since he neither publishes a Navy List nor will hold courts-martial, might leave Clauses 8 and 9 to be considered at leisure "when perhaps the Board will once again give us a Navy List and resume the practice of holding courts-martial.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire, without in any way criticising the Bill itself, to ask a few questions from the drafting and legal point of view. I think the measure as a whole is satisfactory, but there are one or two questions I wish to ask. The Government proposes to re-enact the words of the Act of 1893, which I am wholly in sympathy with; but I wish to ask for general information whether this Bill has been drafted by the ordinary draftsman of the Government or by some special person connected with the Admiralty. There is a Clause in every Statute Law Revision Bill which provides that notwithstanding repeal, Acts shall still remain in force as if they never had been repealed, unless in a given eventuality. It is plainly the opinion of the lawyers of successive Governments who have been advising the House that the repeal of the Act of 1892 had no effect, because notwithstanding the repeal they had used the Preamble in every subsequent Naval Discipline Act. Why, then, twenty years after, should we suddenly discover that this repeal has actually taken placed I have known the Courts to hold, notwithstanding formal repeal in the Statute Law Revision Act, that in fact the repealed Section was still in full operation. Therefore I feel that this question is one of great nicety and it is not merely for the purpose of criticising this Bill that I raise this point, but only by reference to the fact that if you once re-enact this provision every lawyer will say the Navy has found it necessary to re-enact this provision and that the repeal had come into effect notwithstanding that the Preamble had been used in every successive annual Statute. It is only because of the general effect of this proposed repeal that I make this criticism.
1192
Here is another observation of the same kind. There is this remarkable provision in Clause 16, Sub-section (2), which I think, perhaps claiming some small experience of watching Acts of Parliament, is novel,
"A copy of the Naval Discipline Act, with every such enactment would be inserted in the place so assigned and with the omission of any portion of that Act directed by the Schedule to this Act to be omitted from that Act, and with the substitution of references to His Majesty for references to Her Majesty shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printers shall print in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of the Naval Discipline Act which are printed after the commencement of this Act."
I am not clear that certain portions of that order are necessary, because if you look at the Interpretation Act you will find that the demise of the Crown is provided for, and surely it is no more necessary in a Naval Act to provide for the case of "His" for "Her" in the case of the demise of the Crown than in the case of any other Act, and therefore 'I suggest that unless there is some special reason connected with the Navy, this provision is wholly unnecessary. But what is the necessity for the provision in regard to the King's printers? This constantly arises in connection with the Army Bill. Year after year the new Act is brought into force by the same system of draftsmanship which is, I take it, in existence in connection with the Army Act, but has anyone ever seen the provision that the Clerk of the Parliaments shall deposit a certified copy with the Rolls of Parliament? Is not this an entire novelty in procedure in connection with Acts of Parliament, and if it be a novelty what is the necessity for it? I quite grant that the Government have, in connection with this War, to do a vast number of things for which changes are desirable which are necessitated as cases arise, but in the technique of the printing of Acts of Parliament the War has not created any change, and it has not created any change in regard to the printing of Bills and the Rolls of Parliament. Unless some precedent or some special necessity can be cited, I shall enter my protest as a humble student of Statutes against any provision of this kind.
As regards courts-martial, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said there

1193
is no change whatever made as regards the status of prisoners in the third Clause of the Bill. I think it is a mere matter of convenience in providing as to the places where courts-martial may be held. While that is so, I would suggest that, as a rule, everybody thinks of the accuser, and of the convenience of the Department, but there are few to speak on behalf of prisoners and accused persons. It is therefore all the more necessary in time of war, when you will not allow wages to be paid under certain circumstances in public-houses, to provide that you shall not appear to degrade the administration of justice by bringing a sailor suddenly into a certain place because there is no other place where he can be tried. I do not object if it becomes an absolute necessity, and if strong necessity can be shown, but I think that in the case of such a grave and reverend assembly as a court-martial it is far better that it should continue to proceed in a place, I will not say of more respectability, but of more orderliness of character. If you once lay down that a court-martial may meet in a canteen, or other rough-and-ready place of that kind—
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the Clause. I do not understand Clause 3 to deal with places where a court-martial may be held, but rather to deal with the offences which are punishable under the Act.
Mr. HEALY: If that is so, of course my observation falls to the ground, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I simply rose to refer to a drafting point, and I trust that the Government will give it consideration before next stage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Order for Second Heading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): This is a Bill which has been rendered necessary by the War, and its duration I may say is limited to the duration of the War. At the present time
1194
the banns for naval marriages are published on board ship, and the marriage therefore just takes place in a parish where a marriage can be solemnised. While the Fleets are at sea men cannot be spared so long as to go down to some parish in the country, and therefore the proposal of this Bill is that a marriage may take place in any legal place where marriages may be solemnised in the United Kingdom—that is to say, if the Fleet may be coming into Hull or some other port sailors may go there to be married. In other words; if Jack cannot go to Jill, Jill may come to Jack, and if the formalities have been duly complied with the marriage may be solemnised in any place of worship licensed for that purpose. There is another provision in the Bill—the extension of the time for the validity of banns. Now a marriage must be solemnised within three months of the publication of the banns. Sometimes sailors cannot get away for that time. We propose in this Bill that the period over which the banns may remain valid should be twelve months instead of three. This is a war emergency Bill, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) (No. 2).— [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"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 agreed to.

INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) (NO. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I.) AMENDMENT.— [MONEY].
Considered in Committee.
Resolved,
"That it is expedient to authorise 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."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
As amended, considered.
Sir F. BANBURY: The House will remember that during the Debate on an earlier stage I was requested by the Government to withdraw an Amendment I had to report Progress. The Government promised to consider between then and now whether an Amendment which they proposed to introduce fulfilled the object they had in mind. I may say that I have taken the opportunity of consulting several legal Members of the House, who were all unanimously of opinion that the Amendment put in the Bill by the Government did not effect its purpose. We had not the advantage of any legal Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench and, therefore, though the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture said that in his opinion the Amendment put in did carry out the object, he will excuse me if I say that I prefer the legal interpretation of it by those hon. Gentlemen who are learned in the law to the interpretation given by the right hon. Gentleman, who among his many qualities does not include that of being learned in the law. I have had no communication from the Government since last Thursday, and I think they might at least have sent to me on the subject. I do not know whether the Government now consider that the Amendment put in carries out their purpose, but I do think they might have had the courtesy to inform me whether the Amendment did or did not carry out their intentions. I must say that I have been driven to the conclusion that the Government, having got the Committee stage, took no further trouble in the matter. As I was afraid that some-
1196
thing of that kind might happen I put down an Amendment to leave out Subsection (5) as amended. It reads thus:—
"Subject to the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, any pensions, allowances, or gratuities granted under or in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
5.0 P.M.
I propose for these reasons to leave that out. The right hon. Gentleman said that what he desired to do was to leave the matter so that when the Home Rule Act of 1914 came into force, the Exchequer Board which would be set up under that Act would decide whether a portion of the pensions and gratuities should be borne by the new Irish Government or by the English Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to leave it to the Exchequer Board. I was not prejudging it. I was only carrying out what the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends proposed to carry out. I am always willing under these circumstances to meet the Government, and if they think that the whole matter should be left to the Exchequer Board, I ask why put in anything at all about money provided by Parliament. I think it would have been far better to make it clear that the Home Rule Act of 1914 should not be amended in any kind of way. I think it will be better to leave out about providing money by the Imperial Parliament. I hope that even at the last moment we shall be treated in a rather different way by the Government. It is not encouraging, when we try to meet them in every possible way, to find them taking every advantage.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Not on the merits of this question, but in view of the misunderstanding which appears to have arisen on the last occasion, and which it is very necessary to have cleared up, I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am sure that the hon. Baronet, whose sacrifice in his own family in this War is so pathetic, and is one which we all so deeply appreciate, hardly realises the intense amount of feeling which he has created in Ireland by this Amendment. The amount that he would thereby save the Treasury is extremely small, but the action which he has taken has engendered an amount of feeling in the police force in Ireland the like of which I have never known. Let me tell him why. The whole of the depletion in

1197
the ranks of the Irish Guards has been filled by volunteers from the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who are at this moment serving at the front in one of the most gallant corps connected with the Service, and one in which the Irish people take the utmost pride. I quite understand that the hon. Baronet is taking up what he conceives to be a logical attitude in this case, and is doing it purely from the point of view of what he recognises as the mechanics of finance. I am quite sure that he does not in the least degree realise that he is doing a disservice. For if his Amendment were carried I do not believe that you would get another single recruit for the Irish Guards from—
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him for a moment. I do not think that he was in the House when I spoke at greater length and when I made it plain that first of all I did not wish in any way to touch these pensions. I do not think that anybody would suggest that I would do anything that would injure the Brigade of Guards, with which my family has been associated. I have been most careful to show that I did not wish in any way to touch the pensions. Whether my Amendment is carried or not, the Irish Guards and the Irish Police would receive the full amount of their pension, which I am anxious that they should receive. The only object and the only effect of my Amendment would be on the question as to whether or not after the coming into operation of the Home Rule Act those pensions would be provided by the English taxpayer or by the Irish taxpayer.
Mr. HEALY: I do not for one moment make any reflection upon my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him so. I am sure he believes that I am the last man in the world who would make such reflection. I am only dealing with the effect, because do not let it be supposed that the Irish police read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons, or read any long reports of what happens in this House. They only look at the general effect, and now what has happened? For the Guards you want men of fine physique, long service and special gallantry, because there is no doubt whatever that these men have been put in the forefront while serving. What do you think will be the effect if, when these men have been asked to join
1198
this gallant force, they should be told that the first man to raise a point against them in the House of Commons was the Member for the City of London, the richest part of His Majesty's Dominions, and that it was in the City of London that a point was raised with regard to the pay and pensions of the men who are prepared to give their blood for the country? Remember this. These police are already in receipt of a very fair amount of remuneration. Their service is not a difficult one where they are at present. You are asking them to go upon the most difficult and most hazardous service. I think it most undesirable from that point of view that this House should appear to do anything to cavil at the action which has been taken by His Majesty's Government, when this has been insisted upon as a term precedent to their service.
But there is another ground of which I am sure the hon. Baronet is not at all aware. The police have been paying into what they call a constabulary force fund for many years, and when they return upon pensions they claim that this constabulary force fund has not been fairly dealt with, and we have had very many requests pressed upon us during the last few years to insist upon matters being put right in connection with this constabulary force fund. For one reason or another the Government always said that it was not a convenient season to deal with the question. There is not a man in the police whose pay has been docked who does, not allege that he has not been fairly treated by the Treasury. There is a third reason which perhaps may, more or less, appeal to my hon. Friend above the Gangway. It is evident to me, having regard to the great taxation which this War has produced, that the finance of the Home Rule Act will have to be completely recast. The finance of the Home Rule Act is as dead as Queen Anne. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. The finance of a great many other things also is as dead as Queen Anne. We will all have to learn the A B C. of finance at the feet of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in some other Session. But it is perfectly plain that from top to bottom this question of finance will have to be revised. In fact, the Government admitted it in their Budget of last year. Therefore, I say, on that ground that this is not a convenient occasion on which to cobble with a question that will have to be dealt with not by patchwork but as a whole.

1199
There is another point. This Bill only deals with the pensions of those who are actually in the constabulary and police service. But the Government have appealed to a very large number of men who are on pension to rejoin the Colours, and a very largo number of pensioners of the constabulary and police forces have left civil life and come back and joined the Army. I do not think that the Bill gives these men any consideration whatsoever. I may be wrong, but, if I am wrong, I should like to be corrected. I think that the policeman who is on active service in the police, and who joins the Colours, is entitled to credit. Far more so is the policeman who has left the service, who has been a pensioned officer, who has gone into civil life, who perhaps has started a little business and perhaps has got civil employment. That man not merely comes back to the police force, as a number of them have done, but he takes up dangerous and difficult service in connection with the Army. I do think that men of this class are entitled to some consideration. They are men who show just as much gallantry as any other body of men in civil life. Therefore I do think that this Bill, instead of being restricted, should be extended.
Lastly, I am glad to have the opportunity now of dealing with this force which has had to bear a great deal of unpopularity from time to time. The Army has never been unpopular in Ireland, but the police have had a great deal of hard work and a great many harsh words have been thrown at them, and I have myself occasionally held strongly on this side. But when we are winding up the whole of this system, and when we hope to see the police force turned into an ordinary civil force in connection with the Government of the country, and when the men who have had to bear the hard words which many of us have expended upon them, are for the first time taking up this more dangerous service abroad, surely that is a time when Members like myself, who have been engaged in criticising them for the last thirty-five years should say … "We are parting with you under the Government of Ireland Act. A number of you are engaged in difficult service abroad. Let us do the handsome thing by you; let us recognise your gallantry; let us recognise your claim under this Bill, and at all events if you have been criticised and attacked by Conservative Members remember that your own fellow-countrymen did stand up and
1200
recognise the gallant part which you are taking in this service."
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture,): When this Bill was in the Committee stage on Thursday night, the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin expressed the hope that there would be no further discussion.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote me inaccurately. What I said was that if the Government accepted the Motion to report Progress, I thought it extremely unlikely that there would be any further discussion, on the ground that any show of real friendliness on the part of the Government would have this effect. The Government altogether refused to give any kind of concession, and if any discussion has arisen it is entirely due to the Parliamentary management shown by the Government in this matter.
Mr. RUSSELL: The reason why the Government refused to accept the Motion to report Progress was that if Progress had been reported we should have had the Committee stage to-night and the whole thing over again. What I understood the Noble Lord to mean was this: That it was a subject of a very delicate character. In his speech the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork has proved clearly what I little more than hinted on Thursday would take place, that discontent would spread amongst the constabulary in Ireland, because they would not read full reports of the speeches: they would only read that pensions had been refused. And that has just come about. That was the reason that I thought that the Noble Lord did not wish a discussion to take place, and that any prolongation of the Committee would produce misunderstanding in Ireland, and very probably have disastrous effects upon enlistment in Ireland. That is the condition in which we left it on Thursday night. We refused to assent to the Motion to report Progress because the Committee stage would have been resumed to-night, and we should have had the whole thing over again. The question is a very narrow one. These men have volunteered: they have joined the Irish Guards. I suppose that they are in the trenches at this moment. The question as to how the pensions and separation allowances are to be paid comes up for discussion in this House. The first Amendment which the hon. Member for the City of

1201
London put on the Paper would have made that charge an Irish Service. It would have prejudged the whole issue. The Government felt themselves compelled to resist it. It would be a very paltry thing to reconsider the whole question of Home Rule finance upon a charge that would certainly not amount to more than £2,000. When it is considered, it will be considered on larger issues than that.
I resisted the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of London because, if it did not make this actually an Irish service, it prejudged the whole question. When the question was introduced in this shape, I brought up an Amendment which obviated that difficulty, or, at all events, it left it to the proper statutory authorities to decide. The hon. Member for the City of London constantly referred to the 37th Section of the Home Rule Act, and at the time I tried to show, as I now propose to do again, that the 37th Section of the Home Rule Act has nothing at all to do with the matter. That Section refers to police pensions for those who have been engaged in the performance of Irish duties; it provides how they shall be paid, and that the Exchequer Board shall deduct the amount. But that applies only to Acts which were in existence when the Home Rule Bill was passed. This Amendment does not come under that category, and therefore Section 37 of the Home Rule Act has nothing to do with it. Section 14 governs the whole thing. It provides that where a dispute arises as to whether a charge is for an Imperial or an Irish service, the Exchequer Board shall give its decision, and if anybody is not satisfied with that decision he has the right of appeal. That is what I tried to explain on Thursday night. The whole contention on behalf of the Government was that these are not police pensions in the ordinary sense. They are not governed by Section 37, nor by the procedure under that Section; they are State pensions for military services, as the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork remarked, of a most valuable character, and I should like to repeat what I said on Thursday night, that they have been very nobly earned by that regiment of Guards.
The hon. Member for the City of London now brings up an Amendment of a wholly different character, and he says that he has been advised by four or five lawyers in this House with regard to the matter. I am not a lawyer, but I have perhaps about as much knowledge of the law as
1202
will enable me to say that I never accept a lawyer's opinion unless I see the case in which it is given. That may net be law, but it is common-sense. I am acting under the sanction of the Treasury, who say that the Bill is properly drawn. I took the hon. Member's Amendment to the Treasury and they said it was one which we could not accept. Notwithstanding the Noble Lord's statement and that of the hon. Gentleman, I think, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), it should not go throughout Ireland that the House of Commons discussed the question of these pensions. I say that this Amendment is full of danger; it is a petty Amendment. You are voting millions of money, sack-loads of money, and you are voting hundreds of millions, and you never ask a word about it. I am delighted that it is so, and we shall go on voting it; yet, in regard to this petty charge of perhaps £2,000 for the pensions of a most famous regiment, one of the most famous regiments in the Service, you allow this House to be represented in Ireland by those who have an interest in representing it in that way; and there are elements in Irish society who, if you allowed that impression to be created, will go to the country and say, "You can go and die in the service of England, the House of Commons will discuss your pensions in order to say that if it has to be paid they must be paid in Ireland." I beg the House to let us have this Bill, and let these men have the pensions.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I have never in my long experience of this House heard a more unfair speech than that of the right hon. Gentleman, nor one in which a Member of the Government has set himself deliberately to mislead this House; and not only that, but to give currency in Ireland to the very views which the right hon. Gentleman pretends he does not want to be started there. If this Bill had been defended, as it was defended by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight, if it had been defended in those terms by the right hon. Gentleman on the previous occasion, if a speech of that character had been delivered from the Front Bench opposite, the Debate would have ended there and then. If the Government had told us, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did just now, that the question between us was as to the pensions of those who have gone to do a noble duty in a noble way,

1203
the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well not a shadow of opposition would have been offered. He knows that perfectly well; and I think that if that statement had been made in the first instance, if the Government had said that "there is a doubt as to the incidence of this taxation, we are not quite sure, and we frankly tell the House that it may be that this would cause some difference in the incidence of the taxation as between the Irish Exchequer and the English Exchequer, but we want to make this provision in order that the splendid conduct of these men may be adequately recognised," the whole matter would have ended; my hon. Friend would not have moved, or would not have pressed, his Amendment, and the whole controversy would have been closed. It was believed that this Bill effected a change in the conditions laid down in the Home Rule Act, and the representative of the Government asked for an expression of opinion. There was not any expression of opinion forthcoming. We were given assurances; there was no Law Officer present at the time; there was an expression of opinion, but no definite statement was made.
What happened? The hon. Baronet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Sir Harry Verney) represented the Government. We suggested that as a question of this kind opened up a difficulty it would be better that the Government should be represented by an Irish Minister. We were told that was not necessary, and that the Parliamentary Secretary had the whole thing at his fingers' ends. We knew that the hon. Baronet had served in the Irish Office with great credit to himself and great advantage to that Department during four or five years; we thought probably that he had the necessary information; I am not going to put it higher than to say that it was not clear on which side the truth lay in regard to this question. What happened? The hon. Baronet was good enough, with the utmost courtesy, to say that he would consider the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London—which he quoted on the last occasion on which he was speaking for the Government—that the Government would be willing to consider an Amendment on this or any other point. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President made his
1204
first appearance on the second occasion when this question was before the House. There had been no heat in this matter before, and it is only since his appearance that heat has been imported into this Debate to-day, when a Member, representing the Government, gets up here and does not hesitate to charge my hon. Friend and the Opposition with having opposed the pensions of the police, and did what they could to stop recruiting in Ireland.
Mr. RUSSELL: I did not say that.
Mr. LONG: Certainly you did.
Mr. RUSSELL: No, I said that would be the result of Debates in this House. I said that on Thursday night on the Committee stage, and I know it has been the result already.
Mr. LONG: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman interrupts. That is exactly what I said.
Mr. RUSSELL: No.
Mr. LONG: That is exactly what I said. I said the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department charged my hon. Friend with taking the line in this House which would lead the Irish police to believe that we were opposed to their pensions.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that the Vice-President had said that the Opposition treated this Debate as if they were opposing these pensions. That is not what he said.
Mr. LONG: I do not know what the Solicitor-General heard, but I have no doubt as to what I did say, that the Vice-President brought the charge against my hon. Friend and those who support him in connection with what we have done, and if there is any feeling of this kind in Ireland, any feeling such as the hon. and learned Gentleman has described, it is due to the fact, in the first place, that the Government have blundered and bungled in introducing this Bill, and, in the second place, that you have given definite pledges and departed from them on the last occasion as you are departing from them on this. The right hon. Gentleman chooses to draw a distinction between my hon. Friend and my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin. The representative

1205
of the Government on the last occasion stated distinctly that if my hon. Friend would not press his Motion to report Progress, the Government would consider between then and the Report stage what my hon. Friend had suggested, together with the views which had been expressed on this side of the House. The matter is a very simple one. We learn now that it is necessary to deal with it in a manner which may affect the relations between Irish and British finance. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the amount of £2,000 or £20,000 or £200,000 is of no importance whatever. So far as we are concerned, if we are frankly told that these pensions must be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, wholesale if you like, in order that these men may have their pensions, everyone will vote for it to-morrow. All we have asked from the beginning has been that the mystery as to this question should be cleared up and all doubt removed, and that if we were right, as we think we were, that an Amendment should be introduced by which that doubt would be removed. If, on the other hand, you had told us, as you practically tell us today, that it is necessary to charge the Imperial Exchequer for this purpose, and if that statement had been made plainly by the Government, and not left, as it has been, to an hon. and learned Gentleman to give us the real explanation, then I say I am quite convinced we would have accepted it. We do not care whether the sum is twenty times the amount involved, we would do nothing to prevent the men who are doing their duty with the utmost devotion and public spirit from getting the pensions to which they are justly entitled.
I regret, very much indeed, that the Debate has taken the form it has taken. We, the Opposition, have not only in this, but in every other matter, done our best during this Session to support the Government in all that they have to do in connection with the War. We have put ourselves at their disposal and we have subordinated all party or personal interests in every way. There is only one answer to be made to that course of conduct by the Government, and that is scrupulous adherence to the rules which are always observed in this House. When the Government gave the Opposition an assurance that their view would be met, and that steps would be taken to remedy or correct an error, if they said that they could not do so without laying an unfair
1206
charge on the Irish Revenue there would not have been any controversy, and there would not have been any heat. I regret the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President, and I respectfully suggest to the Irish Government that in future, if they have any legislation they want to pass with celerity and without bitter controversy, they had better select some other representative.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I certainly have no desire whatever to add to the heat of this controversy. I regret it has taken place at all. I think all controversies of this kind should be avoided in war-time. I expressed that opinion before, and although I was not present during the speech of the Noble Lord I gather that that is his view. In a time like this one must take into account the extremely excited state of public opinion, and must remember that words and acts which are permissible at other times might very well be misinterpreted. I am not at all surprised, though I am very sorry to hear, that this discussion has already produced a certain amount of unrest among the constabulary in Ireland. I always thought it would, and what has happened has only been the realisation of what I expected. It is, perhaps, because he is not very well acquainted with the eddies and currents of Irish life, but I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) was very ill-advised in raising this question. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand, with his larger experience of Ireland, was even more ill-advised in supporting it. As a matter of fact there are two questions involved which touch Ireland on a very sensitive spot. In the first place there is the question of appearing to discuss a small amount of money given to those gallant Irishmen who have exchanged their duties as policemen for the more perilous duties of soldiers in the trenches. I am perfectly sure, and I quite accept the statement of the hon. Baronet and of the right hon. Gentleman, that nothing was farther from their thoughts—
Sir F. BANBURY: I said so.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Than to interfere with these pensions—I am perfectly sure of that.
Sir F. BANBURY: I said so, and so did my right hon. Friend, and ray Amendment on both occasions would not affect a single farthing of the pensions.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I quite accept that statement, but really a trained politician like the right hon. Gentleman and like the hon. Baronet must know that the general public, the man in the street, especially the body of men who are immediately affected, are not able to make those nice distinctions that he and I are able to make between one form of Parliamentary action and another. The broad fact seemed to emerge from the controversy that when their miserable little pension came up for consideration then, for the first time, that blessed truce which has prevailed with regard to all the millions of money for the cost of the War was broken by the hon. Gentleman. I join my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Department in the appeal to my countrymen not to take that view of this Debate, which I think is not justified, and not to weary the well-doing of the men in the trenches who defend the liberties of Ireland as well as of England.
The second point which has touched the Irish mind is this. In Ireland the cost of the police has always been regarded as an Imperial burden taken up by the Empire for reasons into which I will not enter on at present. Here is a small, very tiny, almost infinitesimal addition to the Imperial burden with regard to these pensions and the hon. Baronet is so keen in his vigilant criticism of the Irish policy of the Government that he makes it the opportunity of raising the whole question, and how in the name of Heaven can the hon. Baronet think that this particular little sum should be separated from the general consideration that has always ruled in dealing with the police in Ireland? He wants to make it an Irish charge. Fancy, when Irish policemen volunteer to go and fight and perhaps die in the trenches, that this particular occasion should be the occasion chosen to raise the question of removing that burden from the broad shoulders of the Empire and putting it on to the narrow shoulders of the Irish people!
Lord ROBERT CECILmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have no desire to speak offensively, unfairly, or untruly, but that is the way Irishmen will look at it. At a time when it is the duty of every one of us to nerve the arm and encourage by every means every man who is of the age and in the condition to fight for his
1208
country, I think the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman might very well have waived this policy of theirs. That is all I have to say. I have not consciously added anything to the heat of this Debate and I think the whole thing was most unwise.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure I do not wish to depart in any way from the spirit of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I only rise for two purposes—in the first place, to say that I have always believed that the Irish were very clever and that they would understand politics a great deal better than we would. We are constantly hearing that said.
Mr. HEALY: I never said we were clever.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. and learned Gentleman might have said so without any hyperbole in his case. I cannot myself think, even if they were very much stupider than the English people, that they could have possibly conceived it as within the bounds of possibility that the Unionist party, of all people in the world, should have desired to throw a slight on one of the regiments of the Brigade of Guards. That does appear to be beyond all credibility, and I cannot think that in any circumstances they would have thought that this party of all parties in the country would have desired in any way to diminish the reward, the proper, just and admirable reward, that should be paid to the soldiers. As far as I am concerned, such a thought never crossed my mind for a moment. If I thought my hon. Friend's Amendment, or the discussion raised by it, threw any doubt whatever upon the full right of those men to the pensions to which they are entitled, irrespective as I think of this Bill, then I should not have said one word on the subject, and I am quite sure my hon. Friend would have adopted the same course. The hon. Member has not quite realised what our point was. It was a very small and very simple point and it was, if I may say so, a Treasury point. The hon. Baronet discharges the duty of watching very carefully the financial correctness of what we do, and I am sure everybody will agree that that is what ought to be done in a crisis like this. I am not sure even that in our desire not to hamper the Government we have not given too great latitude for which we may suffer in the money we have to pay in the end.

1209
The hon. Baronet raised a point which is small, but which is important. In the first place, he said this particular amount dealt with in this Bill is a police pension and not a military pension, and therefore ought to be treated as a police and not a military matter. He may have been right or wrong, but that was his point. His second point was that the proposals of the Bill made a change in the Home Rule Act, which was a thing they ought not to do by emergency legislation. I venture to say if this question had been dealt with by any other Minister except the Vice-President of the Department there would not have been the slightest heat, but a friendly and businesslike discussion, and if the Government adhered to their view the thing would have gone through without the slightest opposition. It is all due entirely, absolutely entirely, to the intervention of the Vice-President, because he persistently-appeared to us to be trying to impute motives to us.
Mr. RUSSELL: The Noble Lord will remember that I was not present on the occasion of the Second Beading, when there were five speeches and a Division challenged.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: And they insisted on your coming back.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say there was a Division challenged?
Mr. RUSSELL: There was no Division.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will bear me out that the discussion was perfectly friendly and that there was no heat or warmth at all, except that I am the only possible sinner since I very foolishly expressed a desire for the presence of the Vice-President.
Sir F. BANBURY: On the Second Reading no Amendment was moved, and there could be no question of a Division.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: All I wish to make clear, as far as one can make anything clear, to the House and country, is that this whole trouble has arisen from the way we have been treated by the Minister in charge of this Bill. As far as I am concerned, having made our protest, I desire to add nothing more. We still chink that as a matter of financial regularity the point we took is right, but I quite agree that at the present time if
1210
there is the slightest danger of misconception, such a point should not be pressed. Having made that protest we have done all we can and I only hope that in future we shall not be treated in the way we have been treated or this occasion.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: It does seem to me that this discussion is really a storm in a teacup. I listened to the whole of the Debate the other night which took place in a very thin House and to the whole of this Debate. I am extremely sorry that any suggestion should have emanated from either side that any Member of this House in any part of it grudges in any way ample and adequate and suitable pensions to those men who are fighting for us. I am perfectly certain there is no such Member and I hope that the impression which has been suggested will absolutely disappear. I understood the hon. Baronet's Amendment to be an example of his purity in finance, and of his desire to have things regular and in order—nothing more than that. As far is I understand the question at issue it all turns upon whether the pensions which become due to the Dublin Metropolitan Police for their services in the War are police pensions or military pensions. If they are military pensions, surely they should be paid by the nation, and not by Ireland. If they are police pensions it is another question. I believe I am right in saying that the small sum in question represents purely military pensions, due to these men from the whole nation as an expression of its gratitude. For that reason, I hope the discussion will not continue, or, at any rate, that it will not continue its unfortunate character.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Mr. HEALY: Sub-section (3) says:—
"If, with the consent of the police authorities any officer or constable, for the purpose of the present War, enters or re-enters, enlists or re-enlists, or receives a commission,"
and so on, certain Sections shall apply. I wish to ask whether a retired constable in receipt of a pension who joins the Colours, will be in as good a position for the purposes of this Bill as if he were actually a constable at the moment of his re-enlistment. If not, I suggest that some

1211
such words as the following would be required:—
"In this Act the word 'constable' shall, if necessary, include retired constable or pensioner, voluntarily rejoining the Army or Navy."
As it stands, the Bill is somewhat confused. You are providing for the case of the man who must compulsory rejoin. I submit that the man who voluntarily joins should be put in at least as good a position as the man who only obeys the call. There are many such men, and therefore I move the insertion of the words which I have read.
Sir F. BANBURY: Does not this increase the charge?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the effect of the words would be to increase the charge.
Mr. HEALY: I had that apprehension myself. I ask the Government whether the Bill applies to these men. I am not sure that the words are necessary; if they are, the Government themselves should move the Amendment.
Mr. MOONEY: Is not the point covered by the Act passed last year?
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The best way would be to postpone the Third Reading, and move to re-submit the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot take the Third Reading to-night, because it is a Money Bill. If the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) will put down a Motion for recommittal, it will give an opportunity for considering the exact effect of the proposal.
Mr. RUSSELL: Two classes have to be provided for. Reservists of all ranks are provided for. Volunteers are the main feature of this Bill. The essential proposal is to put the Volunteers in exactly the same position as the Reservists.
Mr. HEALY: Does it include Volunteer pensioners?
Mr. RUSSELL: It includes men in the service—300 or 400—who have actually volunteered. More volunteered than could be taken. The Government promised that they should be put in the same position as the others. I hope we shall have no more discussion upon the matter, and that the Bill will be allowed to go through.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

ARMY (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This Bill is founded upon a proposal made by Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief, and the principle which it establishes is that a sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment passed on a man who has been tried when on active service, may, in certain circumstances, be suspended. During the term of suspension the man may return to his unit, and by good conduct earn a remission of the suspended sentence. It is suggested on the one hand that if the sentence is carried out, it would undoubtedly deprive the fighting forces of the man's services. On the other hand, many crimes for which penal servitude may be awarded, arise from temporary causes, such as temporary physical exhaustion, or loss of nerve. It would be quite easy to see whether or not suspension was justified. In any case, the provisions of the Bill are purely permissive, and if the experiment were found not to give satisfaction, the military authorities would abandon the powers given them by the Bill.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: I should like to know whether the Bill would apply to a case which I had brought to my notice on Saturday last. A private soldier went over with the first draft of men who were sent to France, took part in six or seven general engagements, was in six bayonet charges, had the misfortune to be taken suddenly ill on the march, fell out of the ranks, was found by a Belgian farmer, and was taken to the farmer's house. Twelve days passed before he got back to his regiment. He took part in the fighting for another fourteen days. He was then court-martialled, sentenced to twelve months' hard labour, and is at the present time in Woking prison. Would a sentence like that be cancelled or reduced under this Bill, or would the man have an opportunity of proving that he fell out because he was unable to continue? It was not a case of desertion in any shape or form. It seems to me that the Bill is absolutely necessary if it will deal with such a case as that. According to the evidence given

1213
to me, this man has not had the opportunity which he ought to have had of putting his case before the authorities.
Mr. TENNANT: It seems to me that the case referred to is eminently one that would be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. Of course, I am unable to speak positively in regard to the exact case. Court-martials are held, and obviously should be held, upon such cases. I hope that an injustice has not been done. In any case, the provisions of the Bill seem to me to be applicable to the case which the hon. Member has brought to our notice.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES (PROTECTION).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
6.0 P.M.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire to call attention to a matter affecting the Home Office. It is inconvenient when business is despatched in the way it has been tonight that Ministers, who cannot be expected to wait on the Treasury Bench, should not have some automatic means, such as the ringing of bells, of knowing how business is progressing. It is undesirable to open a case in the absence of the Minister concerned, and then have to repeat it a few minutes afterwards. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy will privately convey my argument to the representative of the Home Office when he arrives. The question I wish to raise concerns the protection of the public utility services of London; that is to say, the special measures adopted for protecting the gas, water, electric lighting and other services of the metropolis. This is a matter the responsibility for which lies with the Chief Commissioner of the Police, and he, being subject to the Home Office, the matter is one relevant to the Home Office. At the beginning of the War conferences were held, and it was resolved that the
1214
public utility services of London must be protected to a greater degree than was possible by the ordinary police. Some of them have since been given military protection, but the greater number are protected under the auspices of the authority of the Commissioner of Police. He, finding that his force was being depleted to some extent by enlistment, and that much greater demands were made upon it, called in the special constabulary to help him in the discharge of his duties. I joined the headquarters staff of the special constabulary, and the particular duties that I had were to look after this protection of these public utility services so far as the special constabulary were responsible. So far as inspection, report, and suggestion went it devolved upon me.
The protection of these services is of two kinds. There is the personal protection, and there is the mechanical protection. In most cases both are necessary. On the question of personal protection, that is to say, guarding and patrolling electric stations, reservoirs and the like, I have nothing to say to-night. In certain parts of London there are not enough constables to do the duty efficiently, but that is nobody's fault. Those that are at work have done their work with great zeal, great patience and great devotion. That is not the side of the matter to which I want to allude. It is necessary that there should be mechanical protection in a great number of cases. For example, whatever personal protection there may be, you may have electric works where the vital machinery is so exposed to the street through an ordinary glass window that it may be put out of action in a moment. The guard may be only a few yards off. I think perhaps, in view of the advent of the Home Secretary, I had better begin again. May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman got my letter on Friday?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Yes, I got the letter of the hon. Member, and I am much obliged for it; but I did not know that this discussion would come on so quickly.
Mr. HOPE: I do not want to recapitulate more than I can help, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the protection of the public utility services of London is, with certain exceptions taken over by the military, in the hands of the Commissioner of Police, and through him in the hands of the special

1215
constabulary. I was saying that protection was both personal and mechanical, and that there were cases in which vital machinery might be so exposed, that while the back of the guard was turned for the moment very grave injury might be done. Again, you have the premises so complicated that it is impossible for the eye of the sentry to cover all the approaches, or they may be very large in extent, and there may be access to them from very dark places. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that there should be mechanical as well as personal protection. That I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges. Mechanical protection must be first directed to covering vital machinery, and secondly it is essential that undetected access to premises should be made as difficult as possible. The first may be done by expanding metal or wire, and the second by barbed wire and various devices which it is not expedient to enter into in detail.
When I undertook this duty at the end of September I took the best expert engineering advice I could, and after personal inspection of as many of these stations that I could get to see I made representations to the owners, in most instances through the divisional officers of the special constabulary, that they should take such measures of mechanical protection as were necessary. I am bound to say that the great majority have very handsomely responded, some with greater and some with less delay. The great majority have done their duty very well. But there are some, and not an unimportant number, of cases in which they have either delayed or even refused to do their duty. Obviously it is not in the public interest to say where they are. That might attract the activities of mischievous persons. But there are many instances in which the protection is not now sufficiently assured, and if it were necessary I could in private call expert evidence to prove these cases. Where the owners are callous, and will not do their duty, there is at present no legal power to make them do it. There is no power which has yet been assumed by any Department of the Government, although I believe there is latent power. The consequence is that in certain important instances I have no hesitation in saying that the protection of the public services of London is not sufficiently assured. I
1216
am not making any attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, or the Home Office, when I say this.
The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of difficulties. I understand that the Home Office position is that any measures of this kind would have to be uniform throughout the country, and that the right hon. Gentleman has no power over the police forces otherwise than in London, and therefore he finds a difficulty in the case. There is great division of responsibility and control of the police forces of the Kingdom which at a time like this is, I think, very unfortunate. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to take action himself, I do submit that he should urge upon some other Department the absolute necessity of something being done. I say this for three reasons. First of all, I think it is due to those owners who have done their duty that the others should be brought into line. Many of them have taken up this matter willingly. They have spent considerable sums of money, and it is not right that they should see other owners evading their responsibility and calling for, and in some cases getting, military protection. It is also due to the special constabulary that this should be done. This force has undertaken a very thankless and dreary task. It is a task which exposes them to ridicule—though that is nothing—and also to grave discomfort, with practically no chance of any reward and only a remote possibility of any special opportunity of gaining kudos or renown. It is due to this body of men who have been doing this work that in these particular instances their work should not be made ineffective. It is ineffective in many cases, because you have the constables at night watching a station of perhaps a great area, which, for lack of proper precaution on the part of the owners, is still open to attack and injury.
It is also due to the people of London. The danger of sabotage in these cases may perhaps be remote, but it does exist; ex hypothesi, that is the meaning of the creation of the force, and of their having been given these duties to perform. Therefore, if you assume a danger, you should take means of protection and make that protection efficient. There is nothing unreasonable in what I am asking. Much greater powers were taken under the Defence of the Realm Act—powers to demolish private property, and to demolish whole systems of public supply when the

1217
military authorities think it necessary to do so. The powers I am asking for here would almost in every case involve very small expense, and would be perfectly easily exercised. Somehow or other no Department hitherto has seen its way to take the matter up. I do not think I have been unreasonable in this matter. I advocated the question officially on 28th September. Since then it has been through one Department after another. A Clause was framed with very high legal authority, and I thought it had been approved, but somehow or other it fell through. Somebody—not the right hon. Gentleman—some other Department objected, and the thing has been a matter of discussion—I will not say "shuttle-cocked"—between the Departments since. After six months, I felt at last that all that could be obtained by persuasion and without compulsion had been done, and on 1st March I felt compelled to resign my office. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter consideration. If he cannot see his way to take it up himself, I ask that he will bring it before his colleagues, so that by the action of some Department or another the public services of London may be made secure.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has raised a very important matter, and one which has been fully considered at the Home Office. I should like to say, first, that the work which has been done by the special constables in London has been exceedingly valuable. I can quite understand how disheartening it must be to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken so prominent a part in the organisation of the force, to find his work to a considerable extent frustrated by the refusal of individual owners to carry out the reasonable requests which have been made to them. But when the hon. Gentleman asks that the Home Office should take exceptional powers to enforce upon owners of property the duty of defending their property from attack, he is asking for a measure which, in my judgment in the actual circumstances of the law, might be open to considerable abuse. As the hon. Gentleman has stated, in London, in the Metropolitan area, the Home Secretary is responsible for the action of the police. Consequently everything that is done negligently or wrongly by the police in London can be made the subject of inquiry and censure in this House. I think, therefore, that any such exceptional powers of the kind which he asks that might be bestowed upon the
1218
police in London would be carefully and prudently exercised. At any rate if they were not so exercised this House would have an opportunity of calling the Minister to account; but it would be impossible to give powers of the kind asked for for London only. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that point.
Mr. HOPE: No. I can see it is desirable to have the matter uniform, but if that is not possible I think the right hon. Gentleman might take powers under the Defence of the Realm Act for the Metropolitan Police area alone.
Mr. McKENNA: I think that would be very undesirable. I do not think I would be able to defend in this House a proposal which I should have to describe as necessary and beneficial, and yet at the same time suggest that the amendment of the law should apply to one part of the country only. I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that if any such power were to be taken it would have to apply equally over the whole country. Supposing in any district outside the Metropolitan area the power were to be improperly exercised, what remedy would anyone have? The complainant would be at liberty to bring his case before the Standing Joint Committee of the county or before the Watch Committee of the borough. Whether the grievance would ever be publicly argued, whether any censure could be brought to bear upon the responsible person, it is very difficult to say. But there would certainly be no such security for the administration of this new power in a way which would not be oppressive as you would have in the case of London when this House has a Minister whom you fan call to account.
I know from personal experience that what I am saying now is what actually happens. Some people erroneously think that the Home Office controls the police force all over the country. Consequently, anyone who has any grievance writes to the Home Office, and asks me to call the offending authority to account. In every case I do my best. I write to the Standing Joint Committee or to the Watch Committee, as the case may be, but I am powerless to act. I very much doubt whether it would be wise to give such powers as those for which the hon. Member asks to a large body of authorities over the country, without any real effective Parliamentary control over the activities of those bodies. That being the case,

1219
I did not feel justified in asking Parliament to give to the police authorities the very strong powers for which the hon. Member asks.
Mr. HOPE: Surely they would be taken by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act; certainly they can be by the military authority, with the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation.
Mr. McKENNA: I would not like to express a strong opinion upon that point. Then arises the question whether the military authority should, as the hon. Member suggests, by an amendment of the existing Order in Council, take the necessary powers. We consulted the War Office upon the point. After consideration of the matter, the War Office came to the conclusion, regrettably as the hon. Member thinks, that, on the whole, it would not be of sufficient public advantage to justify their taking these powers. The reasons which led the War Office to that conclusion are strong—very strong—and, knowing as I do all the circumstances of the case, I do not think that I could for a moment, even if it were proper for me to do so, criticise the action of the War Office in the matter. They decided, rightly or wrongly, that they did not think themselves justified in asking Parliament for an extension of these extensive powers, and consequently, there remained no authority which could exercise the powers for which the hon. Member asks.
It must be remembered that the hon. Gentleman, in putting his case, rightly stated to the House the advantages of the powers which he would like to see exercised. But there is another side to the question. We may have very different views entertained by different people as to the amount of expenditure necessary to ensure safety. It is quite conceivable that you might have a police authority who would not hesitate to enforce upon the owner of some works an expenditure of many thousands of pounds in order to obtain an ideal security satisfactory to the mind of the authority in question. But there might be another point of view. The owner of the property might reasonably say that we all have to run risks, and that it would not be fair to impose upon him so large an expenditure when a sufficient degree of safety could be obtained by an ordinary exercise of prudence.
Mr. HOPE: Is that not just what a man says when the military demolish his house?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes; the military demolish a house under military necessity, and in this case the military authority, who are the only authority that can decide the case, came to the conclusion there was no sufficient military necessity to justify the exercise of these powers. In so far as the Home Office is concerned, that question must be put on one side. The military authority, who are responsible, have decided there is no sufficient military necessity to justify these powers. I have to look at it only as a police question, and, from that point of view, I had reluctantly to come to the conclusion that I should not feel justified in asking for the exercise of, or in exercising, powers of a kind which might be exercised in a very arbitrary way, and must be exercised by authorities over which Parliament has no direct control.

PRESS CENSORSHIP.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I wish just to venture on a matter connected with the administration of the Press Bureau arising out of a question which I put to-day to the Solicitor-General. The question which I put to the Solicitor-General was concerned with an individual cablegram, but I also asked him something with regard to the general procedure of the Press Bureau in dealing with these Press cablegrams, and his reply to me with regard to the general proceedings was, I confess, so very astonishing that I thought certainly it was important enough to press upon the attention of the House for a few minutes. The last time there was any discussion in thin House on the question of the Press Censorship there seemed to be some misconception as to where the responsibility lay, but I do not think that arises with reference to the matter I am dealing with, because the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I understood this afternoon, frankly accepted responsibility in this particular case. Therefore I need not complicate the matter by referring to any divided responsibility. The matter is this: Not very long ago, as the House knows, the Government in their wisdom appointed to to the command of a brigade at the front a right hon. Gentleman a Member of this House. The brigade which he was appointed to command includes, among others, a considerable body of Canadian troops. I have not the slightest intention of making any criticism one way or the other as to the merits or demerits of that appointment. I am perfectly willing to assume that the Government had the

1221
desire, and carried out that desire to the best of their ability, of appointing the best man they could find.
Mr. HOGGE: Lord Kitchener.
Mr. McNEILL: Well, he is a Member of the Cabinet. We are all acquainted with the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. One Member of the Cabinet cannot make an appointment without the concurrence of his colleagues; therefore this is a matter of the Government. However, that is not the point on which I wish to dwell. The fact that any particular soldier or civilian, that this or that individual, was appointed to the command of that brigade, was a matter of very natural and legitimate interest to the people of Canada, who had sent these troops over here, and who very likely expected that they would be taken to the front under their own officers. Consequently, when in the wisdom of the Government, or of Lord Kitchener, it was thought better not to appoint a Canadian officer, or anyone else, whoever it might be, that was a matter of legitimate interest to the Canadian people. Canadian opinion expressed itself. I dare say there was more than one sort of expression of opinion, but Canadian opinion was sent over here by the correspondent of the "Daily Express" newspaper to the "Daily Express" for publication in this country. That correspondent was instructed to send that cablegram.
The editor of the "Daily Express" very naturally thought, as I think, that this was a matter of legitimate interest to Canada. It may be he also thought that what Canadian opinion might be upon a point of this sort was a matter of legitimate interest to the people of this country. He consequently instructed his correspondent in Canada to send over, as is very common, whether from our own Colonies or foreign countries, a précis as far as he could of opinion as expressed in the Canadian Press. Nothing more was heard of it. The newspaper received nothing. They did not know whether their instructions had gone wrong. They did not know what had happened. They sent out a further inquiry to the correspondent in Canada asking why he had not obeyed his instructions, and they then got the reply that he had sent the cablegram as instructed, and he supposed the Press censorship had it. That is the point on the general procedure which I think so astonishing in the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman to-day.
1222
But, first of all let me say, if I may, with no animosity one way or the other against the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as I do not entertain any such feeling towards him or the Government on this point, that surely we are entitled to challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman's exercise of judgment in a case of this sort! He tells us that, exercising his own discretion, he refused to allow this account of Canadian opinion to be published in this country. Why? Is that information that could have been given to the Germans, and would have been harmful to this country? On what possible grounds can it be said that opinion on a matter of this sort entertained by our own fellow-subjects in the Dominion of Canada is a dangerous or mischievous thing to publish here? The last time there was a discussion about the Press Censorship the hon. and learned Gentleman laid down the principle by which he was guided as being that he did not allow anything to be published in this country which was likely unduly to depress the spirits of our people here.
Some of us might have understood it, having regard to that principle, if he had not allowed to appear in the "London Gazette" the appointment of this right hon. Gentleman to the command. But, having allowed the appointment to appear, why opinion in this country should be depressed or the spirits lowered by knowing what the Canadian people thought about the commander of their own troops seems to pass comprehension, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to us why, on this particular occasion, his judgment was exercised in this particular way. But the much more serious point was the way in which he acted. This cablegram came addressed to the newspaper in London, as I have said, on instructions from the editor, and I think anyone would have thought, accepting the censorship as a most necessary office, as we all do, that the very first thing, as soon as that cablegram arrived, would have been, in courtesy, if for no other reason, to send a message to that newspaper office saying they had received from its Canadian correspondent a cablegram dealing with such and such a subject, of so many folios, and that, having to exercise their discretion, they were very sorry to have to suppress it. At all events, if nothing more, the bare intimation might have been conveyed that the cablegram had been received and was stopped. That surely is information which every newspaper is entitled to have.

1223
These cablegrams have to be paid for. Hoes he not think it right that the Press of this country should know before they pay for services rendered how far their instructions have been carried out? Docs he not think it is important, having regard to the great organisation of the Press, that numerous correspondents all over the country should be protected from any misapprehension as to their neglect of duty? This gentleman referred to in Canada, had he had a more hasty chief, might have concluded that this man was not obeying his instructions and he might have got a letter of dismissal, or at any rate a strong reprimand, simply because his work was confiscated in London when no notice of that fact had been sent to his chief. How is this system working in other respects? The French newspapers have a number of correspondents in London, and they are very anxious that as much information as possible should reach their readers in France compatible with the interests of the Allies. They have found in the same way this difficulty. They send their messages across to Paris; they have to pay for them before they can be sent, because they are sent over the Post Office wires. They have to prepay their messages, and they have found by experience, after consultation with their chiefs in Paris, that their messages are very often not sent, and even if they are sent they are generally mutilated, and as payment is made by the length of the telegram they have absolutely no way of making up their accounts with the newspaper offices in France, and the French newspapers never know whether their correspondents have been sending messages or have been silent, or whether the few scrappy lines which reach them is all the correspondent has produced, or all the Censor has left. These French correspondents have given up using the telegraph and they are sending their dispatches by boat. The only result is that an unnecessary and vexatious delay is imposed upon the publication of news from London by the French newspapers.
The American correspondents are in quite a different position. They do not prepay their telegrams, but make arrangements with the cable company, and they have constantly acted in a different way from their French confreres and made arrangements with the cable companies under which they only pay for the messages which are left after the ravages
1224
of the hon. and learned Gentleman's blue pencil. Let me come to an example of the really great hardship that the newspapers suffer from this method. I know a case in which a gentleman, not on the regular staff of a newspaper, sent a long and very costly telegram from South America to this country addressed to a newspaper office, but it was never delivered and no intimation was sent to the newspaper office that the message had been received at all. This gentleman was not in the employment of the newspaper, and therefore there was no curiosity felt about not receiving his message, but when he came home long afterwards he inquired what had become of his message, and put in a claim for what he supposed had been used. It was only then that inquiry was made at the Eastern Telegraph Company's office and then the only answer that came was that they were precluded by instructions from the Government from giving any information whatever, and nobody knows to this day what happened to that message—whether it was actually received at the offices of the Eastern Telegraph Company in London or not. The gentleman I speak of can produce a receipt for having handed in the message on the other side of the Atlantic, and whether it went in the Censor's waste-paper basket or not, nobody knows.
There is another rather serious case. The "Daily Express" sent out a lady correspondent to Serbia, probably to secure an account of Serbian opinion. She sent home, not by telegraph but by post, a number of dispatches of considerable length to the newspaper office, but these disappeared in the same way and no notification whatever was sent that they had been received and stopped. The consequence was that not only was there anxiety from the newspaper point of view as to the loss of material and as to what their correspondent was doing, but there was also anxiety for her own personal safety on account of her silence because of the fact that the correspondent was a lady. As the conditions of our censorship have not been made public it was naturally thought that as she must have been sending messages which had not been delivered something had happened to her. This is a method of carrying out the censorship which is both vexatious and unnecessary. I would not put it higher than on the grounds of relieving anxiety and making it a businesslike procedure between the Censor and the newspaper

1225
office. I say the newspapers are entitled to know of every case where a message has been received and addressed to them which has not been delivered. Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it right to suppress them without giving any indication of the principle which has guided his judgment is another matter. I have brought this up in reference to an individual case, and I think that case is an example of the exercise of the hon. Gentleman's judgment in a very extraordinary way, and I do hope that in his reply he will explain to us exactly what danger he apprehends would result to this country, or to the interests of this country, from allowing us to know what the Canadians thought of the appointment of a particular brigadier to the command of their troops.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The criticism of the hon. Gentleman differs from the criticism directed against this office in former Debates because it relates to a matter for which I am personally and directly responsible. No other Department and no other individual is responsible for the matter of which the hon. Member complains excepting myself. I think, when the facts are stated, the House will readily see that there is no serious ground for this complaint at all. What are the facts? The Government appoints a Member of this House to a high military command. It is obvious that such an appointment is open to criticism in the Press. The Press is at liberty to criticise the Government for making the appointment. Nobody suggests that any such criticism as that has in any way been interfered with by my office, but I am quite certain that hon. and right hon. Members will see that if once the criticism is transferred from the Government to anything like a personal attack upon the officer, that nothing could be worse in the interests of this country at the present time. Anyone could, if they pleased, create for themselves imaginary situations in which our generals were the subject of complaint. I hesitate to give illustrations of that kind, and it seems to me even to associate our generals at this moment with hypothetical complaints against them would certainly be unpleasant to myself and unpleasant to the House. I think, if hon. Members will fashion in their own mind some irresponsible and groundless complaint against an officer, they will readily see that to permit its publication and widespread dissemination in the Press might be gravely subversive of military discipline and con-
1226
trary to the best interests of the nation. In the case which the hon. Member refers to he has stated enough to indicate that the paper was the "Daily Express;" but the individual instance which caused him to ask these questions led him to think that there had been some general prohibition issued by my office to prevent the discussion of this appointment, because the first question he asked me was if I would state for what reason English newspapers are forbidden to publish Canadian comment on this appointment. No such prohibition was ever issued, and I think I informed him so when he asked the question.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I cannot see the distinction. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman defends his action by preventing an individual newspaper from publishing certain news, the only inference is that other newspapers would be forbidden to do so.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The complaint the hon. Member raises was believed by him to be one which had been affecting a large number of newspapers. It is quite possible for an individual message to an individual newspaper to be stopped for good reasons that do not affect other messages of a proper character to other newspapers. Had this message been stopped because it was a subject of a general prohibition preventing English newspapers from publishing Canadian comment on this appointment it would clearly not only have been improper, but a most unwise thing to have done. What are the facts? I am not in a position to discuss the terms of this message before the House, but it did in fact contain some references to Canadian comment, and that subject matter I should have been allowed to pass, but there was in the middle of this a cable, quite a short one, containing a statement with regard to this matter, the terms of which, in my judgment, I thought it most unwise to publish. I do not accept the view that it represented Canadian comment, and I have seen no Canadian comment which would have justified the statement of the "Daily Express" itself, who published what purported to be the comment which it was suggested had been the subject of my censorship, but that did not touch the particular phrases which formed the centre of this cable which I thought I was bound to excise. If I had passed the rest of the cable with

1227
those passages cut out I should have been subject to a perfectly just complaint that I had taken out the real meaning of the cable and had left in nothing but mere meaningless and valueless comment.
Mr. MCNEILL: The greater part of the message consisted of quotations from Canadian newspapers.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I thought I had explained exactly what occurred. I thought I said that the words which I considered were objectionable were a few words in the middle of the cable. If I did not, let me make the matter plain now. The words which caused me to suppress this cable were those of a short passage in the body of the cable.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Was the passage which caused the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suppress the cable a comment of the correspondent in Canada or was it a quotation from a Canadian newspaper?
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If the right hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of cable English—he probably has not—he would find it rather difficult to answer that question. My view is that it was not the expression of comment in Canada at all. I may be wrong, but that is my view. It certainly is not an easy thing to say. The right hon. Gentleman will accept the statement from me that the passage in the body of this cable was one which, in my judgment, it would have been a mischievous thing to publish. When once that is said, people may say, "Oh, we do not trust your judgment." That is all well and good, but I can do no more, and I should be neglecting my duty if I did less. I do not mind in the least who it was that was appointed; I do not mind whether he came from this side of the House or from that, but if an officer holding high command is made the subject of statement which will imperil, or may even reasonably imperil, his authority with the forces which he has to control, well, I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be the last to say that such statements ought to be disseminated wide-cast and recklessly throughout the Press. I wish, more than I can say, that I had the pleasure of speaking to more of the right hon. and gallant Members of this House; I am satisfied that there is not one of them who would doubt the wisdom and justice of what I did.
1228
That is the whole of the mischief so far as this telegram was concerned. The hon. and learned Member thought that it meant that there was a wholesale prohibition against the publication—
Mr. McNEILLindicated dissent.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Well, he asked for what reason English newspapers are forbidden to publish Canadian comment. There is nothing of the sort. English newspapers are not forbidden to do anything of the kind.
Mr. McNEILL: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman unnecessarily, but he is reading from a question I put to him some days ago. I am quite willing to admit that his answer corrected me on that point. I said nothing whatever about it to-day, and my case does not in the least depend upon it.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I was pointing out, and rightly pointing out, that the hon. Member from this one instance attempted to build up a big general grievance. He was wrong. When I pointed it out to him his answer was to ask me if I was aware that statements had appeared in more than one newspaper to that effect. There are no newspaper communications on this subject which have been censored. I know of none, excepting the one case to which the hon. and learned Member has referred. He asked this question again to-day. I gave him the same answer, and then I had the additional pleasure of being asked by another hon. Member opposite whether it was not the exact opposite of that which I said three days ago, and whether I had not three days ago denied that any message had been stopped on the subject, when I had, in point of fact, explained in plain terms that the one message to the one paper had been stopped for the reasons which I have given. Then the hon. and learned Member complains that no communication was made to the newspaper upon the subject, and he speaks as though the newspaper had been the subject of a special grievance. Once more he seemed to have thought that I had singled out this particular newspaper for special and harsh treatment.
Mr. McNEILL: No, I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. S. BUCKMASTER: That was the suggestion.
Mr. McNEILL: No.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: There was nothing of the kind, nor did this newspaper suffer any manner of harm. If the newspaper had thought that its correspondent over there had not obeyed their directions and had not sent over the message they desired, all they had got to do was to come and ask whether a message had come over which had been stopped, and they would have been answered.
Mr. McNEILL: It never occurred to them to do so.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If it never occurred to them to do so, it does not appear that their resources are very great.
Mr. McNEILL: It did not occur to them that the censorship could so act. On the contrary, they thought the blame lay with their own correspondent, and it was only after they had heard from him again that they had their eyes opened as to what the censorship was getting at.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is to say, not knowing what he had sent, they thought it must be certain that it would go through. Can anything be more ridiculous than to imagine that anything gathered together by correspondents at the ends of the earth for the purpose of making a spicy article in a newspaper must necessarily be passed by the Press Bureau when it affects a question of such vital importance to the public interest as the appointment of our officers? However, it did not occur to them to appeal to us, and they did not ask. They were not told for this reason: We have very large numbers of cables coming through our hands, and in the ordinary case the fact that they are stopped is not communicated. We simply could not do it. Some of the difficulties do not appear to be understood at all. It would be impossible to communicate, but what we do is this: If a special cable—I do not mean a cable with some snarling or quarrelsome statement in the middle of it, but a special and important cable—is stopped, and we think there is good reason why it is matter which might be communicated in messages to the paper to whom it is addressed, and why the fact that it is stopped should be told to them, they are always told, and there is no paper with which I am acquainted which has made complaint with regard to the rules which we have made in this matter, though it is well known to them all, excepting the paper that has come here and complained through the
1230
hon. Member to-night. The real truth is that, so far as the Press are concerned with regard to the exercise of this censorship, everything that can be done for the purpose of avoiding any unnecessary inconvenience is done.
I have recognised from the first that the existence of this office must impose difficulties and hindrances in the way of newspapers carrying on their business, and I have pointed out to them, and I am sure it will not be necessary for me to point out to the House, that inconvenience and that hindrance is part of the national burden which they must bear. I have no sympathy and I have no manner of consideration with anyone who, in the moment of this national exigency, complains of a burden justly and rightly put upon his shoulders by the national needs; but, at the same time, I think that it is of the utmost importance that the peculiar condition in which we stand should not be made an excuse for putting unnecessary and removable burdens upon anyone's back. I have therefore done everything in my power to prevent the hand of the censorship laying too heavily upon the newspapers, and I have done everything that it is possible to do, compatible with my view of the national safety, to prevent the exercise of my office being burdensome or irksome to them; and, what is more, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, and in spite of certain complaints in certain newspapers I am convinced that on the whole I have succeeded, and that journalists and newspapers as a whole—I am not speaking of the newspapers who may think that their pride is interfered with, and that their privilege is slighted by the introduction of a censorship at all, and who therefore use every possible opportunity, right or wrong, for the purpose of attacking the censorship; I am not speaking of a paper like that, and I do not refer to the paper to which the hon. Member referred, but I am speaking of the big body of English journalists and newspapers—have submitted cheerfully to the existence of this censorship, and have recognised readily that everything that can be reasonably done has been done for the purpose of preventing that burden being needlessly severe.
Then the hon. Member referred to a matter of which I wish very much indeed he had given me notice. It is with regard to these French messages. I hesitate to

1231
speak with certainty now I am away from the office, but my belief is that the messages are only paid for according to the words that are sent. I know quite well that I have secured, with the assistance of the Post Office, that privilege for all the newspapers which are sending cables abroad, and I am certainly surprised to hear that it does not exist with regard to French messages. I trust that the hon. Member in making the complaint has got some real and recent case in his mind, because, if not, I should imagine that there is no substance in the complaint at all. None the less, I will have that looked into, because it is obviously unfair that people should pay for messages they do not send. I do not believe that at this moment that is the arrangement.
Mr. McNEILL: I understand that the procedure is that French messages sent over are not censored in this country, but
1232
in France. The messages sent over from here have to be paid for beforehand.
Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is another instance of the way in which I am to suffer for the sins of other people. How can I control what is done in France, or be responsible for what is done in France? How can something which happens in France and which is not under my control be a matter of urgent public importance to which to call attention in this House?
Mr. McNEILL: If our Government charge for messages which are not accepted afterwards, they should be refunded.
It being One hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February.
Adjourned at Two minutes before Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES FROM CANADA.
  FOOD SUPPLIES FROM CANADA.
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (ARSENAL AND DOCKYARD EMPLOYES).
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (ARSENAL AND DOCKYARD EMPLOYES).
  ADMIRALTY COMMUNIQUES.
  ADMIRALTY COMMUNIQUES.
  COURTS-MARTIAL (ROYAL NAVY).
  COURTS-MARTIAL (ROYAL NAVY).
  INJURIES IN WAR COMPENSATION ACT.
  INJURIES IN WAR COMPENSATION ACT.
  COASTGUARD RATINGS.
  COASTGUARD RATINGS.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  TREATMENT OF GERMAN PRISONERS.
  TREATMENT OF GERMAN PRISONERS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE).
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (WORKMEN'S BADGES).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (WORKMEN'S BADGES).
  DUKE OF CORNWALL'S LIGHT INFANTRY.
  DUKE OF CORNWALL'S LIGHT INFANTRY.
  EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.
  EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.
  POST OFFICE TEMPORARY ASSISTANTS.
  POST OFFICE TEMPORARY ASSISTANTS.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TELEGRAPHISTS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TELEGRAPHISTS).
  Labourers (Relief).
  Labourers (Relief).
  Metropolitan Police (Discipline).
  Metropolitan Police (Discipline).
  Uncertificated Mental Patients.
  Uncertificated Mental Patients.
  Metropolitan Asylums (Sequence of Illnesses).
  Metropolitan Asylums (Sequence of Illnesses).
  Helmsdale Post.
  Helmsdale Post.
  London Mail Drivers.
  London Mail Drivers.
  Canals and Waterways.
  Canals and Waterways.
  Malt Shipments.
  Malt Shipments.
  Irish Live Stock.
  Irish Live Stock.