Sitting of 15 March 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Blyth Harbour Bill,—King's consent signified,
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Great Central Railway Bill,
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill,
Metropolitan District Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Streatley and Goring Bridge Bill,
As amended, considered; an amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Beamish's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EAST INDIA (EXCISE ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 23rd June, 1914; Sir Herbert Roberts]; to lie upon the Table.
HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquess of Salisbury, etc., etc., etc., preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire. Part XIII. (Addenda) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of Middlesex dividing the Parliamentary Polling District of Southgate (Middle) into two districts and assigning polling places thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to Charles Carpenter under the Penal Servitude Acts, to which is annexed a condition other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of (1) an Estimate of the sums receivable by the Education (Scotland) Fund for the year 1914–15, of the expenditure therefrom under Section 16 (1) (a) to (f) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and of the balance available for allocation under Section 16 (2) of that Act; (2) the provisional allocation of such Balance in accordance with the terms of the Department's Minute of 28th June, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LORD CLERK REGISTER (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1879, AND SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND ACT, 1885.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland prescribing the terms of appointment to Clerkships in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, dated 12th March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Director for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Summary of Proceedings and Details of Operations under

1725
the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, etc., for the period 1907–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 to 1894.
Copy presented of Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL PRIZE ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Order, dated 2nd March, 1915, on a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty declaring His Majesty's intention of granting Prize Bounty to the officers and crews of His Majesty's ships of war [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Two Orders in Council, dated 2nd March, 1915, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order, dated 2nd March, 1915, entitled "The East African Order in Council, 1915" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TELEGRAPHS (FOREIGN WRITTEN TELEGRAMS).
Copy presented of the Telegraph (Foreign Written Telegram) Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1915, dated 1st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BREWERS' LICENCES.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th March; Mr. Acland]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 157.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 10th March, 1915, made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the
1726
National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations (Ireland), 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 5, 1915).
Copy presented of Correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of German Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Customs (War Powers) Bill,
Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Bill, without Amendment;
Legal Proceedings against Enemies Bill,
Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to alter the name of the President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, and Governors of the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb Poor; and to enable them to acquire and hold additional lands; and for other purposes." [Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum Bill [Lords.]

DEAF AND DUMB POOR ASYLUM BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the demands put forward by Japan to China come within the category of matters reserved for settlement at the close of the War in accordance with the joint understanding of the Allies; and whether, in that case, he will use his good offices with

    1727
    the Japanese Government to induce it not to proceed further with its separate negotiations with China at present?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): One or two of the demands might possibly be considered to come within the category referred to in the question and in their connection the point raised by the hon. Member may commend itself to the parties to the negotiations.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask whether an agreement exists already between this country and Japan?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Yangtse agreement is still in force; and, it so, whether its provisions are in any degree in conflict with the claims put for ward by Japan for railway construction both in the valley of the river and in the districts of its tributaries?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I assume that the hon. Member refers in the first part of the question to the assurances received by Great Britain in 1898 in regard to the non-alienation of the Yangtse Valley. In that case, so far as I am aware, the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese railways, for which concessions are asked by Japan, are to be national railways, that is, owned and managed by China though built with foreign money, or whether they are to be completely foreign in all respects of construction, maintenance, supervision, and control?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I am unable to forecast what may be the outcome of the negotiations between the two countries on this point?
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Member keep in mind the enormous importance of these matters to British interests in China?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I think the Foreign Office is keeping them in mind.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is aware of the adverse opinion of
    1728
    British commercial men and firms in China to the commercial and industrial aspects of the demands put forward by Japan to China; and, if not, whether he will obtain it through the Consular officers for consideration before deciding on the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to proposals which, in the opinion of many, would be most prejudicial to our commercial and industrial interests in the Far East?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I am aware of the uneasiness among the British commercial community generally in regard to these aspects of the demands, and His Majesty's Government will give due consideration to any representations which may be made to them.
    Sir W. BULLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from his representatives in the Far East whether there is any representative organ of British opinion in China in favour of the new commercial and industrial proposals put forward by Japan; and, if so, what?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: His Majesty's Minister in China keeps His Majesty's Government fully informed of the course of British public opinion there on current matters, but a copy of the hon. Member's question will be forwarded to Sir J. Jordan for a report.

  BAGHDAD RAILWAY.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what agreements had been made before the War with Germany and with Turkey regarding the Baghdad Railway and kindred matters, and about the Persian Gulf generally?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The agreements in question, drafted with a view to solving by friendly means all the more important points of dispute between His Majesty's Government and the Sublime Porte comprised twenty-three different subjects. It was, however, expressly stipulated that, with two exceptions, they should not be enforced pending the exchange of ratifications, which was rendered impossible by the outbreak of War. In view of the permanently changed conditions which have since arisen it would serve no useful purpose to publish the negotiations.

  MERCHANT VESSELS (WAR SERVICE BADGES).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of granting War service badges to those who are engaged in our merchant ships at the present time, similar to the War service badges which are now granted by the Admiralty to those serving in merchant vessels which they have chartered or requisitioned?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon. Member's proposal involves a very considerable extension of the present scope of the scheme for distributing War badges. I will take an opportunity of discussing it with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but further than that I am afraid that I can give no undertaking.

  RESEARCH WORK (DUTY-FREE ALCOHOL).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to stimulating research in the production of aniline dyes in Ireland, facilities will be given for the use of duty-free alcohol for this purpose only in the chemical laboratories of the National University of Ireland and its constituent colleges in Dublin, Cork, and Galway, in the Universities of Trinity College and Belfast, and in the Royal College of Science in Dublin?
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): It is already the practice to allow public institutions to use duty-free alcohol in their laboratories for research purposes.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if any rules have yet been made as regards the future examinations for the Indian Civil Service providing that time spent by a candidate as a commissioned officer on active service or service in India or in distant stations shall be deducted in the computation of the fixed age limit; and whether it is intended to give such candidate any marks in consideration of his having passed tests in military proficiency or Indian languages?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): Yes, Sir; future candidates may deduct, up to a maximum of one year, the period spent in the Army or Navy. As regards the latter part of the question, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Have these rules been printed and published?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I should be very glad to send a copy to my hon. Friend.

  PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give any information regarding the operations in the Persian Gulf and on the Shatt el Arab, in addition to such as appears in the Press?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: There is no further information that can be communicated except that the Turkish claim to have gained a success is unfounded. The Turks withdrew after the action of the 3rd inst., owing to their heavy losses, and our advanced position has been reinforced.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman say if the oil-pipe line is quite safe?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.

  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (MALE TYPISTS).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an advertisement from the chief engineer of the Port of London Authority in the public Press of 11th March, asking for male typists without any restriction of age; and whether, seeing that such advertisements by a public authority do not tend to assist the efforts of the War Office to obtain suitable recruits, he will communicate with the Port of London Authority on the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I have been in communication with the Port of London Authority, and

  1731
  am informed by them that it is not always practicable to add to the large staff of women which the Authority employs for typewriting in their central and local offices. I am suggesting to them that it is desirable that any men whom they may appoint should be persons not eligible for service with His Majesty's Forces.

  CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are giving any financial or other assistance to the Co-operative Wholesale or any other society which will enable them to undersell traders who have to buy flour, sugar, or other food-stuffs in the open market?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No, Sir.

  IRISH CATTLE TRADE (WAR RISK INSURANCE).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Irish cattle exporters, complain of the cost of war risk insurance; and if the Government will place 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. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have received some representations with regard to the war risk insurance on Irish cattle. Cattle from Ireland can be insured under the Government insurance scheme under exactly the same conditions as other cargo.

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN WRITERS.
  Mr. FELLasked how many German and Austrian waiters have been released and have resumed their employment, and at how many hotels or restaurants in London or in the country are they employed; and if he will consider the advisability of preventing their employment, or making a condition of such employment that the hotels exhibit
  1732
  at their entrance a notice that German waiters are employed there?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): On the first point, I can only repeat the figures which I gave in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on the 4th of February. On the second point, I could add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member last Wednesday.
  Mr. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman ample power to prevent the employment of foreign waiters; and, if so, why does he allow their employers to make conditions?
  Mr. McKENNA: The naval and military authorities, under the Defence of the Realm Act, can act in the case mentioned by the hon. Member in the manner suggested, but I have no power.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (COATS, BOOTS, AND LEGGINGS).
  Sir EDWARD COATESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction existing amongst Special Constables on the question of the supply of coats, boots, and leggings, etc., which are only being issued to men who plead necessitous circumstances; and whether, in view of the voluntary and useful work this body of men is doing at considerable self-sacrifice and the saving to the police authorities thereby effected, he will consider the advisability of making a grant to provide all the men who require them with the articles referred to?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner informs me that no issue is being made of coats, boots, and leggings, but Special Constables whose circumstances require it can on application receive an allowance to enable them to purchase these articles. He has no reason to think that there is any general dissatisfaction on the subject.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the allowance is different in different districts of London?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly give me notice.

  GERMAN ATROCITIES.
  Mr. R. MCNEILLasked whether, as soon as the Report of the Committee on German Atrocities is issued, he will have it, together with translations of the French and Belgian Reports on the same subject, printed in a volume in popular form for general circulation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret I am unable to make any statement until the Report has been received.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the extreme importance of having this authentic evidence printed in a volume in popular form?
  Mr. McKENNA: I recognise the great value of the hon. Member's suggestion.

  CHAMPAGNE HOUSE (FOREIGN PARTNERSHIP).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the firm of Mumm is still selling champagne in this country although one partner, Herman von Mumm, is closely guarded in France by the military authorities and another partner, Walter von Mumm, is serving as a German officer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The firm of Mumm is a French firm established at Reims and their agent in this country is Baron de Ville, a British subject. The particulars given as to the two German partners are, I believe, correct, but I am informed that the French Government have not interfered with the firm's operations and the Trading with the Enemy Act Proclamation affords no ground on which the sale of stocks in this country belonging to a French firm could be prohibited.

  COASTGUARD SERVICE.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the number of retired officers who have been given appointments afloat during the last seven months, whether he will for the future endeavour to give priority to the applications of those active list officers in the coastguard service on shore who are recommended for fighting service afloat?
  Dr MACNAMARA: Appointments are made by the Admiralty in accordance with the requirements of the Service both afloat and ashore, and no special undertakings as to priority such as the hon. and gallant Member asks for can be given.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    LABOURERS (INCREASED PAY).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked if it is intended that the labourers employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard and the West India Dock naval store shall participate in the increase of 2s. per week in their wages as granted to the labourers at Woolwich Arsenal, Waltham Abbey, and Pimlico?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The increases announced by the Prime Minister on the 4th March will apply to Admiralty employés at Deptford and the West India Docks as well as to those at Woolwich. The method of applying these increases is under consideration, and I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement on the subject at an early date.

    CASUAL WORKERS (BADGES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the position of the casuals in His Majesty's dockyards with regard to the badge recently issued to men employed in a civil capacity; is he aware that so far these men do not appear to have received the badge; and will he say whether it is intended to give them it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The War service badge referred to has been authorised for issue to the permanent officers and workmen employed in His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments, and is not intended to be issued to casual workmen who are not placed on the dockyard books. Regarding the reference to casual workmen, I may take this opportunity of saying that it has been the policy of the Admiralty to reduce the amount of casual employment as much as practicable, even in the field of coaling labour, where the demands vary very considerably from time to time.

    SKILLED LABOURERS AND MECHANICS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether representatives of skilled labourers and mechanics from His Majesty's dockyards were received by the Industrial Committee on Thursday last; and, if so, will he say what requests were made by the men, and what replies given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think this question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  ADMIRALTY TENDERS (SERVICE MARCHING BOOTS).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked (1) whether new tenders are out for naval boots; will he give the date when these tenders were issued; whether they contain an all-British specification; and, if not, what specification they do contain; and (2) whether he is aware that a recent tender for Navy boots contains the condition that the uppers are to be cut from well-dressed chrome-tanned English or other box-calf; whether he is aware that this alternative will allow foreign leather to be used and foreign leather workers to be employed in lieu of British workmen; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Invitations to tender for seamen's boots were issued on the 9th March. The specification, as usual, provides for British sole leather, but admits of either British or foreign box-calf for the upper, provided it is equal in quality to the upper leather (British) in the pattern exhibited. A memorandum accompanied the invitation intimating that upper leather of box-calf of slightly reduced substance will be admitted, the reason for this being that British tanners can more readily produce the lighter substance. Restrictions to British calf might render it impossible to obtain the quantities required.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British leather manufacturers have intimated that they are able to supply all the leather necessary from British sources?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot recall that, but if we are restricted to British calf now, time is so important that we might not obtain the boots quick enough.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a letter issued from the Admiralty, dated 3rd March, 1915, addressed to the contractors for naval boots, wherein it is stated, if the contractor finds any difficulty at the present time in adhering to the pattern and specification, he is requested to state whether he would be better able to tender if any departure from the pattern were allowed, and that in such case he is requested to suggest any departure which would facilitate the production of these boots and would at the same time give a sound, serviceable article for marching and
  1736
  field-service wear; whether the specification accompanying the letter states that the outer soles are to be cut from the primest parts of good British-tanned bends or butts; will he say whether the statement in the letter, dated 3rd March, 1915, enables the contractor to substitute foreign sole leather in lieu of British; and, if so, is that the intention and wish of the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The boot referred to in this question is the Service marching boot, a heavier boot both as regards sole and upper than the boots referred to in the two previous questions of the hon. Gentleman. The letter of the 3rd March was issued owing to the temporary necessity of allowing some latitude, not necessarily in the description of leather but primarily in the method of make of the boot, in consequence of the enormous demand and the extreme urgency of supply. At the present juncture, rigid adherence to all the usual stipulations, which will, however, certainly continue to be imposed when matters resume their normal condition, would seriously prejudice the naval and military interests of the Allied Forces.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If I undertake to produce manufacturers who will promise all the goods necessary, made of British leather, will he undertake that the Admiralty will take the matter into their serious consideration and give the order?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I always do take into serious consideration what the hon. Member says, but I cannot give any undertaking.

  PRIZE BOUNTIES.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether the Government have commenced to pay prize bounty to the relatives and dependants of the men who have lost their lives in the recent naval engagements; and, if not, when they propose to do so?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No payment has yet been made, and none could be made until the Prize Court have decided how much shall be allowed and until certain other formalities have been observed. The periodic payment of prize bounty does not, I admit, represent so difficult a task as the periodic payment of prize money. And whilst I do not wish it to be understood that we shall necessarily I wait till the end of the War to distribute

  1737
  the bounty, I must not create the impression that we shall find ourselves able to distribute it after each well-defined engagement. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intention, and we shall do what we can to give effect to it, though he no doubt will admit the difficulties.
  Mr. TERRELLasked whether, in view of the difficulty in destroying a sub-marine and of the service rendered to the State in doing so, and also of the number of vessels employed who would be entitled to participate, the Government will consider the advisability of increasing the prize bounty from £5 a head to £50 a head of the crew of the submarine so destroyed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The prize bounty payable is fixed by Act of Parliament, and an amendment of the Act would be necessary before any such suggestion could be entertained. Whilst I can give no undertaking, I will not absolutely dismiss the suggestion. Meanwhile, I would point out that the Admiralty have other means of rewarding officers and men for their services in time of War.
  Mr. TERRELLasked what rewards, if any, the Government propose to pay to the captains and crews of merchant ships who have been successful in destroying enemy submarines?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As I stated in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh on Wednesday last, the Admiralty are always ready to mark any act of daring and good seamanship, which assists the naval operations, in a fitting manner, but I have no further statement to make on the subject at present.
  Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement as to these rewards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not like to say "without notice.

  WAR RISKS (MARINE POLICIES).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked whether the terms of the Government marine policies covering war risks will indemnify the owner of a ship against any forfeiture in Home waters of a Lloyd's or other marine policy consequent on collision with an enemy warship?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Government War Risks Insurance
  1738
  Scheme policy would certainly be held to cover all claims for loss of or damage to an insured ship due to collision with an enemy warship, which are not covered by an ordinary Lloyd's policy containing the usual Free from Capture, Seizure and Detention Clause, if the collision were due to, or part of, seamanlike measures adopted during the course of the voyage by the master with a view to preventing the capture or destruction of his vessel.

  VESSELS SUNK BY GERMAN CRUISERS (ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the names and nationalities of the steamers and sailing vessels, and their respective tonnages and cargoes, recently captured or sunk by German cruisers in the Atlantic and Pacific and the dates of the said captures or sinkings, and what has become of the respective crews; the latitude and longitude of the respective captures or sinkings, and the names of the German cruisers still preying on British vessels and where they were last reported to have been seen; whether one of the vessels sunk was of American register; if he can state what action, if any, the United States Government proposes to take in connection with this act of German piracy; whether he can state how many vessels have been sunk in British waters since 10th March; and whether they were sunk by torpedo or mine and where they were sunk, and the fate of their crews?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret I am not in a position to give complete and authoritative lists of the nature desired. The Admiralty is naturally dependent in the first instance on neutral Press reports for particulars such as those of the vessels sunk by the "Prinz Eitel Friedrich." It would not be in the public interest to state the latest information in the possession of the Admiralty as to the whereabouts of German vessels still at large. Periodical statements are issued through the Press Bureau of losses of British merchant vessels in British waters, with such particulars as are available.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any news to give to the House about the "Chase Hill"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I have not.

  ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEWS (ADMIRALTY).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the inconvenience frequently caused to the Press by the hour at which announcements of news are issued from the Admiralty; whether he will give instructions that when important and lengthy communications, such as the recent dispatches of Admirals Sturdee and Beatty, are to be made public, the Press shall be notified as early as possible in the day that such communications may be expected and of the approximate length of such communications, and that the communications themselves shall reach the Press whenever practicable not later than 8 p.m.; and whether, having regard to the fact that many newspapers are published in the afternoon, he will issue communications to the Press before noon in all cases where news which it has been decided to publish is then to hand at the Admiralty, instead of adhering to the practice of keeping back such communications until a late hour in the evening?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As stated in reply to other questions on this subject, the Admiralty desire to meet the convenience of the Press as much as possible in all such matters, and an endeavour will be made that, in the case of all lengthy dispatches to be published, ample time may be allowed.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman not arrange that the news should be communicated, having regard to the time limit required by the Press?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We do all we can.
  Mr. McNEILL: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that part of the question which mentions 8 p.m. as the latest time to receive communications?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman will see that I could not give any definite undertaking.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the provincial Press in this matter and see that they are supplied at the same time as the London Press?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that there is any distinction made.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain
  1740
  why the news of the sinking of the ss. "Princess Victoria," off the Bar lightship at an early hour on the 9th of March, which was known in shipping centres by 10 a.m. on that day, was not allowed to be published by the evening newspapers, but was held back by the Censor until midnight; and whether he will give instructions that in future the evening newspapers shall not be unfairly deprived of the opportunity of publishing important news until after their morning competitors of the following day?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty cannot undertake to give specific reasons for their action in sending any particular notice to the Bureau at one time rather than another, but their wish is to announce such losses as soon as practicable. To attempt to consider the rival claims of evening and morning papers to receive such news would lead to further difficulties.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the particular case mentioned in the question was known at a very early hour, and was held back in order that the evening papers should not publish it first?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I know from the question that this particular news was known in shipping centres by 10 a.m., and I assumed that at once, but I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say that this news was held back because the Admiralty thought it was undesirable that it should appear in the evening papers.

  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES (GRIMSBY).
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Postmaster-General whether, in a recent revision, he has decided that only one operator is to be left in charge of the Grimsby office during the night; whether an arrangement has been made to dispatch a messenger for four other telegraphists; and, if so, whether, in view of the possibilities of an enemy raid by sea or air, he will, in the interests of efficiency in an emergency, make further provision for staffing the office at night?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): This matter is under inquiry, and my right hon. Friend will communicate with the hon. Member.

  BRITISH DYES, LTD.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the names of the directors of British Dyes, Limited, appointed to represent His Majesty's Government; and what salary, if any, they are to receive?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As stated on the prospectus, the directors nominated by the Government are Sir Frank Forbes Adam and Sir Gilbert Claughton. They will receive no remuneration for their services other than the ordinary directors' fees.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that no Member of Parliament is a director of this company?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member can see the list of directors in the prospectus. I will show him a copy.

  CASUALTIES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered any scheme whereby the list of casualties could be made known at more regular intervals?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Casualty lists are published as soon as possible after names have been verified, and the next of kin have been informed.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if any Report has been received from the Committee dealing with the civil employment of the ex-soldier; and if the Report of Sir Edward Ward's Committee on the subject of industrial education and employment of discharged soldiers is to be issued, either in conjunction with the Report of Sir Matthew Nathan's Committee or separately?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. Sir M. Nathan's Committee has not yet reported. The intention is to issue the Report of Sir Edward Ward's Committee and that of Sir M. Nathan's Committee together.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when Sir Edward Ward's Report will be issued, and is he aware that more than a year ago the Prime Minister stated in this House that Sir Edward's Report could be expected immediately?
  Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that fact. The intention being to issue the two together, we must wait until the latest is ready for publication.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask when it is expected that Sir Matthew Nathan's Committee will report?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course I cannot answer the question.

  NEW INVENTIONS.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the formation and organisation in France of separate committees of studies under central control, the committees including the most eminent scientific men in France, and their functions being to examine and report upon and, if necessary, to take steps to aid, develop, and perfect any inventions useful for military purposes; whether this special institution has already brought to practical use several suggestions of inventors and is now engaged in experiments of a valuable character; and whether any corresponding committees will be formed in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Several committees have been formed, with the valuable co-operation of the Royal Society, which are investigating various questions on behalf both of the Admiralty and War Office.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (GOVERNMENT ACTION).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the extension which had prevailed in Germany previous to the War of the systems of technical education, and to the industrial advantages of the organised studies of applied science; whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Commission of scientific men and

  1743
  educational and industrial experts to inquire into and to report to the House on the factors of this system which are adaptable to British conditions; and whether he will have investigation made as to the steps necessary on the one hand to engraft upon British university courses, or to make consequent upon them, the highest forms of technical instruction, and on the other hand to relate this in the most direct and efficient manner to the industrial and commercial life of the country?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The relation between our technical instruction and industry and commerce is a matter which is closely engaging my attention in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government hope before long to be in a position to make some announcement on the subject.

  EXPLOSIVES (SUPPLY).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance to Germany of obtaining a large supply of the crude sources of the explosives it employs, and in view of the advantage of restricting as far as possible this supply, he will have inquiries made as to the comparatively few areas where nitrates are abundant and as to the ultimate sources of toluene available; and whether the Government will, even by extensive financial operations, secure practical control of these?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say more than that the matters referred to are receiving careful consideration.

  HOME-GROWN WHEAT.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prospective world-shortage of wheat and other cereal grain in 1915–16, and the consequent uncertainty of its adequate supply to these Islands from overseas during next winter and the following spring, the Government propose to offer any guarantee as to price or other financial inducement to British farmers to sow increased areas of oats, wheat, or barley during the next few weeks?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that farmers are doing their utmost, in spite of adverse conditions of weather and a shortage of labour, to increase their acreage of cereals, and that they require no special inducement to do what they know will be both advantageous to the country and also profitable to themselves.

  NEUTRAL VESSELS.
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, provided ships are unloaded into Rhine lighters overside at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, and other Rhine ports, they do not come under the control of the Dutch Customs authorities; and whether he will see that effective steps are taken to ascertain the ultimate destination of the cargo of cotton in the ss. "Pacific" and other neutral vessels carrying cargoes of presumed neutral destination?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The transit traffic viâ the Rhine from Holland into Germany is regulated by Treaty (the Rhine Convention). At present all through traffic—whether by the Rhine or otherwise—is treated alike by the Dutch authorities. They do not interfere with legitimate through traffic, but stringent rules are laid down as to what constitutes such traffic. Any cargoes arriving in a Dutch port "on through traffic" have to be declared and are at once examined by the Customs. If the authorities are satisfied that there is no objection, under the existing regulations, to their treatment as through-traffic the goods are released as such remaining under Customs control until they pass out of the country. The ss. "Pacific" was reported by His Majesty's Consul at Galveston as having left that port on 7th February for Rotterdam with a consignment of cotton, the loading being effected under the inspection of His Majesty's Consul. Non-contraband cargoes on neutral vessels proceeding to a neutral port have not hitherto been interfered with.
  Mr. PETO: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Consul at the port of debarkation has any opportunity of inspecting the unloading of the vessel?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the administrative action which the Government propose to take for the curtailment of drinking facilities?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot yet make any further statement on this matter.
  Mr. WING: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will give total abstainers the option of refusing to be billeted at public-houses, as such billeting is unpleasant to the publican and resented by the teetotal soldier; and also if during the recess the Government will arrange for the suspension of the sale of intoxicating liquors in this House, and thus set an example of sobriety to the country.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' PAY AND MILITARY SERVICE.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended during the War to allow Members of the House of Commons now serving in the Army or Navy their full military or naval pay as well as the £400 a year House of Commons salary?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Both House of Commons salary and military pay will be issued in full until the House has had the opportunity of giving the matter further consideration.
  Mr. HUNT: Do I understand that it is contemplated that Members not serving in the Army or Navy, although not obliged to attend this House, will receive their £400 a year, and that men who are risking their lives are to have their pay reduced?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of an argument.

  WAR LOAN (WORKING CLASS SAVINGS).
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can arrange special facilities to enable working men, whilst overtime is so prevalent and such high wages are being earned in many trades, to invest their savings in the War Loan or other Government securities in the same way as is done in France and other countries which encourage saving and thrift?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Ample facilities already exist in this country for the investment of small savings in the War Loan and other Government securities through the medium of savings banks.
  Mr. FELL: I have had a somewhat similar reply on previous occasions. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his ingenuity cannot find some way by which this can be in some way secured? At the present time it certainly is not working effectively.

  MANUFACTURING ALCOHOL (DUTY).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duty on alcohol for manufacturing purposes is five or six times greater in this country than in Germany; and, if so, whether he can take steps to remedy this disadvantage to our manufacturers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The alcohol in general use in this country for manufacturing purposes is industrial methylated spirit, on which no duty is paid. Additional facilities for the use of pure alcohol duty-free for manufacturing purposes are given under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1902. The opinion of the Industrial Alcohol Committee which reported in 1905 (Cd. 2472) was that there are no greater facilities for the use of alcohol duty-free in Germany than there are in this country. I would refer the hon. Member specially to paragraph 38 of that Report, of which I am sending him a copy.

  YEOMANRY REGIMENTS.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether having regard to the dispiriting effect on Yeomanry regiments who have volunteered for service abroad of the doubt whether any more yeomanry are to be employed on active service, he can consistently with the public interest make a statement on the subject?
  Mr. TENNANT: All His Majesty's Forces will be employed in this War in the manner in which their services can be best utilised for the achievement of the object which we have in hand.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is it the fact that the Yeomanry are to be sent abroad?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to give any such assurance.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance they will be kept at home?
  Mr. TENNANT: The question was submitted to the Secretary of State and I have given his reply.

  ALIENS.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Count Ergon von Bassewitz and his brother Count Adelbert von Bassewitz were brought to England as prisoners of war; whether either of these officers was formerly on the staff of the German Embassy in London and well-known in London society; whether one, and which, of the two brothers was recently set at liberty and is now at large in London; whether he was released on any and what conditions; and for what reason this German officer, possessing exceptional opportunities for obtaining information likely to be useful to the enemy, is allowed freedom in England at the present time?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that the Christian names of two gentlemen the hon. Member has in mind are Egon and Albrecht, and not as stated. The former was taken prisoner of war and is now interned at Holyport. Count Albrecht was arrested in September last as having served in the Germany Army. It appeared that he had served only one month and was certified as unfit. I understand that he was never attached to the German Embassy in London, although he lived here for some years. He remained in arrest until 17th October, when he was released, a surety bond having been executed. He was suffering from asthma and was in delicate health. The conditions of his release were that he should observe the terms of the Aliens Restriction Order, and not assist the King's enemies.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these aliens are relations of the Hohenzollern family, and has that fact had anything to do with the leniency shown to these two gentlemen?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the fact.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether two Germans, of fighting age, named respectively, Von Jena and Guradze, who were attached to the German Consulate at Cape Town before the outbreak of War,
  1748
  and who landed in England in August and have since lived in Hampstead, have now been allowed to return to Germany in order that they may join their regiments and fight against this country; and, if so, will he explain why they have been allowed to do so?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that these men were repatriated under the agreement for the mutual exchange of Consular officers.

  INDIAN OFFICERS (DEDUCTION OF PAY).
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers of the British Army serving at the front are found in rations, forage, and quarters free of any charge, and officers of the Indian Army serving at the front have considerable deductions made from their pay for rations, forage, and quarters; and, if so, what reason exists for giving differential treatment?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on 9th February, a copy of which I will send to him.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Does that deal with the case of officers serving at the front?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir.
  Sir J. JARDINEasked whether short leave for the purpose of seeing their families is granted on the same terms to officers of the Indian Army serving in the War as to officers of the British Army; and, if not, what differences exist in this matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: No information as to differential treatment is in the possession of the War Office, and no complaints in that sense have come to notice. The same general conditions govern the grant of leave to officers of the British and Indian Armies.
  Sir J. JARDINEasked whether a grant of field allowance is made to officers of the Indian Army serving in the War on the same conditions as it is to officers of the British Army?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: No, Sir. Officers of the Indian Army in peace and war alike draw inclusive rates of pay, termed pay

  1749
  and allowances, which are intended to meet all contingencies of service. The system differs from that in the British Army, in which officers draw pay supplemented by allowances, such as field allowances, varying according to circumstances.

  EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS (MERCHANT CAPTAINS).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has as yet been able to do anything in respect to the appeal made to him in August last by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild that, if possible, there might be arranged an exchange as between German and Austrian merchant captains and officers who are interned in this country and our own merchant captains and officers who are held prisoners in Germany?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The question is still under consideration by the naval authorities.

  BATTALIONS RAISED BY PRIVATE COMMITTEES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked how many of the service battalions raised by private committees, etc., have been taken over by the War Office; and how many remain to be taken over?
  Mr. TENNANT: None have yet been taken over. The total number to be taken over is eighty-two.
  Mr. HOGGE: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take them over?
  Mr. TENNANT: I can give no undertaking.

  ROYAL MALTA ARTILLERY.
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to accept the services of the Maltese British subjects who have volunteered to enlist for service at the front; whether, in this connection, he will consider the question of increasing the strength of the Royal Malta Artillery from its present establishment of three companies to its former establishment of eight companies; and whether the subaltern officers of the Royal Malta Artillery can be placed on the same footing as regards promotion to the rank of
  1750
  captain after thirteen years' service as the officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery?
  Mr. TENNANT: Authority has recently been given to increase considerably the strength not only of the Royal Malta Artillery but also of the King's Own Malta Regiment, of Militia; it is not in the public interest to publish the numbers. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 9th February last, an offer of service outside Malta by a portion of the Malta Militia has been accepted; it is not desirable to specify the locality. The question of promoting subalterns in the Royal Malta Artillery after thirteen years' service has been carefully considered on more than one occasion in recent years, but the Army Council have not been able to accept the proposal.
  Colonel YATE: Why is the Army Council not able to accept that proposal?
  Mr. TENNANT: Because it was considered the scheme would not afford that amount of acceleration which was aimed at. It was not really in the interests of the officers themselves.
  Colonel YATE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received any complaints from these officers, many of whom with seventeen years' service are not yet promoted?
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe that is so. But the scheme was not deemed to be satisfactory, because it would not relieve the object aimed at.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give these officers promotion, and not keep them as subalterns for seventeen years.
  Mr. TENNANT: The whole question is under consideration.

  LEAVE ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when a soldier serving with the Colours in this country is granted six days' leave, he is entitled to have the amount of his pay and ration money for the period of his leave advanced to him; and, if he is not so entitled, whether the practice of advancing these moneys is to be followed?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. The soldier is so entitled.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. WINGasked if the pensions to widows and orphans, also allowances for disablement, as set out in the new Order, will apply to the ambulance men who have enlisted under the joint committee order of the St. John's and Red Cross Society?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Tamworth Division on 2nd March, in which I stated that enlisted men are entitled to the same provision as the Regular Army.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has now considered the inequality existing between the separation allowance allowed in the case of the wife dependent on one soldier and the mother dependent on more than one; whether the amount of the dependence of the latter is greater than that of the former, while the expenditure consequent upon her losing their support temporarily is also greater; whether, if it is made up to her out of the pay of the other soldiers, usually her sons, they are placed in a worse position than the other soldier who gets an equal allotment for 3s. 6d.; and whether he is prepared to modify the new paragraph 4a in Royal Warrant XII. in order to remove this inequality?
  Mr. BAKER: This question has been fully considered, as my hon. Friend knows, and I am not prepared to revise the scheme as adopted by the Government.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does my hon. Friend not see that the principle on which these allowances are given is that the more you give the less you get?
  Mr. BAKER: The principle on which this decision was taken was that no dependant should have more than a wife.

  SPOTTED FEVER.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the existence and possible spread of spotted fever in various English camps and garrison towns, he will take steps to have published in garrison and regimental orders, for the information of all military units, the warning lately officially expressed by Dr. Newsholme, medical officer to the Local Government
  1752
  Board, to the effect that cerebro-spinal fever is generally associated with overcrowding, insufficient ventilation, and uncleanliness?
  Mr. TENNANT: Special instructions have already been issued to all commands in connection with this disease to ensure that the troops are not overcrowded or accommodated in buildings or houses which are insanitary, and to consult with the medical officers of health and the military sanitary officers as to the necessary measures to be taken.

  INOCULATION.
  Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in order to force inoculation upon officers who object, threats are being used that they will be brought before the general officer commanding and prevented from going to the front until inoculated; whether non-commissioned officers and privates are being refused leave or only granted passes for one night, which in many cases barely gives time to go and return, whilst inoculated men in the same companies are granted several days' leave; and whether it is the settled policy of the War Office to hinder recruiting by treating as a crime and punishing officers and men in the way described for the exercise of a legal right?
  Mr. TENNANT: As regards the first parts of the question, there is no authority for treating men who refuse to be inoculated in the manner suggested. As regards the second part, my hon. Friend will find that I explained the position in a reply given to the hon. Member for Haggerston on Wednesday last. The inoculated men receiving leave will, as a rule, be those going to the front, and as they are going to face the risks of being killed or wounded it is right that they should have every facility for seeing their families before they go. It is the policy of the War Office to encourage recruiting by protecting the health of officers and men against enteric fever by means of inoculation.
  Mr. YEO: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit it is the duty of the War Office to prevent officers and men being threatened and persecuted while they still have the option of exercising a legal right—until, at any rate, the House decides that inoculation shall be compulsory or otherwise?
  Mr. TENNANT: The instructions issued by the War Office are that as many men shall be inoculated as can be. We have never disguised our opinion that it is in the interests of the troops that they should be inoculated in as large numbers as possible, and if occasional pressure is brought to bear it is ultra vires and is much to be regretted, but I dare say the House will understand meanwhile that it is due to the zeal of the commanding officer and his desire to safeguard the health of the troops.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into serious consideration the advantage of putting an end to this controversy by making it compulsory for all men to be inoculated before proceeding to the front?
  Mr. TENNANT: Whatever may be done in the future, I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that it would be absolutely impossible to make a retrospective order.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how soon the War Office hope to be able to make the announcement which he indicated that they were considering about six weeks ago in regard to their policy in connection with inoculation?
  Mr. TENNANT: I can only say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme as it exists at present under the voluntary system is being very carefully watched, and until we have more to go upon I do not think any announcement would be possible.
  Mr. JOWETTasked what is the cost, per man inoculated, of the vaccine used in the two doses claimed to be necessary to ensure immunity from typhoid?
  Mr. BAKER: The cost of production of Army vaccine in the laboratory of the Royal Army Medical College is estimated to be 1½d per double dose per man.
  Mr. JOWETTasked under what conditions the vaccine against typhoid used in the Army is obtained; whether it is produced by the Government or purchased; and, if purchased, from what sources of supply and at what cost?
  Mr. BAKER: The anti-typhoid vaccine used in the Army is made in the laboratory of the Royal Army Medical College, but since the outbreak of the War the
  1754
  Inoculation Department of St. Mary's Hospital and the Lister Institute have provided the Army Medical Department with a large quantity of this vaccine at cost price, as the output from the College was insufficient to supply the increased number of troops.
  Mr. JOWETTasked if any fees or other remuneration beyond the salaries of Army medical officers are paid for inoculation or vaccination against typhoid; and, if so, what is the rate of payment for each case?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir.

  MILFORD CAMP (SURREY).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to complaints of shortage or rations, absence of beds, and lack of washing accommodation at Milford Camp, Surrey; and whether he has caused an inquiry to be made into the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: Attention had not, previously to the hon. Member's question, been drawn, either at the War Office or at the command headquarters at Aldershot, to complaints on any of the heads mentioned. I have had inquiry made, and I find, as regards rations, that on 28th February the meat rations were late owing to a soldier's act of irregularity, in regard to which disciplinary action was taken, and that preserved meat was bought in place of the missing meat. The ablution rooms were complete when the troops arrived on 28th February, but one brigade reported a shortage of basins. This has been remedied. The suggestion that there was a shortage of beds does not appear to be well founded.

  FARMERS' SPRING SOWING (WIRE ENTANGLEMENTS).
  Mr. NEWTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has received any reports that, owing to wire entanglements, farmers in the Eastern counties are unable to sow spring corn on considerable areas; and if he will consider the possibility of so arranging the entanglements as not to interfere with spring sowing?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. No such reports have been received.
  Mr. NEWTON: If such reports are sent to the right hon. Gentleman will he consider the possibility of recommending that the point should be considered when general officers commanding are making their plans in connection with barbed wire?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course, if we received a report of that kind, no doubt it would be most carefully considered. I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire that no obstacle should be placed in the way of farmers who desire to sow spring corn.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the payment to Sir John Jackson's firm for work carried out at the military camps on Salisbury Plain and elsewhere in the South of England was by way of commission based upon the firm's outlay upon labour and materials; if so, what was the rate of such commission; if not, what was the mode and rate of such payment; and how much has in fact been paid and is now owing to the firm in respect of the above work?
  Mr. BAKER: This firm is paid a percentage of one and a half on the work done to cover out of pocket expenses on staff and establishment charges and receives no further payment in respect of certain work in the north and south of England estimated to cost about £425,000. For other works, estimated to cost about £2,420,000, a commission of 5 per cent. is payable, making a sum of £121,000, of which about £50,000 has been paid.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that in respect to Grantham, Purfleet, and Ormskirk, Lancashire, where the firm of Sir John Jackson, Limited, has been largely engaged in work for the War Office, all that work has been done without profit?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir; that is so.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is it a fact that the work entrusted to this firm on Salisbury Plain was so unsatisfactory as to cause grave discontent among the Canadian troops and was the cause of much sickness?
  Mr. BAKER: I do not think that can be attributed to the contractor, who had to contend with very great difficulties.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that in connection with a recent dispute about work at Salisbury Plain, Sir John Jackson, Limited, were able to save the country something like £5,000 a day, and did not themselves receive what they might have received, namely, probably £250 a day?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm has done a large amount of work for the Austrian Government, and will the War Office take that fact into consideration?
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the War Office will be able to supply the promised badges to men working on War Office contracts; whether badges are being offered for sale to firms carrying out contracts which are imitations of the Admiralty badge, but the name H. B. Sale, Ltd., B'ham, appears in place of the crown; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BAKER: The arrangements for the issue of War Office badges to men of recruiting age working in armament firms are complete, and the badges will be issued as soon as the necessary information has been received from the firms. No objection is made to the use of private badges, provided that the device does not include any part of the Royal Insignia or the words "On His Majesty's Service."
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Was it not promised on the 22nd of last month that these badges would be issued as soon as possible; what is the meaning of "as soon as possible"; and will the War Office take into consideration the advisability of suppressing unofficial badges in connection with the special constables?
  Mr. BAKER: I do not think there is any objection to unofficial badges, provided they are not capable of being mistaken.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it not a fact that an unofficial badge, not bearing the crown, may be worn by persons who wish to shirk being recruited, and puts a difficulty in the way of those trying to recruit?
  Mr. BAKER: That is a question of fact in any particular case.

  CANADIAN CONTINGENT (CASUALTIES).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of deaths that have taken place in the Canadian contingent, at Salisbury Plain and other parts of England, who have been sent to the front from October, 1914, to the end of February, 1915, put together with the number of sick in the hospitals or on sick leave?
  Mr. TENNANT: The total number of deaths in hospital at Salisbury Plain is forty-six, elsewhere thirty-three. The total number of admissions to hospital up to the 28th February last is 3,908.

  UNHEALTHY FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a German army contractor was fined 2,000 marks and sentenced to hard labour for eighteen months in consequence of supplying unhealthy food to the German army; and whether he is prepared to advise the Government to take similar measures against any of the Government contractors that are found supplying unhealthy food to any of our soldiers and sailors?
  Mr. BAKER: I have no knowledge of the German case referred to, but I do not doubt that the full powers of the law will be used in any proper case in this country.

  MARESFIELD CAMP (SUSSEX).
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether at Maresfield Camp, in Sussex, bread supplied to the troops stationed there is being regularly sold to persons living in the neighbourhood and retailed by them at 1d. and 1½d. per loaf; whether the original cost to the War Office is at least 4d. per loaf; and whether he will take steps to inquire into and stop the waste going on at this camp?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have made such inquiry as is possible in the short time available, and cannot find that Army bread is being sold at Maresfield Camp in the way suggested by the hon. Member.
  1758
  Fuller inquiries are, however, being made, which will take a few days to complete. Instructions have already been issued to all commands to ensure careful utilisation of the soldiers' rations so as to prevent waste.
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that at Maresfield Camp, in Sussex, the War Office are paying to boys who formerly earned 10s. to 13s. a week wages averaging nearly £2 a week, and that carpenters are being paid by the War Office wages amounting to £4 6s. a week; and, seeing that the standard rate for carpenters is 30s. to £2 a week, whether he can give any reason for paying wages so disproportionate to that standard?
  Mr. BAKER: The agents, Messrs. Willett, are conforming to the London Labour Union rates and system of pay, as a large proportion of their labour comes from London. I am not clear as to how the hon. Member arrives at the amounts stated in his question. At the union rates it is possible for a carpenter working a seventy-hour week to earn £3 14s. 3d. and a boy £1 7s.

  GERMANS AND AUSTRO- HUNGARIANS REPATRIATED.
  Mr. POLLOCKasked what number of German and Austro-Hungarian men have been repatriated under the agreements made in October, 1914, with Germany and Austria-Hungary, respectively; and what number of men, subjects of His Majesty, have been repatriated under the said agreements from Germany and Austria-Hungary, respectively?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The number of German male subjects repatriated is the following:—

  Under 17

  …

  …

  262

  Over 55

  …

  …

  250

  Between 17 and 55

  …

  …

  283

  Those between 17 and 55 consisted of doctors, ministers of religion, Consular officers, and persons suffering from some serious disease, such as pulmonary tuberculosis. Doctors, ministers of religion, and Consular officers are released under the various agreements with the German Government. The diseased men were released in the public interest, many of them coming from camps of internment.
  Austro-Hungarians:

  Under 18

  …

  …

  92

  Over 50

  …

  …

  154

  Between 18 and 50

  …

  …

  296

  Those between 18 and 50 consisted of doctors, ministers of religion, and persons certified medically unfit for military service, all three classes being covered by the terms of an agreement with the Austro-Hungarian Government. I have no information on the second part of the question, as, in a great number of cases, released British subjects do not notify the Foreign Office of their arrival in this country.
  Mr. POLLOCKasked whether the agreements made in October, 1914, with Germany and Austria-Hungary, respectively, for the repatriation of German and Austro-Hungarian men will remain in force throughout the continuance of the War, or whether the agreements can be determined by this country; and what proof of age is required before the advantages of the agreements are allowed to German and Austro-Hungarian men whose ages are near the limit imposed by the agreements?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The agreements could, if found desirable, be terminated by this country at any time; otherwise and provided that they are not terminated by the other side, they will remain in force throughout the continuance of the War. Official proof of age of some sort is always required. Where a birth certificate cannot be produced, evidence can be obtained in an arbeitsbuch, passport, or other official document.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (INDIA).
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked what steps the Government propose to take in order to deal with the complaints about the feeding of the Territorials in India?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State is in consultation with the War Office on the subject, but is not yet in a position to make any statement.

  FIRST LONDON BRIGADE FIELD ARTILLERY (HORSES).
  Mr. CAUTLEYasked how many horses supplied to the First London Brigade Field Artillery have died since
  1760
  they were stationed at Maresfield Park, Sussex; how many horses have been sold at Uckfield and neighbouring markets during the same period, and the prices realised for the same; and what was the average cost of the horses supplied to those troops?
  Mr. BAKER: Out of a total of 573 horses supplied to the First London Field Artillery Brigade, while stationed at Maresfield Park, Sussex, five horses died, six were destroyed, and thirteen were cast and sold. The average cost to the public was £45 per horse, and the casting value of the thirteen horses disposed of was £10 per horse.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say for what reasons these horses died?
  Mr. BAKER: No, I am afraid I do not know.

  BILLETING RATES.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether persons billeting soldiers at Boscombe and Bournemouth have been paid at the rate of 16s. 9d. per man per week for full board and lodging; whether the official rate is 23s. 7½d.; and what is the reason for the difference?
  Mr. BAKER: I understand that the troops at Bournemouth are not billeted under the provisions of the Army Act, and that the rate being paid for board and lodgings has been voluntarily arranged.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Were the people aware what they entering into when those negotiations were conducted or did they not think they were to have the ordinary allowance from the Government?
  Mr. BAKER: My information is that the rule was followed.

  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the latest information in the possession of the Government about the conditions and treatment of British prisoners of war (military and civilian) in Germany; are our imprisoned soldiers compelled to work there, and are food, clothing, bathing accommodation and ordinary living comforts provided on a scale corresponding with that we are providing for German prisoners of war in this country?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have only this moment received notice of the hon. Member's question. I would ask whether upon questions of this importance he might not be able to give me a litle longer notice. Quite apart from that I doubt whether this is a matter which lends itself to treatment by means of question and answer across the floor of the House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Office are collecting information on this subject and will lay Papers on it at the earliest possible moment.

  WOUNDED PRISONERS.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any proposal from Switzerland that wounded prisoners of war should be interned there, and, if so, what view the Government take of the proposal?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: No such proposal has been male to His Majesty's Government. It is understood that negotiations are proceeding for an arrangement between the French and German Governments of the character described by the Noble Lord, and the question of proposing a similar arrangement between this country and Germany is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

  Prison Warders' Wages.
  Sir W. BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that all classes are having their wages raised owing to the increased cost of food, he can see his way to raise the wages of the warders in our prisons?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be glad to consult the Treasury, who have no doubt other applications of the same sort before them.

  Little Ouse (Flooded Area).
  Sir RICHARD WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the flooded area, owing to the breaking of the Little Ouse bank, is now 20,000 acres, much of which is good wheat-growing land; that the depth of flooded water is from three to six feet and it is estimated there are 100,000,000 tons of water to pump off at a cost of £10,000; that two of the drainage boards concerned have exhausted their borrowing powers
  1762
  and, there being no prospect of levying a rate, they are at the end of their resources; and that, under these circumstances, it may take ten months or more to clear the land of water, which would make it too late for autumn sowing; and, seeing the national importance of growing food for the people, whether the Board of Agriculture will in some way come to their assistance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Board are fully aware of the lamentable conditions in the area referred to and they have represented the case to the Development Commissioners in the hope that some financial assistance may be provided on certain conditions towards the cost of pumping out the water.

  Moplah Outbreak.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give concerning the Moplah outbreak in Malabar in addition to what has already appeared in the Press?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The main facts have already appeared in the Press. The gang that attacked Mr. Innes consisted of only five men, four of whom were killed and the other captured when they were dislodged by the police from the Hindu Temple which they had seized. Two constables were wounded, and one Hindu villager injured. Order has now been completely restored. The outbreak is considered by the Madras Government to be quite unimportant. It was entirely unsupported by the general population, which assisted the authorities, and it has followed the type of the not uncommon outbreaks of Mapilla fanaticism.

  Mexico (Safety of British Subjects).
  Mr. WILLIAN YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of existing conditions in Mexico, he has made representations to the Government of the United States of America in order that immediate and effective steps may be taken to ensure the safety and lives of foreign residents in the country and, more especially, of British subjects in Mexico City, who are exposed to danger; and, if no steps have been taken, will he state what action he proposes to take in regard to the matter?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I have taken, and shall continue to take, when necessary, all possible steps in the way of requesting the good offices of the United States Government with a view to ensuring the safety of British subjects in Mexico City and throughout the country.

  Postal Facilities (Armagh).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, owing to the withdrawal of the 4.40 train to Belfast, the English mail now leaves Armagh at 3.10 p.m. instead of 4.15 p.m. as formerly, and that the change has caused inconvenience and loss to business interests; and if he was consulted by the Great Northern Railway Company before the change was made?
  Captain NORTON: The 4.40 p.m. train from Armagh was not under Post Office control, and there was no obligation upon the company to consult my right hon. Friend before they withdrew it.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Have the Post Office authorities made any representations to the Great Northern Railway Company with regard to it?
  Captain NORTON: No. I think not.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that this will cause considerable delay in the delivery of the mails and in the conveyance of mails to England, and is it not the duty of the Postmaster-General to make representations to the company?
  Captain NORTON: No, there is no obligation on the company. We can do nothing.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: That is not my question. My question is, whether the effect of the action of the Great Northern Railway Company will be to considerably delay the conveyance of these mails to England, and, having regard to that fact, is it not the duty of the Postmaster-General to make representations to the railway company?
  Captain NORTON: No. I take it that there is no delay in the conveyance of the mails.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that letters have to be posted in Armagh one hour and forty minutes earlier now than formerly?
  Captain NORTON: Yes, that is so, but there is a fair margin of time for replying to letters as it is.

  Post Office (Temporary Telephone Operators).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether the same conditions apply to women engaged temporarily in the various telephone departments that have been announced for women engaged on postal or telephone work?
  Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend understands that the hon. Member refers to women employed temporarily in Post Office workshops and factories upon work in connection with telephone apparatus. The increases in pay which my right hon. Friend announced in reply to the hon. Member's question on the 10th March do not apply to the women in question, but my right hon. Friend is having inquiry made regarding the wages paid to such officers and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    COUNTY COURT CRIERS.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury has paid the employers' contributions in respect of the insurance of criers of the Superior Courts out of public funds; and, if there is any distinction between criers of the Superior Courts and of the County Courts, will he state on what Statute or rule it is founded?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Criers of the Supreme Court are pensionable officers paid out of public funds who are not liable to be insured under the National Health Insurance Acts, and no question of the payment of the employer's contribution accordingly arises. Criers of County Courts, on the other hand, are not pensionable, nor are they paid out of public funds, and thus, in the event of their being held to be insurable, the employer's contribution must be paid by the person held to be their employer. As to their liability to be insured and as to the question of the employer I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the 10th instant.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Who is the employer of the crier?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The County Court judge.
    An HON. MEMBER: No, the Registrar.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the County Court judge should contribute the employers' contribution towards the insurance?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I hold no opinion on the point.

    Kenmare Lime Scheme.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the lime scheme for the Kenmare district is now in operation; and, if not, will the services of the expert lime-burner be continued for some extra weeks, if necessary?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department's lime-burner left Kenmare on the 19th ultimo, having spent about five weeks in superintending the repair of a limekiln there and giving instructions in lime-burning. The kiln was, it is understood, producing lime when he left. Should his services be further required, the Department will arrange accordingly.

    Trinity College (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked what progress has been made in effecting necessary improvements in the estate of Trinity College, in the barony of Iveragh, county Kerry, before their holdings are vested in the tenants?
    Mr. RUSSELL: This estate is not yet vested in the Congested Districts Board, who accordingly have not yet commenced the necessary improvements.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the necessary maps and documents for the purchase of the E. J. Sugre estate, Ballinskelligs, have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, will steps be taken to secure their production by the trustee or agents without further delay?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and it is not at present proposed to take any steps in the matter.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delay of at least two years has occurred and that the agent of this estate has consistently refused to produce any documents of any kind?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I dare say there has been delay all round.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there has been no delay on the part of the tenant, but that it has solely been on the side of the agent?

    Welsh Church Act.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in determining the value of the existing interest of the holder of an ecclesiastical office under Schedule IV. (1) of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, the annual value of the interest is to be regarded as the value existing at the date of Disestablishment or the value of 1st January, 1913?
    Mr. McKENNA: In determining the value of the existing interest of the holder of an ecclesiastical office under Schedule IV. (1) of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, the annual value of the interest is to be regarded as the value existing on 1st January, 1913.
    Mr. KING: That being so, will not the value be considerably appreciated by any postponement of the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The value will remain the same as the value which existed on 1st January, 1913.
    Mr. KING: Will not the Tithe Rent-charge be appreciated by present circumstances, and will not that considerably appreciate, that is, considerably increase, the value of the interest?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I understand, that will not be the case. If my hon. Friend will listen to the answer I will repeat it.
    Mr. McKENNA: May I be allowed to make a personal statement? In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. King) on the construction of the Welsh Church Act, I have some reason to think, owing to a point which was brought to my notice by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Griffith), that the construction put upon the Act by my hon. Friend is right, and that the point is by no means certain, therefore I should wish to be safeguarded as regards any answer which I gave to his question.
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if he will state the number of the incumbencies in Wales affected by the Welsh Church Act,

    1767
    1914, on 1st January, 1913, and the aggregate net income of these incumbencies; the number of the incumbencies affected by the same Act on 18th September, 1914, and their aggregate net income, and the number of incumbencies affected by the same Act which are at present vacant?
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: The best information in reply to the first part of this question is contained in the Return of the 7th July, 1913 (Command Paper No. 189). I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks in the latter parts of the question.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister what steps were taken to consult all parties concerned before the introduction of the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill; and whether it is the intention of the Government to press the Bill through all its stages even if it prove objectionable, and therefore contentious, to any section of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not myself take any part in these negotiations, and I was under the impression that, before the Bill was introduced, there had been consultation with all the parties concerned and an assent in principle to the compromise embodied in it. I regret to find that, so far as the Welsh Members are concerned, there has been a misunderstanding on this point, and I am going to ask them to meet me to-day. The Government believe the Bill to set up a reasonable and equitable modus vivendi, and in the hope of its securing general assent they will postpone the Second Reading till after the Adjournment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to make any statement on the subject this afternoon, when it can be discussed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would be possible to discuss it on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself intend to make a statement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. KING: As the principal parties in this connection were not previously consulted, will the Prime Minister withdraw the Bill and begin de novo?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Arising out of the Prime Minister's answer, are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the Leader of the Welsh Liberal Party, was not consulted in these negotiations? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer take no part in them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say so.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. BUTCHER: I should like to make a personal explanation with regard to a passage in a speech I made on the 3rd inst. I referred to the case of a Mrs. Savile, of Beverley, against whom an order was made for removal from a prohibited area, which order was subsequently rescinded or withdrawn on certain terms. I stated, on the faith of information which had been furnished me, that the lady was an intimate friend of Admiral von Tirpitz, and that the Admiral's son was about to stay there when the War broke out. I am now assured, and I accept the statement, that she was not personally acquainted with the Admiral, but I am also told that it is true that some time before war broke out, at the request of a third person, the Admiral's son was invited to stay at the lady's house, but the visit never came off. The only other statement to which I wish to refer is this: I stated that on leaving Beverley last month the lady was last heard of at the Station Hotel at York, and I added that it was an admirable place for making observations on our troops if she desired to do so. I am now assured, on authority which I accept, that it is true the lady went to the Station Hotel at York intending to stop there for the night, but she was detained for a week by reason of illness. I thought it only right and fair to the lady and respectful to the House to make this correction of my statement as publicly as I made the original statement, and to express my regret that there was any inaccuracy in my former statement.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAR.
    NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
    Lords Amendments agreed to.

NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered?"
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day three months."
1780
An Amendment is down on the Paper which, I assume, is an agreed Amendment, but which certainly wants some explanation. I want to draw attention to it now, because there may be more time before we reach the Amendment itself. Its apparent effect is that where notice of marriage has been given or banns have been published in any place of worship, the parties cannot take advantage of the provision unless they are married in a church or chapel. That cannot be meant. I dare say the explanation may be that the words, "banns published or episcopal licence granted," have a technical construction and refer only to members of the Church of England, but the point is a difficult one and, unless we can have an explanation, possibly it would be better that it should be postponed. I therefore move, "That the Lords Amendments be considered upon this day three months."
Mr. SPEAKER: The Question has already been moved, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months." I would ask that some representative of the Government should make a statement in regard to this matter. Unless a satisfactory statement is made, I shall have to bring it up again on the Motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. LAMBERT (Lord of the Admiralty): This Amendment was inserted by the Lords at the instance of the Archbishop who wished to prevent a marriage, where the banns had been published in a church of the Church of England, taking place anywhere other than in a church of the Church of England. That is the whole scope of the Amendment.
Mr. KING: After that explanation I hope this Debate will be adjourned. The Government are putting off, until after Easter, another important piece of business affecting the Church of England, and I do not see why both of these matters cannot go over until after Easter. Apart from that I hold that there is really very great objection to the Amendment. It will very often happen that a man and a woman who propose to get married will not both belong to the Church of England. A case might easily arise where one will move to another place, say, to some port to which the sailor will go and they will be ready as soon as the opportunity

1781
affords to be married there. It may occur that the woman will be a Nonconformist and she would wish to be married in the presence of her family at a Nonconformist chapel in the place. The sailor will naturally wish to go to be married in the place of worship of the bride's parents.
This Amendment will prevent such a reasonable and proper arrangement. It will also prevent their being married under certain circumstances which might easily arise where a Roman Catholic would wish to be married in a Roman Catholic church. In fact, the Amendment is a disability on the marriage ceremony being performed except in the Church of England. I am sure that at this time it is very desirable that we should not raise any such disabilities or difficulties. I am sure that the matter could not have been considered fairly by the Government in the House of Lords when it arose, and I do earnestly hope that the Amendment will not be passed, or that, at any rate, that the Government, if they cannot agree to withdraw the Amendment or agree to its being negatived, will agree to its consideration being put off. It is really a matter of some substance.
Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Relaxation during the Present War of the Law as to the Place where Naval Marriages may be Solemnised.)
Where, during the continuance of the present War, one of the parties to an intended marriage is an officer, seaman, or marine borne on the books of one of His Majesty's ships, and the parties to the intended marriage have duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married in any particular place of worship or in any particular district in the United Kingdom, then, if the officer, seaman, or marine obtains from the officer commanding the ship on whose books he is borne a certificate that owing to the exigencies of the public service the officer, seaman, or marine cannot be allowed to proceed to that place of worship or to that district, the marriage may be lawfully solemnised or contracted in any other building in the United Kingdom in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised or contracted as though the parties thereto had duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married at that building.
Lords Amendment:
At the end of the Clause, add the words, "Provided that in England no marriage after banns published or an episcopal licence granted in England shall be solemnised elsewhere than in a church or chapel of the Church of England in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised."
Amendment read a second time.
Mr. LAMBERT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
HON. MEMBERS: No!
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the Government agrees or disagree. The adjournment of the Debate has been moved, and it is open to the House to adjourn the Debate.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow (Tuesday).

EASTER RECESS.
  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That To-morrow Mr. Speaker, so soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House, without Question put, until Wednesday, 14th April, and that Committees have leave to sit up to and including 25th March, notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House."

  WELSH CHURCH ACT.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out "Wednesday, 14th April," and to insert instead thereof "Tuesday, 23rd March."
  4.0 P.M.
  The effect of my Amendment would be that the House would adjourn for one week. I move the Amendment on the broad ground that during the progress of the War it is very undesirable that there should be any lengthy adjournment of the House. There should be an opportunity

  1783
  for criticism, which I think has been usefully exercised during the last six weeks. Personally, I think we should go on, and I think there should not be an adjournment for more than a week at a time. The point to which I desired to draw the attention of the House particularly was the question which has been raised by the Bill known as the Welsh Church Postponement Bill. I hope that the House will allow me, if I may, to state very shortly the history of the events which have led up to the proposal of this Bill by the Government. Last September, when the Government was proposing to this House the course which they thought it ought to pursue in reference to the Irish and Welsh questions, the Prime Minister made a statement of a very important character, no doubt after full consultation with his colleagues, as to what the policy of the Government was in reference to the Welsh as well as the Irish question. I have copied from the OFFICIAL REPORT what he then said, and, as it is not very long, perhaps the House will allow me to read it. The Prime Minister said:—
  "But we do feel, in regard to the Welsh Bill also that the outbreak of the War has created a state of things which would make it unjust, and inequitable to proceed with the immediate operation of the measure. I refer particularly to the fact that the Disendowment, or partial Disendowment, of the Welsh Church would necessarily impose upon its supporters and friends during the early years of the existence of the Disestablished Body pecuniary sacrifices for the purpose of getting together and making good a voluntary commutation fund. The burden under which we all of us lie, in consequence of the War, to restrict our expenditure and to devote as much as we can to public purposes, together with the certainty that new taxation must be imposed which will still further curtail the resources of the ordinary citizen, makes it appear to us just and equitable that the operation of the Disendowment provisions of that Bill should be postponed. But when you come to examine the matter you cannot disentangle the provisions in regard to Disendowment from those in regard to Disestablishment."
  He then proposed that,
  "subject to such comparatively formal matter as the institution of inquiries which prejudice nobody, with that exception in the case of the Welsh Bill as in the case of the Irish Bill, no steps should be taken to put it into actual operation until twelve months from the date of passing, or, if the war then continued, during the same term as is prescribed in the Irish Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th September, 1914, cols. 892, 893.]
  When the Bill actually was produced some Churchman—I think a Member of the other House—pointed out that the actual proposals of the Bill would not carry out the undertaking so given to the House by the Prime Minister, and the Government explained that Churchmen were entirely mistaken in their attitude and that it did, in fact, carry it out. We, who have experience
  1784
  of the matter, I do not mean to say myself, but those Welsh Churchmen who have had experience of the matter, hold the view as to the effect of the Act that it did not, in fact, carry out what the Prime Minister had told the House that he intended that it should carry out. I do not want to labour that unduly. Those Members of the House who take an interest in the question are familiar with the question of ballots in the border parishes. It is quite true that the result of the ballots snowed that even though they were taken in circumstances which we believe to be unfavourable to the Church the great majority of the inhabitants preferred not to be under the Bill, but still we hold that the matter was one which should not have been proceeded with during the War. That is, of course, rather a minor matter and I do not lay any stress upon it. But where we do feel profoundly that Churchmen have been used very oppressively by the operation of this Act is in reference to the larger matters that are dealt with under the Act.
  The House will recollect that there are two dates mentioned in the Welsh Church Act, the date of the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the Act was that the date of the passing of the Act should be a kind of preparatory date, and that the date of Disestablishment was the date on which the Act should come fully into operation. But it is obvious to anyone who reads the Act that during that interval, if the Act is to be fairly and properly carried out, so as not to inflict undue or unforeseen injustice on the Church, certain very important things have to be done. Upon the date of Disestablishment, for instance, all the Church Courts come to an end and all Church law comes to an end. If the Church is to be prepared at the date of Disestablishment it must set up, as it is entitled so to set up, under the Act, new laws and new Courts. That can only be done by bringing into existence all the legislative, body provided in the Act, and that is equally true of all the constitutional results which flow from the passing of the Act.
  From some points of view an even more important matter arises in reference to Disendowment. Those Members of the House who are familiar with the Act are quite aware that the Church is to consider whether it will accept commutation. The body to consider that is the Representative Body which has to consider and decide on

  1785
  that question on the date of Disestablishment, or within a month of Disestablishment. That body, therefore, must be brought into existence before the date of Disestablishment. There are other matters which affect Churchmen and the Church very closely. There is the relation of the Disestablished Church to Convocation and many things of that kind. All those matters can only be dealt with by the Church Synod, and the Representative Body, and those bodies must be brought into existence before the date of Disestablishment, unless there is to be an interval during which the Church will not be able to exercise its function under the new Acts. It is equally true with regard to Disendowment. They have got to make preparations for the cessation of their Endowments on the date of Disestablishment. They will have to face the collection of a very large sum of money. I have not been into the figures myself, but I am told, by those who have, that the amount will be something like £100,000. At any rate, a very large sum of money will have to be provided for the cessation of Endowments on that date. That must mean that they will have to start making preparations now, unless something is done to postpone the operation of the effect of the date of Disestablishment.
  It is quite plain, therefore, that during the next few months Welsh Churchmen will have to be exerting themselves, not only as every other citizen is exerting himself, for the defence of the country, but also in making preparations for this great injury, as they think it, which is going to come upon the institution which many of them regard with the greatest veneration of any institution in the country. I have tried to sketch very briefly, and I dare say very imperfectly, the kind of difficulty which was before Churchmen. I will only add this, and I must make the statement as far as the House will take it on my personal authority. Leading Churchmen have taken the very best possible advice which they could get. I am not referring to my own opinion, or to the opinion of any Member of this House, or of any Member of the other House, but they did take the very best legal opinion that they could find, and the most impartial, and they were advised that if they were to be safe under the Act they were bound to take these steps before the date of Disestablishment, In those circumstances the Duke of Devonshire, in the other
  1786
  House, at the request of the House of Laymen, which is a lay body of the Church, introduced a Bill, the short purpose of which was to postpone the date called the date of the date of the passing of the Act until the end of the War.
  I will tell the House exactly what happened, There is no reason for concealment or secrecy. As far as I know, and very naturally, the Government approached the Leader of the Opposition in the other House and suggested that it would be desirable, as we all think it would be desirable, to avoid controversy in this matter. Certainly I have not a word of criticism in reference to that. There was arranged a discussion between Members of the Government and Members of the Opposition, into which I do not propose to go at all, beyond the statement that, as most Members of the House know, it did take place, with this result, that the Members of the Opposition were asked to put forward in writing their proposals, and they did so. I am not going into all that now, though I have nothing to conceal about it, but the result was that the Government did not agree with these proposals and put forward proposals of their own. These proposals were contained in a memorandum, and as the memorandum was not marked confidential I think it better to read it to the House:—
  "The Government believe that the apprehensions entertained by Churchmen as to the amount of work necessitated by the reorganisation of the Church in Wales on a voluntary basis, which will have to be completed before the date of Disestablishment, will, on examination, be found not to be well founded. But it is impossible to ignore the faet that such anxieties do exist, and it is with the earnest desire to secure a general acquiescence during the continuance of the War, not in the Act itself, but in the fact that the Act has been placed on the Statute Book, that the Government are prepared to propose for the acceptance of Parliament the accompanying Bill. There are, however, anxieties on the other side which, very possibly, have no better foundation, but have a very real existence, and which equally cannot be ignored. It is feared that the postponement of the date of Disestablishment might be taken advantage of by a new Government in a new Parliament for the purpose of repealing or altering the Act. The present proposals, therefore, are put forward subject to the condition of an agreement being arrived at between the responsile leaders of the two parties, that before the date of Disestablishment as fixed by the new Biil no proposals to repeal or amend the Act will be made or countenanced, except with the consent of both parties"
  Then follows a statement of the effects of the Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Can the Noble Lord give the date of that?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The 8th of March. There is no breach of confidence in reading it. Parts of it were read to the House of Lords by Lord Beauchamp,

  1787
  so that there can be no breach of confidence. What happened was that the Peers accepted the proposal which was made, and there followed a Debate in the House of Lords in which Lord Lansdowne, speaking for the Opposition, explained exactly what he understood the agreement to which assent was required to mean, and Lord Crewe, for the Government, assented to that understanding of the agreement. Therefore, Lord Devonshire's Bill was withdrawn, and the Government Bill was proposed and passed through all its stages. I do not think any hon. Member will doubt that the Memorandum, followed by the action of the Opposition, constituted an absolute Parliamentary agreement of a most express and clear character. I have not the slightest reason to suppose that the Government have any intention of receding, or that any member of their party would wish them to recede from that agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—when we are in a great war, for a scrap of paper on a domestic matter, and I do not believe that hon. Members will disagree with what I say. I do not think that any Member of the House would wish the Government to recede from the agreement into which they have entered. What is the agreement, what is the compromise, as the Prime Minister called it this afternoon, which has been agreed to?
  I have seen it referred to as a great concession to the Church. I do not think that kind of language is really justified. I say with absolute sincerity that I ask for this postponement, with others, not with a view to obtain some underhand advantage in this question, but because I do think, and I do intensely desire, that the consideration of these matters should be lifted from the minds and energies of Churchmen during the War. What is this dreadful thing that has been done? The date of Disestablishment is to be postponed for six months after the end of the War. Six months is not a very long time for an institution that has existed for seven hundred years and possibly for fourteen hundred years; that is not a very outrageous respite to obtain under the circumstances. And what is it that the Opposition bind themselves to in return for the concession of six months delay? They say that, until that six months has expired, they will not make any proposal in Parliament without the assent of the other side, either for the amendment or
  1788
  for the repeal of the Act; in other words, that they assented absolutely to this proposition, that whatever happened the whole policy of right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite shall be complete, and that any change in it which may be proposed must be by a separate and substantive Bill. That is a very considerable thing to undertake. Suppose—which appears to be the only thing by which the case would really be affected—that there is a General Election immediately after the War, and a Unionist Government is returned to power, they will not be able to promote a Bill in Parliament for the alteration or repeal of the Act until the date of Disestablishment has taken place.
  What is it that hon. Gentlemen are so terribly afraid of? What is it that they are terrified about in reference to such a proposal as that? Surely it does provide, so far as human ingenuity can provide, that, on the one hand, Churchmen shall be given six months certain to prepare for this great Act, which will impair the vigour of the institution to which they belong, and, in spite of that delay, that Act will come into full effect whatever they may wish or whatever the Parliamentary procedure may be! I ask those hon. Gentlemen who, I gather from the cheers earlier, are strongly hostile to this Motion, to very carefully consider what their attitude before the country is going to be. Here is a proposal made, not by the opposition, but by the Government—not, as I see it alleged in some newspapers of their way of thinking, by the "wicked House of Lords," but by the whole Cabinet, by those vigorous defenders and upholders of the Church, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary. Is it really pretended that a proposal of that kind is intolerably unjust? Are you really going to put that case before the people of the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I envy your audacity, but I do not envy your prospects.
  Another point. In previous Debates a great deal has been made of the three pillars of the Anglican Church who are in favour of this policy—the Bishop of Oxford, the Bishop of Hereford, and the Bishop of Lincoln. The other day in Convocation this very question of postponement arose, and the Bishop of Oxford himself moved that a postponement of this character—I do not say exactly in this form—should be granted to the Church. He did not define the form, but merely said that there

  1789
  ought to be a complete moratorium. That was carried unanimously, in the presence of the Bishop of Hereford and the Bishop of Lincoln. Not only that, but we have seen in the newspapers letters of Nonconformists who are not opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment, but are opposed, under present conditions, to its being carried through without some delay. I venture to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that all those who are nearly in a position of impartiality on this question think that such a postponement ought to take place.
  Under these circumstances I deeply regret that it has not been thought right to go on with the consideration of this matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want a full discussion. Why should we not have sat and finished it now? I think that this measure was introduced as an emergency measure like other emergency Bills, to get rid of difficulties while the War continues, namely, the difficulties which lie upon Churchmen who are under the necessity of preparing for this question. I cannot myself see that there is anything whatever to gain by postponement in the matter. To my mind, we shall be left during the adjournment in a condition of uncertainty, not indeed as to the final passage of the Bill, because that would be an insult by the Government, but as to the actual number of days necessary for it to do through and get it passed. I have put the case clearly, and I hope truthfully, before the House. I have spoken of this measure as a relief not to the Church so much as to Churchmen. I saw a very interesting letter written in the newspapers the other day from Mr. Llewelyn Williams, who perhaps inadvertently and not intentionally seemed to suggest that Welsh Churchmen have done less in the National crisis than other bodies. I do not think if I appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody that anyone would assert that there is any distinction in Wales between the efforts of Churchmen and of Nonconformists.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)assented.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have never heard of it. Churchmen have really been doing their best, and are anxious to do their best. Two of my hon. Friends sitting below me are already serving in a military capacity, and my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) is absent on military duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I myself
  1790
  —the House will pardon my referring to myself, for I cannot pretend that I have deserved as well as they—have been working with the Red Cross, a department which has, perhaps, led me to realise with additional force, what the realities of war are. The Department in which I have been working is called "The Inquiry Department for Wounded and Missing." I have had to deal with a number of very painful cases, and with those who are anxious about their relatives. I do not want to bring my personality before the House, but it is inconceivably repulsive that, when one is engaged day by day and hour by hour, in work of that kind, one should suddenly be forced to consider domestic troubles of this character.
  Something has been said about concentration of effort in this crisis. I still think it is the duty of every man to devote the whole of his energies to the service of the country in this great crisis, and I cannot help appealing even to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have not the command of the eloquence of the hon Gentleman upon my left, or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish I had. I wish I could put the case I want to put in their language, and in a way that they would understand and that would touch them. I can only try to do so. I venture to appeal, if not to them, at any rate to my English fellow-countrymen, and I do say to them are you really going to put this great injustice, this great burden, on some of your fellow-countrymen? Are you really going to say to them, "You are not to devote your whole attention to the War, you are to have to consider the reconstruction and re-endowment of your Church." Is that really what any Englishman would wish to do at the present crisis? I cannot believe it. I believe that the great mass of them will reply, if they happen to read the observations I am now making, that they wish to remove this and all other harassing political questions till after the War, and that they understood that that had been done, and that they have heard much of a political truce and that they profoundly approve of it. And if they once understand, what I believe to be profoundly the truth, that this Bill does no more than give real and substantial effect to the political truce, then I am convinced that the Government may rely on the support of their countrymen in carrying this measure of justice into effect.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.

  1791
  In doing so, I wish to address an appeal to my fellow-Members for Wales. It is for that reason I felt it to be my duty to come here this afternoon, and the House will excuse me if I am rather personal in this matter. I have been one of those few Welsh Members, admittedly returned with a small majority, but representing proportionately a very large number of Churchmen throughout Wales, who have fought the Disestablishment and Disendowment Act through all its stages. When mobilisation came I was busily engaged in researches and in work in connection with the possible reconstruction of the Church to which I belong should that Act come into force. I was giving a certain amount of time to it, and during the latter portion of the discussion it had been my fondest wish that if the blow which I had done my best to avert fell upon the Church, that I should be allowed to have some small hand in the work of reorganisation and of helping it. What happened? I was called away to an equally high, or I may even say a higher duty, to which I hope to return this evening or to-morrow to the end of the War. It is most bitter for a Welsh Churchman who, before this controversy, was one of the few laymen who represented his diocese in the House of Laymen and who is keen to help his Church, and who loves its traditions, its faith and the standard that it sets up, to find that the position which the Welsh Church was placed in debarred him from taking any part in the work of reorganisation and reconstruction. I do, therefore, on personal grounds ask for these six months after the end of the War, in which I may take, if I am spared, some part in this work.
  I do appeal to my fellow-countrymen, to my fellow Members from Wales, to be generous in this matter. If the Opposition, which we have seen from the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) already this afternoon goes on is that Opposition going to do anything to bring Churchmen and Nonconformists together to co-operate in the great national and Imperial work before us? I do think it is amazing when the Government, I would say generously, gives us the six months, which we do most earnestly desire, that the Welsh Nonconformist Members should take that action of the Government in the way they have taken it. I say that it is a lamentable thing for Wales. It is an attempt on the part of Welsh Nonconformists
  1792
  to keep the controversy embittered, and I cannot but deplore that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who after all, is the most prominent and the leading Welsh Liberal, more powerful than the whole of the rest of the Welsh Liberals put together, was a person who was a party to this compromise and to this suggestion. The Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, and is one of the hon. Members for Monmouth, which is included in the Act, was also a party to this Bill. It is a lamentable thing for Wales to see such bitterness on the part of the Welsh Members when their leaders suggested something generous to the Church.
  Mr. WALTER ROCH: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that they should not even have told or consulted the Welsh Members on the subject?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not a Welsh Member? Was he not consulted? I understand that he was consulted. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not know."] The Prime Minister this afternoon said that he was, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a better Welshman than the great leader of Nonconformity who represents Swansea Town (Sir A. Mond). The Chancellor of the Exchequer gives up a small holiday to go down and help Welsh Churchmen and Welsh Nonconformists in the Welsh Army. What does the hon. Member for Swansea Town do for the Welsh Army?
  Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Gentleman has no right whatsoever to make that attack on me. If he does not know, he might have known that I devoted a great deal of time, I will not speak of money, to the raising of the Welsh battalions. If he does not know, he might have known I was one of the first members of the Executive Committee of the London Welsh Battalion. If he does not know, he might have known I was one of the first guarantors for the funds raised for the Welsh Army Council. I do not care to speak of these matters, but I will not have my honour insulted by the hon. Member.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORErose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I am perfectly willing to withdraw. I was under a misapprehension. I apologise to the hon. Member. I did not conceive it to be possible, seeing he is who he is, that he

  1793
  could have done so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and "Sit down!"] If I have said anything disorderly I am perfectly willing to withdraw it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and "Sit down!"] All I said was that the hon. Member was not a Welshman. He is not a Welshman, and I stick to it. He never had anything to do with Wales until he went from Chester to Swansea. I apologise for saying, perhaps with rather unnecessary warmth, what I did about the hon. Member. I beg to withdraw if I aspersed his honour or said anything against him. I had hoped I should be able to make my speech without saying any of these things. We remember how concessions to the Church were received by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side. We remember how that continued during the consideration of the Act, and nobody more than I regrets that that controversy should be alive to-day. The Government have only got to proceed with this measure and that controversy will cease. |HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, it will. The reverend and hon. Member for East Carmarthenshire (Mr. Towyn Jones) is determined to keep it alive. Why, when all the national forces of Wales are desirous of co-operation between them, which is so urgently necessary—why he should desire that this controversy should remain and this bitterness should remain, I cannot for the life, of me understand! I do appeal to him to be generous and to allow the Government, which he supports so consistently, to proceed at once with this measure of alleviation. I hope that the Prime Minister will not adjourn the consideration of this Bill, but will remain, and in a week's time he, will pass it through all its stages in this House, and in doing so he will have the support of every Churchman and of a growing Nonconformist feeling in Wales.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have no exception to take to anything that was said or to the spirit in which anything was said in the speech of the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment, nor to anything that was said, or to the spirit in which it was said, in the earlier part of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He made an appeal, I thought a legitimate and indeed moving appeal, to Wales with regard to the position in which Welshmen, devoted and ardent members of the Established Church, find themselves owing to the exigencies of the War, unable to take the part which
  1794
  under happier conditions they would have taken in the reconstruction on a new basis of their great institution to which they are devotedly attached. Therefore I all the more regret that in the latter part of his speech the hon. Member diverged into a territory which I am sure he now regrets, and for which he made a handsome and manly apology. It is most regrettable that in times like these, upon a subject like this, which naturally excites deep feeling, we should under any provocation allow ourselves to resort to personal attacks, singularly ill-founded as it appeared in this case. They do not help us but much prejudice matters, and I am quite sure the hon. Member himself now regrets the incident. I will say no more about that because I want, so far as I am concerned, that the Debate should continue upon the lines and in the tone in which it was started.
  With regard to the main proposition put forward by the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I have no occasion to controvert it, although I might not have expressed it in exactly the same way as he did. The fact that the Government made themselves responsible for the introduction and prosecution of this Bill is a sufficient acknowledgment on our part of our feeling—I am not in the least ashamed to confess it—that, in view of the unforeseen and unforeseeable exigencies with which we are now confronted, something—I will not say of generosity, but something of justice and equity—ought to be and must be done to meet the special hardship to which the devoted adherents of the Establishment in Wales are necessarily for the time being exposed. I do not think there is a Welsh Nonconformist, either inside or outside this House, who does not agree that a case was made and ought to be met in that direction. It was in consequence of that feeling, not, I think, an unreasonable feeling, that, after much deliberation and some negotiation, the Government introduced this Bill in the House of Lords. As I said at Question time, I myself was much occupied with other things, and was not able to give any personal attention to the matter, except in an indirect and general way; but I was quite satisfied that the Bill in its main provisions—it may be capable of improvement here and there—represents a reasonable and equitable attempt at a modus vivendi in conditions which could not have been foreseen, but the reality and urgency of which we are all prepared to admit.

  1795
  This Bill was passed, as the Noble Lord has told us, through all its stages in the House of Lords, and it represents now the best opinion which the Government can form of the proper way of dealing with the matter. But of course—I note the Noble Lord's suggestion to the contrary—there was never anything in the nature of an assurance—whether there was anything in the nature of an expectation I doubt, but there was nothing in the way of an assurance that it would meet with equally summary treatment in this House. I should have been very glad if it had; but I cannot say I am surprised that my hon. Friends below the Gangway, who represent the vast majority of the people of Wales, should, in a matter of this kind which must be looked at from a large as well as from what I may call a momentary point of view, require a little further time for a fuller consideration of our proposals.
  I am so anxious myself in these days, when all our energies ought to be concentrated upon one great purpose, we should not diverge into the byways of domestic controversy—I am so anxious that the temper and spirit, so admirably preserved as it has been by this House in spite of great temptations, and by no one more than by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, should be maintained at the level it has hitherto reached, that I hope the Noble Lord will agree with me that it will be much better to face the short postponement—it cannot be a very long one in any case—of this Bill's reaching its place on the Statute Book, rather than that it should be passed by compulsion amid controversy and dissension, in defiance of the opinion of some of those who are most entitled to be heard. It is on that ground, and not because I in any way shrink or recede from what I believe to be a just and equitable solution of a temporary emergency, that I think the Government will be well advised in not asking the House to proceed—as I confess personally that I had hoped it might have done with general acceptance—to pass the Bill through all its stages before we adjourn.
  I must now say a word to my hon. Friends here (indicating the Welsh Members), who are among my most faithful and loyal supporters, and whose confidence and affection I prize almost more than I can express—I want to say a few words to them in regard to the position they have taken up. Things have to be done in these
  1796
  days in a more hurried, precipitate, and summary manner than if we were free agents and had time at our disposal; and I very much regret that there should have been some misunderstanding as to the degree and extent of the consultation and conference which have taken place. There is no body of Members in the House more entitled to be consulted than the Welsh Members; and, speaking for myself, and I believe for my colleagues, I would never have consented for a moment to the introduction of this Bill unless I had thought if would have the general concurrence of the House. We had no motive—what motive could we possibly have?—to discard their counsel or to ignore their views; and, in view of what, with all respect to them, I conceive to be some serious misunderstanding as to the effect and scope of the Bill, I hope they will do me the favour of accepting the invitation which I am offering them to-day to come and talk the matter over with me, and let us see if we cannot by discussion arrive at a clear understanding. But I must add that the Government are still of opinion that, given, as I think we are bound to give, further time for fuller consideration, there is no reason why this measure—which is, of course, a temporary expedient, but an expedient dictated, or at any rate suggested, by the exigencies of the War—should not be found to be outside the orbit of party contention.
  We shall all agree—I have said so before, and I say it again, with a strength, emphasis and conviction which it is not possible to exaggerate—that it will be, I will not say impolitic, but unpatriotic, and a negation of the duty which lies on the shoulders of all of use, to relight, if we can avoid it, at this moment the flame of domestic controversy. I would, therefore, appeal to Members in all quarters of the House, whatever their preconceptions in regard to this matter may be—because we know there are few questions which have excited, and legitimately excited, greater and deeper divisions of sentiment and feeling—to enable us to maintain that happy atmosphere and temperature in which, during these long and anxious months, we have agreed to lay aside the things that previously divided us. With that object in view, I ask that the party opposite should consent without demur to the postponement, and I hope that my hon. Friends below the Gangway and behind me may be prepared with an open

  1797
  mind to consider that which is put forward to them and to the country by the unanimous authority and opinion of the Government of which they are convinced and loyal supporters. I hope we may in that way arrive at a very short distance of time at a general agreement in regard to this matter; and I would earnestly appeal to the House that in what follows of this Debate they should try as far as possible to urge points of possible agreement rather than to create or to inflame points of possible controversy.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that almost everyone in the House must agree that our main duty is to keep a sense of proportion in regard to this question. I certainly would not say a word which by any possibility could inflame any feeling of bitterness, or cause us to depart from that unanimity which for the last four or five months at all events has characterised the whole action of the House of Commons. After the speech of the Prime Minister I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with the merits of this question at all. There is only one point to which I would direct the attention of Members in all quarters of the House. There has been a suggestion that this is a great triumph for the Church. I entirely fail to see it. There has been no reprieve; the execution is still to take place; all that has happened is that it is to be delayed. I have seen it stated also that this proposal actually drives a coach and four—a phrase we have often heard before—through the Parliament Act. I cannot understand how that can be suggested. I did hope that the War would drive a coach and four through our party controversies. That hope was not quite realised but to some extent it was being realised. There has been a truce; and even from the point of view of the truce, as understood by the Government, it surely is evident that this delay is necessary. Unless it is given, as was shown in the speech of my Noble Friend, the work which by the Welsh Church Act it is intended should be done in the interval between the Bill becoming law and its coming into operation must be done during the War. That work is difficult and complicated, and it must be done by men who in one way or another are all engaged in the object which is occupying the whole attention of the House and the country.
  5.0 P.M.
  What is it exactly that the Welsh Members fear? Let them look at the matter at
  1798
  the worst from their point of view. The greatest danger that can happen is that during the six months interval there will be an election, as a result of which there is a change of Government. I should have thought that to hon. Members opposite that would not seem a very great danger in itself. I am not sure that I would entirely agree with them; but I would agree to this extent—that it is a much less danger than would have been the case if the War had not broken out. But suppose that happens: even then, not only will the Welsh Church Act be on the Statute Book, but it will have become operative for a shorter or a longer time. Naturally, I can make no declaration as to what the policy of our party would be under such circumstances. But I can express an opinion, and it is at least my real opinion. It is this: That whatever action, under such unthinkable circumstances as hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine, we might take would not be influenced in the least by the fact that the Bill on the one hand had been operative for a few days or weeks, and on the other hand had been operative for a few months. That is the only risk the Welsh Members run. At a time when every section of the community is making sacrifices that does not seem to me to be a big sacrifice to make in the cause of unity, especially when it is asked by their own Government—by those with whom they have been accustomed—
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill creates new life interests?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is that unfair?
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I think so.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going into that; perhaps I do not understand it. All that I say is that the real risk is one that at the worst might be very fairly run in the cause of national unity. I have no fault to find with what the Prime Minister has said. A Parliamentary bargain has been made, and is admitted. In the whole of our Parliamentary history there is no instance on record of such a bargain having been broken. There have been cases where there has been a misunderstanding, and there has been bitter controversy over that misunderstanding, but there never has been a case in which a Parliamentary bargain has been admitted and has been broken. Even in the experience of hon. Members who have been here for any

  1799
  length of time we have the knowledge of that. Bargains have been made between the Front Benches which have been bitterly resented by sections of the supporters of those who made these bargains.
  Very often those bargains would not have been made if those who made them had known the feeling of their supporters; but never at any time has that been suggested as a reason why the bargain should be broken. I do not say this in regard to the Government at all—not necessarily; but I do say to those supporters of the Government that if they had any confidence in their own Leaders, if they had any respect for the traditions of the House of Commons, they would not ask to depart from the bargain which has been definitely and firmly made. I have no fault to find with the postponement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. That is a question for him, not for us. It is for him to use methods which he thinks easiest to get the Bill carried through this House with the smallest amount of friction. It does not concern us except from the point of view that we are as anxious as he that there should be no wrangling at a time like this. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeds by this postponement in avoiding this wrangling I shall rejoice as much as he, and will in that case say that he has taken the right course.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I feel sure that the House will believe me when I say that I very much regret, the first time I have to address the House in the position of chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary party for the time being, that I should be obliged to do so under such circumstances as the consideration of a question which has so long embittered Welsh politics. I shall endeavour, in the very few words which I have to say, to say nothing in any way to further inflame the feeling which has been aroused. I agree entirely with the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) that it is absolutely necessary in the grave position in which we are placed to avoid party controversy. All I will say is that in dealing to-day with this question it must be remembered that there are two parties to it. There are two sides to the question. However much, and however deeply, the Noble Lord and those who act with him feel on this point, I hope the House will recognise that we, representing the Nonconformists of Wales, feel as strongly and as deeply. I will endeavour very shortly to put before the House one or two of the
  1800
  main grounds upon which we as Welsh Members came to the conclusion that it was our duty to oppose the Bill as it stands. May I say this one word by way of explaining the situation as it appears to the Liberal Members from Wales? This is a time of political truce. I think I can say there is no portion of the United Kingdom in which there has been a more full and more loyal response to the call of duly by the nation than is the case in Wales. Churchmen and Nonconformists stand to-day shoulder to shoulder in defence of our shores and for the success of our arms.
  I am sorry that at this time it has been found necessary in the eyes of those who are deeply interested in the Church to endeavour to reopen the question. It may be said: should not the circumstance of War, and the very grave condition of our affairs, now alter the attitude of Nonconformists to the raising of this question at this time? Let me say one or two things about that. I do not know whether even yet the place that this Act, the Welsh Church Act, fills in the minds of the Welsh Nonconformists has been fully realised. It is for the Welsh Nonconformists a thing very much greater than a mere political triumph—it is a victory which has been won by a small people against overwhelming odds after years of struggle. Why do I say that? I wish the House to understand how difficult it is for us representing Nonconformity in Wales to free our minds from, at all events, suspicion and fear regarding the effect of such proposals as these upon the settlement of the question. The second point I have to make is this: During the last few months there have been disturbing incidents. There has been, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin said, the introduction of the Bill in another place. Then there came statements made by prominent Churchmen, in Parliament and out, in regard to their intention to repeal the Act. Lastly, there have been many attempts made outside Parliament to create the impression that it was necessary to modify the Act. That being the situation, what were the only conditions under which an agreed measure of this character could be passed through the House? I say it without the slightest doubt that the only conditions under which such a measure could be passed was after the fullest consultation with those who were interested in the matter on every side.
  I come to what I wish to make as plain as I possibly can—to the part I may have

  1801
  taken in connection with this misunderstanding which has taken place in regard to a consultation with my colleagues on this important matter. May I say—and the House will believe me—that the Welsh Parliamentary party had no knowledge of the proposals of this Bill until they were retailed to them on the floor of the House of Lords in the Debate last week—no knowledge whatsoever! It is true that on the night before the Debate took place, on the night of 8th March, the Secretaries of the party and myself had the opportunity of seeing the Home Secretary. In stating what I have to state about this interview, I am sure the House will allow me to say, and believe me when I say it, that the long political and personal friendship which has existed between the right hon. Gentleman and myself will be a sufficient guarantee for the spirit in which I desire to make the explanation. What I wish to say is thus: We as a party had no knowledge of the proposals of this Bill.
  Three things are distinct in my mind as a result of this interview. The first is that no decision of any kind had at that time been arrived at. The Home Secretary agrees with me there. Secondly, I had no knowledge personally at that time of the fact that the Bill had been drafted, and I can truly say, speaking for myself, that it never occurred to me that a final decision had been arrived at, or that the Bill would be put forward by the Government without consultation with the Welsh Members for whom I have the honour of speaking. The Noble Lord opposite has read out to the House a memorandum which he said was dated 8th March. I did not, as the Home Secretary knows, see that memorandum until to-day. The last thing I would say as regards that interview is: Although certain points were placed before us in the informal discussion which took place, we never realised for the moment that they were submitted to us at that time as a basis for any settlement. I apologise to the House for referring at such length to myself personally, and the part which I had to take in this matter, but I think it is due to myself, due to my colleagues, and due to the House that I should make it absolutely clear that until the Debate took place in another place on the 9th instant the party which I represent to-day had no knowledge of the proposals of this Bill. I am not going to discuss in any detail the proposals made, but there was one omission in the speech of the Noble
  1802
  Lord and in the speech of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs. They, at all events, did not emphasise the fact that a financial change is brought about by this Bill. I say nothing now about the merits or the demerits, the justice or injustice, of the financial proposals. Let the House remember that as a matter of fact, on the basis suggested, as a result of this Bill, there will in future be a fairly substantial sum added to the capital of the Representative Body.
  But our main objections to the proposals is the consequences which may follow the postponement of the date of the Disestablishment until six months after the termination of the War. As I have said, we Nonconformists of Wales are most anxious that nothing should be done, either knowingly or inadvertently, which would in any way prejudice the position of the Welsh Church Act as a final settlement of this great question; and, before we can agree to any proposal of this kind, we wish to have every opportunity, by consultation and otherwise, of assuring ourselves that, whatever form this proposal may take finally, it will not in any way prejudice the settlement of this very difficult, thorny and bitter question, which has been an apple of discord in our national life in Wales for so many generations in the past. I repeat, in conclusion, that I fully realise the circumstances under which we are debating this question. In a sense, we ought to debate any question of this kind with bated breath, but I feel the House will agree with me that we have the right to place our view before the House and before the country, and to explain to the House quite frankly how, having seen these proposals for the first time and without consultation, we came to the conclusion that it was our duty to oppose them in their present form.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I desire to maintain the calm atmosphere in which most speakers have addressed the House this afternoon. It has been rather suggested, as a matter of course, that we Nonconformist Members of Wales are acting unreasonably in objecting to the Bill at the present stage. I think not. I am all in favour of adjournment for a month, not so much that we may consider our position as that the Government may consider theirs, and in order that the Government may find out, not what we think as Members, but what Wales thinks. Therefore, I think there is

  1803
  a great deal to be said for a month's adjournment rather than that of a week. There has been a constrained reticence, because if we are to be blamed for our attitude towards this Bill, we are very far from knowing what the Bill is. The Noble Lord opposite made a speech very different from speeches on this subject I have heard from him. In the past he has more than once referred to the phrase that there was money in this Disestablishment. Does he remember there is money in this postponement?
  What is the position now? According to the original Act passed under the Parliament Act, which is also in some jeopardy at the present moment, the earliest date of Disestablishment was 18th March, 1915, and the latest date 18th September, 1915. When war had been going on for six months, at the request of hon. Members opposite, another Act was passed designed to deal with the situation created by the War. That was the Suspensory Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two months after."] The two Acts came into operation practically together, and the effect of both Acts was to delay the date of Disestablishment until the end of the War. "The end of the War" is a very vague phrase, and if a Law Officer were present, which is not the case, I submit there would have to be another Bill to define what the end of the War is, so that we should have the principal Act, the Suspensory Act, the Church Postponement Act, and the Church Postponement Explanation Act. Now this Bill is introduced, and it adds six months to the Suspensory Act.
  The result is that the date of Disestablishment is postponed till six months after the end of the War. I think there is a good deal of meaning in that six months; it is not accidental. It was the Prime Minister who said this was a bargain; it was not a concession; it was justice. The Noble Lord did not express any gratitude. He never does express any gratitude for any concession, he is so eagerly awaiting the next, and he is so seldom disappointed. At any rate, this is the situation. What did Lord Crewe say in the other House? I am trying to justify our apprehension of this Bill. We want this Act to remain an Act of Parliament. Hon. Members—I do not blame them—can repeal it as an Act of Parliament, that is what they are here for. Lord Crewe said:—
  "The action the Noble Lord desired taken would, in the opinion of the Government, distinctly facilitate the
  1804
  repeal of the Welsh Church Act in a number of by no means impossible circumstances."
  Is the Government surprised we are a little nervous about an Act of Parliament that will distinctly facilitate the repeal of the Welsh Church Act?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think he was referring to the Duke of Devonshire's Bill, but I am not quite sure.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: They were discussing, as they do in the Lords, in a vague kind of way the whole situation; at any rate, that speech was made after Lord Beauchamp had made his general statement as to what he proposed to do, and how anxious he was not to ignore the Tory party. It is a common attitude of both Liberal and Conservative sides. Therefore, he said he wanted to hold the balance, and pointed out that there were difficulties on the other side as well. Then he produced this Bill. When Lord Crewe said this Bill facilitates the repeal of the Act—
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Not this Bill, but the Duke of Devonshire's Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think he said—
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Debate took place on the Duke's Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have said that when they are discussing a subject in the House of Lords they speak on another subject, and, although they were discussing the Duke of Devonshire's Bill, Lord Beauchamp made a statement in reference to the Bill that was the Government compromise. I do not want to detain the House on the point, but we will see tomorrow who is right about this. I think the Noble Lord will agree with me that the Duke of Devonshire's Bill was before the House of Lords. Thereupon Lord Beauchamp got up and made a speech, and in that speech he was not dealing with the Duke of Devonshire's Bill but with the Bill we are dealing with now, which subsequently Lord Beauchamp introduced. After Lord Beauchamp spoke, Lord Lansdowne spoke, and then the Archbishop of Canterbury; obviously they do not speak in order of merit. After the Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Crewe spoke.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Lord Parmoor.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am afraid the newspaper omitted Lord Parmoor. At any rate, they were really discussing the Bill we are discussing to-day, and my point is that the Archbishop of Canterbury quite frankly said that their object was to repeal this Act. This is the great concession we are having. The Conservative party promised that their responsible leaders should not repeal this Act until six whole months after the War. Let us consider what that meant and try to be serious about this concession. Either the Liberal Government is in power or it is not. If it is in power at the end of the War and remains in office for six months, what does the concession come to? The Tory party solemnly assure us that they will not repeal this Act as long as they are in a minority in the House of Commons. What a splendid concession. On the other hand, supposing the Conservative party is in power for six months afterwards, then the responsible leaders—I should like very much to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) is a responsible leader, because I fear him somewhat more than the responsible leaders. But let us assume he is a leader, although obviously not at the present moment a responsible leader—the Conservative party for six months after the end of the War cannot do anything, but directly the seventh month begins they are free to do what they like.
  The Noble Lord opposite remembers that after the date of Disestablishment the Church has an option for a whole month as to whether it will put the scheme of commutation into action or not. That means that for a whole month not a penny piece of Church property will be transferred. They have got the funds intact for a month without option, and what more easy in the seventh month than for the Conservative party, in power ex hypothesi, to repeal this Act? That shows conclusively that whatever we are giving we are not getting. That is often the history of concessions. That is my view of it. Now with regard to the phrase about there being money in it. If they were only concerned about getting ready for Disestablishment, what becomes of the money part of this Bill? The Noble Lord, who is not only a very able man, if he will allow me to say so, but an able member of the profession to which I belong, showed in his speech, I thought, a reticence about money.
  1806
  But the second Clause of this Bill and the longest Clause deals with money only. I am concerned, not so much with the merits of this Bill now, as to justify us Welsh Nonconformist Members. I am concerned to-day not with opposing the Bill but in justifying my colleagues and myself in our attitude. According to the principal Act all life interests were to cease on 18th September, 1914. For every life interest that expired after 18th September, 1914, there was to be no compensation. The Suspensory Act was passed, and that made no alteration; it only postponed the date of Disestablishment to the end of the War, but it made no financial difference of any kind. Thereupon comes this innocent six months' Bill, and it takes advantage of an opportunity to introduce a financial proposal. What is the result? The Church is to have compensation for every life interest that expires between 18th September, 1914, and the end of the War and six months afterwards. Now, really, would the House have gathered that from the speech of the Noble Lord?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member appears to be confusing matters. I can only say that I wholly disagree with his interpretation of the Acts.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not think there is any doubt about that, and if the Noble Lord will look at the Bill he will find that what I say is right.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend's construction of the original Act, and I think he is wrong entirely.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That only goes to show that a lot of time is required to discuss this proposal and the danger of rushing this business through suddenly. Assuming my version is right, this Bill gives a life interest in all livings that become vacant from September, 1914, till the end of the War, plus six months. If you assume the War is going to last three years, which was the official view some time ago, and you add six months, the Bishop of St. Asaph claims that you will have seventy livings becoming vacant every year. I am so accustomed to the Bishop of St. Asaph's statements that I take 50 per cent. off his figures in older that I may get at the correct state of affairs. Of course, seventy is much more in favour of my argument, but I reduce it to thirty-five, and putting the average of

  1807
  the livings at £170, multiplying by thirteen, I find that in this three and a-half years the Church will get the equivalent of somewhere about £250,000.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the accuracy of his own figures.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We will see whether I am accurate or not. I do not suggest that the Church gets that gain, because in any event they could not have had Disestablishment before September, 1915. Therefore all the Church gains is the life interest that becomes vacant between 1914 and 1915. Does the Home Secretary agree with me in that? On this computation, taking half the Bishop of St. Asaph's figures, the amount would be £70,000. It is not merely a question of six months after the end of the War or the possibility of that, because there is a financial Clause that must be taken into account. Therefore I suggest that there ought to be time allowed for the discussion of this Bill. We are not unreasonable in the attitude we have taken up. There is not merely the Welsh case, but there are wider issues. The case of Wales to-day may be the case of Ireland tomorrow. We must, therefore, be cautious with regard to the amendment of any of the Bills that have become law under the Parliament Act, and so far from acting unreasonably, I think the Welsh party have not only done good service to Wales by their action, but to Liberals generally throughout the country.
  Mr. WALTER ROCH: I am sure all hon. Members will welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey's return from a place of responsibility to one of greater freedom, and I feel that he has done good service to-day. I only wish to add a few words to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey. First and foremost, I think even the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Wales who seconded this Resolution will feel, in justice to the Welsh Members, that they are entitled to know something more about this question.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I might as well have said that I ought to have been consulted.
  Mr. ROCH: I think hon. Gentlemen will feel that on a delicate matter like this, and upon a matter which is one of great controversy, some of these views might have
  1808
  been put before the Welsh Members—indeed, the case for the Welsh Members, who have been much abused, is even stronger than has been yet represented. During all these troubles Welsh Members made repeated representations through the usual channels asking that they might know what was going on. You were able to call into your counsels men who have carried on the bitterest controversy with some of us. Was that fair to your colleagues in Wales? Was it even decent, not to use a stronger word, after all the representations we made? Mark the position after what has taken place! The Welsh Members are now to be consulted. I feel sure that we shall go as open-minded as we possibly can to endeavour to get a compromise. I would rather not see a temporary settlement. I would like to see this great controversy permanently settled, and I will go a long way and make great sacrifices for a permanent settlement.
  But mark how we are going into this! The Welsh Members have not been consulted, and they are asked to come in now when the thing is done. The Government are bound to go on now. I agree with every word that fell from the Noble Lord opposite and the Leader of the Opposition, that there is a Parliamentary bargain which the Government are bound to go on with. Cui bono? The thing is settled and must go forward. This was not only unfair to the Welsh Members, but it has placed them in a humiliating position. We have men who have served for generations to bring this controversy to an end, and if this Bill had been taken now we might not have had one word of consultation with our closest friends. We must all remember that wherever we sit, whether on the Front Benches or the Back Benches, we are the temporary servants of the people of this country, and we are not, as we sometimes seem to think, their permanent masters. Some of us wish to consult our friends upon this subject who have sacrificed so much for us.
  I think all will agree that the Noble Lord spoke with great feeling and with great regard for our feelings, and, with the exception of one unfortunate incident, the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) did the same. I do not want to revert to the way in which the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs spoke of another hon. Member of this House who, while he may not have had the good fortune to be a Welshman, he is a Member for whom his Welsh colleagues and many

  1809
  in Wales have a deep regard, and I am sure the hon. Member will now regret that he made the allusion he did. I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea will forget it. It is all very well to talk about a truce. While I am free to say that in a great many instances that truce has been honourably observed, it is not true as a whole. Wherever you look in parish magazines you will read evidence to the contrary, and I have seen references made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I regard as an insult. It is all very well to talk about a truce. We have had aspersions made on us, and we have seen this alleged grievance trotted out all these months, although it would have been far more decent to have observed the truce. Personally, I hope that some way will be found of altogether avoiding further legislation on this subject.
  I am ready to admit, quite freely, that at the end of the War the position may be such as nobody can foresee. The position, financially, may be a difficult one, although I think it is easy to exaggerate that; but I believe at the end of the War, if it can be shown to the Welsh Members, or anybody in Wales, that the Church is really in a worse position than it would have been but for the War, there is no single Welsh Member who would not meet that difficulty. I would say to the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, who has carried on a bitter controversy in the past, that the Welsh are not wanting in generosity, and I think he would be wiser in the interests of the Church for which he has such a deep feeling to wait until the end of the War. I myself hope that when that comes there may be a greater spirit of union than has been shown up to the present. I think there is a possibility of reaching a settlement of this great controversy if you wait till the end of the War and do not raise this spectre now. I feel sure that the hon. Member would do better to trust to the generosity of the Welsh people than to try and force through an advantage now.
  What is the objection of the Welsh Members? I confess that I do not understand the financial part of it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey does, or the Home Secretary, but there is a possibility of union between them, and God forbid that I set myself up as a judge in such a matter. This Bill hangs up the whole thing. The effect of this measure is that for six months after the War the Church is not to
  1810
  be Disestablished. Personally, I have always attached far greater value to Disestablishment than to Disendowment. To my mind, as far as human foresight can foresee, this proposal interposes a general election between the effective operation of this Act. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have always contended for, both as regards Home Rule and the Welsh Church Bill. Speaking for myself, I am unalterably opposed to the intervention of an election before making this Bill law. Hon. Members opposite say that they will not repeal this Bill in six months. I do not want to prophecy whether hon. Members opposite will return to power or not; but I would remind the Noble Lord opposite that his brother, whose name was received with the warmest cheers on account of his patriotism, said:—
  "A war is always popular at the beginning, but when the back-wash comes, when all the feeling of reaction comes, then it may be that that reaction would sweep the Members of the Liberal Government from power."
  That is a thing which Welshmen look upon as possible, namely, that the result of an interposed election may be that hon. Members opposite will come into power. I cannot understand Liberals asking for such a pledge, because, after all, if the people give them a mandate to repeal the Welsh Church Act, the House will have to observe it, and even Liberals would say it would be the solemn duty of hon. Members opposite to carry their pledge through. It is an election on this controversy that I do not wish to have. Mark the result. Suppose the Welsh Church Bill is not operative, you will still have the Welsh bishops in the House of Lords, and you would still have the outward and visible sign of the Establishment to which we object. Mark what happens. The election comes, say, three months after the War. It is open to them in every constituency to say, "Rally once more round the Church. The Bill is not operative. Once more to the breach, dear friends. The Bill is not working. One more effort, and we shall kill this thing for generations." How different if the Bill is an established fact! How different if the Bill is law! True, you can say, "We will repeal it," but it is not quite the same thing. Throughout England and throughout Wales we can go to our own Welsh constituents who have worked on year in and year out and say, "So far as we could, the thing is done, and it is not open now. And it is open to our English Members who are fighting for their seats to say this thing is done. It is a fait accompli; make the

  1811
  best of it." That means a great deal to those who have the measure at heart.
  Hon. Members do not quite realise what is the position of the Welsh constituents. I will try and put it quite frankly, as it has been written to me by an old and valued supporter. Here are men in Wales, perhaps the only relics of the old Puritans left in the country, who have had this thing, not only as a political issue, but as a fundamental part of their religious belief, brought right into their very souls. Mark their position. At last the victory seemed won after three troublous years with all kinds of anxieties, when Heaven knew what might have happened to the Government of the day. At last it was done. At last it was a fact. Then came like a thunderbolt, the War. They did not wish to take any political advantage of that fact, but they could not get out of their minds that perhaps this great catastrophe had put off, it may be for another generation, the thing they thought was accomplished. Those men are suspicious. I say so frankly. Those men are anxious to see this thing carried through in their lifetime. They see that the outlook is uncertain, and I think the Welsh Members would not be true to those men who have sacrificed so much, if so far as in them lay they gave a single point away in what has been a desperate fight.
  Mr. CAVE: The two hon. Members who have just addressed the House have ex-expressed their intention of preserving the calm atmosphere of the Debate, but I do not think that either of them has succeeded. I am very much encouraged, however, by the fact that the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) is based on a mistaken knowledge of the Bill. He said this: "I understand what the six months really means. It means that you will not bring in a Bill for repeal for six months, but after that the Commutation Clause allows a further month during which no transfer of property will take place, and during that time you will bring in your Bill." That is quite wrong. If this Bill to which we are referring passes, the transfer of property takes place immediately at the end of the six months. There is no delay at all. It is only the Commutation Clause which is affected by the further delay of a month. That Clause gives a month for commutation notice. It delays in no way the effect of the Bill in dissolving Church corporations, putting an
  1812
  end to Church powers, and transferring Church property. That argument was based on a wholly mistaken interpretation of the Bill. Then he said that Clause 2 of this Bill had a financial effect which the House did not understand. I am quite sure, with all due respect to him, that he does not understand it himself. He is under the impression that, under the Clause as it now stands, in the case of any living falling vacant after, say, September, 1914, the Commutation Fund will not be increased.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: We quite understand that if commutation takes place the Church benefit in no way by this Bill, but we point out that if commutation is not accepted the Church body will, under Section 1 Sub-section (2), get valuable livings.
  Mr. CAVE: That is not the point I was answering at all. I was answering the hon. Member for Anglesey, and he made the point as I put it. I venture to say, if he looks into this Bill again, and into the existing Act, that he will find he is mistaken. The real difficulty is this: If a living falls vacant between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, then the commutation fund loses the value of that living, even although it is filled up. The Suspensory Act postponed the date of Disestablishment. Therefore it did have an effect upon the commutation fund, because in the case of all livings falling vacant throughout the War the commutation fund loses. I am quite sure that was not foreseen when the Suspensory Act was passed. The effect of this Clause, as I read it, is to put an end to a very doubtful point indeed as to the meaning of Section 18 of the original Act, and to provide in all cases where livings fall vacant before the actual date of Disestablishment that they shall be taken into account and that the commutation fund shall not be mulcted by what I agree is a very substantial sum. I entirely agree that this Clause may have a money effect upon the commutation fund, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in putting it at anything like the amount which he suggested.
  We are not objecting to time being taken for discussing the Bill with the Welsh Members. They have a real interest in the matter; I certainly assumed when the Bill was brought in that they had been consulted, and I think it is quite right that they should have a word to say about it. They remember, of course, their own point

  1813
  of view—it is only quite natural—but let them, when they come to discuss it, remember another point of view. As matters stand to-day, the proclamation of peace is the signal for the Disestablishment of the Church and the passing of its property to others. That is not, I think, a very pleasant reflection by itself. It leads to this further consideration: If the Church authorities are to look forward and to provide for the future, they must provide for the new constitution of the Church, a very difficult matter, and also for the future financial position of the Church. As the law stands, they must do that during the War, when all our thoughts are elsewhere, when those who can make contributions desire to make them for other purposes altogether, and when no one wishes to spend his time, thoughts, or energies in going into matters of this kind, which are wholly alien to that on which our minds are set and which themselves are of a very distracting and very difficult character.
  I do not think it is desirable that we should be compelled to go into these matters while the War is going on, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends that so far as I am concerned my only hope throughout these negotiations has been that a way would be found for making it unnecessary to deal with these matters in war time, and that the Government would consent to postpone in some way the date for which the Church must somehow or other prepare. I believe that was their only object, as it was our only object. There is not behind this Bill any of the Machiavellian schemes which the right hon. Gentleman has imagined, and which I assure him, so far as I myself am concerned at all events, did not exist. If you do nothing, if you do not pass this or some similar Bill, I hold that it is very unlikely that any agreement will be come to, but, to use a word which has been used in the correspondence, if you are able to give some breathing time after the end of the War, during which these matters can be considered, I think there is some real chance, when people begin to put their heads together, to deal with these questions of constitution and finance, and to come into contact with Members who differ from them, that a concordat upon the whole question might possibly be reached. If you force the Bill as it stands upon the Church, there is no chance at all of any agreement. There will be no time for any such discussion. If you pass a Bill in this form, or to this
  1814
  effect, you will, at all events, create some possibility that the end which many of us wish to see may somehow be brought about.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I deeply regret having any controversy not merely with a colleague, but with a Friend of mine with whom I have been associated nearly all my life, and nothing would distress me more than to take any action which would have the effect of creating a suspicion in that part of the country, the good opinion of whose people I court more than that of anybody else in the world. And I should not be taking the line I do take had it not been that I consider the action we have taken is in the interests not merely of this Empire in the greatest trial which has even befallen it, but in the interests of Wales itself in the greatest opportunity which has come to it. I am not going to say a word about the question of consultation with Welsh Members. I am heartily in accord with everything that has been said about that. I took part myself in a strong protest against the action of the Liberal Government in 1893–4, not so much upon the merits of their actions, as upon the fact that I considered it was an insult to that part of the country to which I belong that they should not be consulted about matters of deep interest to them.
  6.0 P.M.
  Therefore, not a word have I to say in deprecation of any criticism which has fallen from my Friends from Wales upon that topic. But they will remember, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, that we have been worked in a way that no Ministers have been worked in my time. We are engaged in very anxious work, working constantly, and we were under the impression that there had been consultations. I, as well as the Prime Minister, certainly thought that the same consultation had taken place with Welsh Members as had taken place with the Leaders of the Opposition. We met two or three Members of the Opposition, and I thought the same consultation had taken place with the Welsh Members. The Prime Minister was under exactly the same impression; it was purely a misunderstanding, and I hope the Welsh Members will take that assurance from the Prime Minister and myself. We deeply regret it. If we had realised it I think it would have been put right. Now I want to come to the proposals of the measure. I have received letters from Wales; I have received telegrams from Wales; I have had interviews explaining the telegrams. The

  1815
  Welsh people for the moment do not understand the proposal of the Government. What is that proposal and what has prompted us to make it?
  We are engaged in a War under conditions that have never occurred before. What do I mean? It is a war in which not merely the whole country is interested—in which the whole country is engaged as a country, but it is a war in which practically every family has its representative on the battlefield—Churchmen and Nonconformists alike; wherever there is anyone to represent them they are sent out. I see one of my hon. Friends behind me. His son is in the Welsh Division; mine are in the same Division. There is a Churchman, one of the best recruiters in Wales. He is a man who was taken a most active and formidable part in agitating against the Bill. I have never had the pleasure of being introduced to him, but he is a very able lawyer and a very dangerous organiser from our point of view. He is one of our best recruiters. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is that to do with the Bill?"] I think the House will see it has a good deal to do with the Bill. This man has thrown up all his work, he is engaged in recruiting; he recruited, I think, two battalions for the Welsh Division. What I want to point out it this: The whole energies, the best energies of Churchmen, as well as Nonconformists, in Wales, are absorbed in this life and death struggle in which their country is engaged. My hon. Friend now will see the relevance of my observation. That was the point which was put to us. They said to us, "It is true you have taken all that into account, and you have postponed any action as far as the Church is concerned during the War. But what will happen immediately after?" Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider that.
  Disestablishment is a great change for the Church; it is a great change for the nation; it is a gigantic change for the people. They have to make preparation for it. They have to consider the constitution of the Church. It is a matter in which, not merely Churchmen, but the nation as a whole take a deep interest—I mean the new constitution of the Welsh Church. You may say, "You are not asked to engage in that operation during the War, because Disestablishment under the Bill as it stands will only begin when the War is over." But are these men who have been on the battlefields, are they to be back, if the War comes to an end on
  1816
  the 1st September—by the 1st October? That is not how wars are ended now. It means occupation, it means time for settlement, and how long the occupation takes depends on the extent of the victory. These men who are the most powerful organisers the Church have got, whose counsels are essential to the Church, will probably not return, assuming that they are fortunate enough to get through the War, for at least six months after the War is over.
  Take the representatives of the Church in this House. One is already at the front—I think he has already been in action; another is liable to be called at any moment. Under these conditions I appeal to my countrymen—not merely to those here, but to those outside, and what I say to my Friends here I am prepared to say to any assembly of Welshmen in Wales, I say this: If you will not give six months' respite to these people, then it is not an honour to the race to which you and I belong. They say, "Oh! more vested interests can be created." I think my right hon. Friend who said that might have taken the trouble, before making that statement, to find out what the proposals are. There are no new vested interests to be created, except as they stood in January, 1913, and I want my countrymen to know that.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Does it carry the controversy any further to suggest that one who does not agree with you has not read the Bill? What I submit is this: Under the original Act, and under the Suspensory Act, no life interests becoming extinct after 18th September, 1914, is to be compensated, but that under this Bill vacancies after 18th September, 1914, and until six months after the War, will be compensated.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend, if I may say so with respect, is putting a very different complexion on his statement to the one he made in his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The impression that was created in everybody's mind was this, that new vested intrests would be created in respect to vacancies that occur. If I am wrong, I am glad. I only want to get at an agreement. Let me come to the exact proposals of the Bill. The value of the life interest in each case is to be calculated on the life of the actual holder of the office on the 1st January, 1913, according to his age at that date. I want to explain what that means. Supposing the holder of a living is

  1817
  seventy-five years of age and a vacancy occurs before the end of this period and a new man is put in, thirty years of age. The life interest would be not on the basis of thirty years of age, but on the basis of seventy-five years of age. I am very anxious that that should be understood not merely here, but outside. It is very important.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman now say that there are not, under this Bill, life interests to be compensated which under the old Bill were not compensated? That is the point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. But what I want to make equally clear is that they are only on the basis of the life interest on the 1st January, 1913. I know exactly what is in the minds of my hon. Friends. What they are afraid of is this, that advantage will be taken of this Bill to put in young men there and to create life interests. It is no use my hon. Friends shaking their heads. I know exactly what they are thinking of; they are afraid that advantage will be taken of this extension in order to jockey younger men into the livings and to create fictitious interests. My right hon. Friend may understand differently, but I want to make it clear to the people outside, who do not understand, that nothing of the kind can be done under the Bill.
  I come now to the question of repeal. My right hon. Friend referred to the speech of my Noble Friend the Marquess of Crewe in the House of Lords. I do not know where he got the report of the speech in which it is said that the statement referred to the Government Bill. I have only got the "Times" report at the present moment, and according to that my Noble Friend made it absolutely clear that he referred to the proposal made by the other side. I hope my right hon. Friend after that will be satisfied that my Noble Friend did not refer to the Government Bill. I thought it was rather preposterous. I felt certain Lord Crewe never made such a statement, and if my right hon. Friend will refer to the speech, as reported in the "Times," he will see it distinctly alludes to the proposal made by the other side, and says that would be an advantage to them. Let us examine the question of repeal. If the country wants repeal the fact of the Bill being on the Statute Book six months will not make very much difference, if any. What will make a difference will be the temper in which the country considers the Bill.
  1818
  I ask my hon. Friends quite seriously—I have had some experience of political life and so have they—are they helping the temper of the country in considering the question of repeal by refusing to give fair consideration to proposals for granting an extension of six months to the Church when some of its leading men are engaged in the War? I say they are not. I should be more afraid of repeal under these conditions. I do not think the party opposite, when the time comes, will pledge themselves to repeal. The country will have its mind on other things. When this War is over they will be tired of domestic controversies. This War has raised issues never thought of—deep, searching, permanent issues that will affect the whole life of this country and the destinies of humanity for generations. Those questions—great questions of reconstruction—those are the questions which will occupy the minds of the nation of every class, great and small, when the War is over. They will be impatient of sectarian controversies. They will not tolerate them. They will want to get something bigger.
  There may be men of strong sectarian animus—I do not say they will not remain—who will want to engage the attention of the country upon repealing this Act and altering another dealing with denominational problems. I do not think they will find countenance in their own party, but if you want to create a public opinion and atmosphere that will help them, the way to do it is to refuse to deal generously, fairly, equitably, and in a large way with topics of this kind. It is the only way to do it. They will be able to appeal to the sentiments of Churchmen in England, and not merely to Churchmen, but to some who are not Churchmen, but who love fair play. They will say: "Repeal this Act!" "Why," they will say to them, "when Churchmen were shedding their blood upon the battlefield, when the best men in Wales were risking all or endangering their lives, they would not give them six months for the purpose of coming home to set their house in order." That is the thing that will create an atmosphere for repeal. But if you are able to say, "No, we faced misunderstandings"—as I prefer to do—"we faced misrepresentations, we faced prejudices, we faced honest misconception of men"—whom I honour as much as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Walter Roch)—"we faced them all for the sake of doing something in the hour of our country's need to create

  1819
  unity and good will," you will have no repeal if you behave in a big way and not in a petty way in these circumstances.
  I put this to the House: I am as attached to my little country as any man in this House, and I am looking forward to Wales getting something out of this War. It is the greatest opportunity. She has shown up to the present what she can do. There are 80,000 men who have volunteered in a country which is as anti-militarist as any portion of the Empire. Our countrymen who have fought as bravely as any others in this Empire, and that is a high standard. Yes, but she will have to show more. She will have to show not merely that she is prepared to take her part, but that there is nothing mean and small in the way she faces a great situation. One hundred thousand pounds more, is it? What is the value of that by the credit of our country? That is the computation. I do not believe it, but take it at that. You will get more to the credit and honour of Wales in the fact that our country has behaved with dignity in the great hour that has come to it.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: It is a very difficult task indeed for any Welsh Member to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer on any question, particularly when he is defending a Bill to which he is a party. I desire, at the outset, to say that we accept the invitation the Prime Minister held out to us, and on behalf of my hon. Friends who come from Wales I beg to say that we naturally will accept with the greatest pleasure the invitation he has given us to meet him. There are, however, one or two observations which should be made. Notwithstanding the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is only fair to point out that in the House of Lords the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking on behalf and with the authority of the Church, especially reserved to the Church the right during these six months to argue for the repeal or the amendment of the Act. I speak with some authority on that question, because I am one of the few Welsh Members who have always been anxious for a settlement of this matter before the question of compromise was popular on the platforms of Wales.
  If a compromise is to be arrived at, the sentiment which animated the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords will have to be modified. Let it be made clear in Wales what is the real position. Notwithstanding
  1820
  the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I submit to the House with some confidence that the effect of this Bill is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it to be. The Bill is going to create for the Church life interests in all the benefices which become vacant between 18th September, 1914, and the date of Disestablishment. It is quite true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, that the value of the benefice under this Section will not be the value for the then life in possession but the value of the life in possession in January, 1913. I repeat again what I said in the interview to which he referred, that at the lowest this gift means, if commutation is not accepted by the Church, that this Bill is giving to the Church at least £100,000. The Home Secretary was asked by an hon. Member, whether the Bill does not give to the Church the increase in value which has taken place in tithes. The right hon. Gentleman, with very little courtesy to the hon. Member who asked the question, directly implied that it was a foolish question.
  Mr. McKENNA: No. The answer I gave to my hon. Friend was not discourteous to him in the slightest degree.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The answer the right hon. Gentleman gave was to repeat an answer which he had already given. By that course he suggested that the question should not have been put. As a matter of fact, if the right hon. Gentleman had read his own Bill, he would have found in the Fourth Schedule to the Act that it is specifically provided that the value of tithes should be ascertained by reference to the septennial average which was in force not last year, not this year, but on the date on which Disestablishment comes into force. The result will be that the Church—quite rightly under the Bill—will be entitled to the increase that has taken place in tithes, owing to the large increase that has taken place in the prices of food in this country. The Bill does more. It will enable the Church to invest its commutation money at a very much higher rate of interest. When the Bill was under discussion in the House, hon. Members opposite objected very strongly to commutation being placed on a 3½ per cent. basis. Is there anyone here to-day who does not think that a security can be obtained to yield anything from 4¼ to 4½ per cent.? That means that the advantage

  1821
  granted by this Bill will mean a substantial addition to the money passing under the control of the Church.
  That is not really the objection I take to this Bill. There is a good deal to be said for saying that the vacancies which happen to be in the Church at the date of Disestablishment ought to be included in the price of commutation. What we object to, and what we cannot understand in regard to the Government, is the fact that for years we fought for the passage of the Parliament Act, and, having secured that, hon. Members opposite have insisted that this Bill should not come into force before there was a possibility of an appeal to the country. Under the Act as it stands to-day, in all probability there could be no appeal to the country, because it comes into force the day immediately after Peace is declared. On the other hand, if this Bill is passed, the result would be that six months would intervene between the date of the conclusion of the War and the date of Disestablishment. I take it that I shall carry the House with me when I say that whatever Government happens to be in power immediately after the War, Liberal or Tory, it could not refuse to go to the country and have a General Election within those six months. What is the position? For Wales, we have got absolutely nothing in return. Hon. Members opposite, apparently with the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have provided for themselves that the General Election will take place before this Act comes into force. They have done more than that; they have provided that every vacancy which occurs between September, 1914, and the date of Disestablishment will be valued and the value of it will be handed over to the Church body. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is that provided?"] I can only refer the hon. Member to the Section of this Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is not our Bill. It is the Government's Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I hope the Home Secretary will see what the Noble Lord expects. There is not one word of gratitude for these gifts he is taking from the Welsh people, and handing over to the Church. By deferring the date of Disestablishment and consequently the date upon which tithe is to be valued, a very large sum indeed, must of necessity, pass over to the Church. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that there will be no repeal. The point is, cannot somebody
  1822
  on the other side get up and say that if this proposal be carried, that they, on their part will undertake not to repeal the Bill. [Laughter.] I can quite understand hon. Members laughing, but I would remind them that the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) three or four weeks ago, in speaking, I think, on the Adjournment, said that in certain circumstances, if there were no modification of the existing Act he would feel it his duty to fight for the repeal of the Act. That rather suggested that there were certain terms and conditions upon which the Noble Lord would not think it necessary to fight for repeal. What we want to know in Wales is whether those terms have ever been made known to the Government, and, if so, what are they? Some hon. Members from Wales have always been in favour of compromise, provided that the compromise was one which would be acceptable to the whole of the Welsh people, both Church and Nonconformist. Even to-day I am not without hope that that may be effected. It has always been to me one of the saddest things in our political and religious life that the Church which has a creed in common with a large body of Nonconformists in Wales, should be, as it were, the cause of all the bitterness and dissension that has taken place. I venture to suggest that by postponing the consideration of this Bill for another month something might be done by negotiation which would possibly lead, later on, to a better understanding of the position.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  FOOD PRICES AND WAGES.
  Mr. BARNES: I desire to address the House on quite another matter than that which has occupied it for the last two hours, one with which the House is more or less already familiar, namely, the question of prices and wages, and to press upon the Government the need for making some statement of their intentions in regard to prices before we adjourn for another Recess.
  I shall not say anything, and I hope no one will say anything, which will tend to weaken the forces of the country in prosecuting the War. On the contrary, I am exceedingly sorry that there has been to some extent a stoppage of work, and that thereby the Government has been prevented from getting things made which

  1823
  may have the effect of weakening them, and I want to see these industrial troubles composed as speedily as possible so that the whole forces of the nation may be mobilised as fully as possible for the task which lies ahead of them. But still this question of prices and the kindred question of wages seems to me to be among the most important questions which could engage our attention at the present moment. The question of prices has already been discussed in a two days' Debate, during which many enlightening speeches were made. They had the effect of stimulating public opinion, but so far next to nothing has been done by the Government to deal with this important question. I shall probably carry a growing number of Members on both sides of the House, and I feel perfectly sure a large number of people outside, when I say that the matter ought to be dealt with, and that it cannot safely be left longer where it is.
  I have a few figures which put the case so far as prices are concerned in tabular form. They are quoted from the "Times" of Monday last. The prices are taken back to the year 1899. I will give a comparison of prices as between last July and last week. There are here a number of articles of daily consumption in a working class family. A family of four is taken as the unit and the commodities are just put down in such quantities as to cover the needs of that family for a week, beginning with sixteen pounds of bread and ending up with a pennyworth of blue. Totalling up the items against each particular commodity, last July the weekly needs of that family would have been covered at the then prices by 19s. 8d. The items against each commodity on the prices of last week amount to 24s. 5½d. That is probably about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., or something like that. So that we are face to face to-day, according to this statement, with a condition of things in which workmen's wages have depreciated, even if they get the same money, by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.
  There was, at the beginning of the War, a truce called to internal dissension. Everyone felt that we had to fight the Germans and we could not afford to waste our resources by fighting one another, and consequently strikes were called off and people were stimulated to do their best, and for a very considerable time they did their best. But the essential feature of a
  1824
  truce is that both sides to it remain as they were, and in face of the figures I have just given, or even if those figures are exaggerated there is still plenty of margin, and in view of what we all know as to the prices of goods now as compared with six or eight months ago, the essential feature of a truce has gone; and as a result of that the workmen know that they are worse off, and they have a shrewd suspicion that those with opposing interests are a good deal better off. Bread brings 8½d. which six months ago could be sold for 6d., and coal to-day brings about 2s. a cwt. which was sold six months ago at a little more than half that price.
  It was said on behalf of the Government a few months ago that wages would follow prices, and economic law was quoted in favour of that statement. I suppose if a person lives long enough wages will follow prices, but in the process of following prices unfortunately strikes occur, ill-will is bred, friction and all sorts of trouble arise, all of which have the effect of reducing the productivity of labour for the time being. Then wages can only follow prices if there is an exceptional demand for labour—that is to say, if you are now making guns or khaki or boots for the Army or Navy, inasmuch as there is now exceptional demand for their labour, they can, of course, find the law of supply and demand being tilted in their direction and they can get more wages. In that sense it is true that wages follow prices, but there are large numbers of people throughout the length and breadth of the country who have no connection with the War so far as production for war purposes is concerned. We have printers, for instance, out of work, and we have the fancy trade that makes trimming for the rich, such as dressmakers and women workers generally, whose wages at the best only cover the bare necessaries of life, and of none of these people is it true to say that wages can follow prices. To many of these people at this moment the prices which are now ranging mean less food and lower vitality, and I am afraid, in many cases probably, permanent injury to their health.
  We were told that all classes had to make sacrifices. That is perfectly true, and all classes have made sacrifices. Individuals of all classes have made the greatest of all sacrifices in laying down their lives; but it is absolutely necessary, if we are going on to produce as we ought to be producing for our men in the field, that some more drastic action should be

  1825
  taken with a view to equalising the sacrifices. It may be asked what are we doing towards that? That is a fair enough question, and in answer I should say that we on these benches, and those with whom we are associated generally, have done all that it has been suggested we should do. The Financial Secretary to the War Office some time ago suggested that we might suspend our rules. We have nothing to do with suspending rules, but in so far as our influence could be exerted it was exerted in the way of inducing trade unions to suspend their overtime rules, and that was done. Other rules were suspended or are in process of suspension. Then it was stated by the Prime Minister that we should do something in the way of continuity of work by modification and something in the direction of elasticity of labour. There, again, we have done what we can. I heard a statement made by one of the members for Liverpool a little time ago that in certain parts of the country labour was not doing all it should do, and he said some unions were charging £5 admission fee. All I can say is that to my mind to charge a £5 fee to a union is wrong even in peace time, but to charge it now, during the War, is nothing less than a crime, and I should like to see all the unions agreeing and assisting to bring about the greatest possible mobility of labour so that labour which is not wanted in one place may be freely taken to another place and employed where it is wanted. So we have done something.
  I have just come back from Glasgow, where I addressed two meetings yesterday with a view of getting the resumption of work on the part of some men there on strike, who, I am told, have been doing Government work, and whose work is badly needed. So having done that, I think we have a right to ask that the Government should do something more than they have as yet done. We are being joined by others outside. I myself was present at a conference of labour and co-operative societies a few weeks ago in the Memorial Hall—a conference of a very influential character, but mainly composed of workpeople. Delegates there came straight from workshop and factory, and they had been in daily contact with those affected by these high prices. But since then, only last Friday, a conference of a much more representative character was held in London, representing not only labour and
  1826
  co-operative societies, but also representing many of the largest corporations throughout the country, including, for instance, such places as Glasgow and Hull. Therefore, we are now not only voicing trade union and labour sentiment, but we are voicing the opinion and sentiment of a large number of people outside of all ranks who feel that something ought to be done by the Government.
  What can be done? It was said, truly, a little while ago, that you could not have a social revolution in time of war, and that I suppose is meant to rule out anything in the nature of fundamental causes, or the examination of fundamental causes and the suggestion of fundamental remedies. I agree that we ought to look at it in a practical way, and the Leader of the Opposition made a speech the other week and made a suggestion which was remarkable as coming from him, and I am rather sorry and surprised that that speech has not attracted a good deal more attention. He gave a warning to shipowners, speaking as one with inside knowledge of the business, that a limit might be placed to the enormous profit that he thought shipowners were then making. I think that gives a cue to the Government what to do. If we are going to wait till the shipowners tell us when that limit has been reached we shall very likely wait a long time, and I would suggest to the Government that they put themselves in a position to find whether or not limit has not already been reached in regard to shipowners and coal dealers and corn dealers, and a good many other people who might be mentioned. True, they have set up a Committee to overhaul the operations of the coal dealers, but it seems to me that the timidity of the Government in these matters is the outstanding feature. They so soon weary of well doing. They took sugar first and left the staff of life to be dealt with by other people with axes to grind. They took 20 per cent. of the shipping for War purposes and left the other 80 per cent. to be used by other people with increased opportunities of making larger profits and so on.
  Mr. PRINGLEmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. BARNES: I am not going to be side-tracked into an examination of sugar. For a time the result was all right, and if it is not, those who are responsible are the Government, who ought to have done

  1827
  something before. I know that sugar was bought at 6d. per lb. in London and a few days later, after Government action, was sold at 3¾d. That is enough for me to show that economic law can be upset by Government action when the Government thinks fit to take that action.
  The Government seem so soon to weary of well doing. They set up a Committee to deal with coal. I think the time has come—I think it has passed—when they should deal with corn. I saw a statement the other day in the "Review of Reviews" by a writer who claims to have an insight into the coal trade. He says that coal bought even now could be sold to yield a profit at 26s. per ton. He makes the further statement that there are hundreds of thousands of tons in stock in London, or procurable under contracts made last year, which could be sold at a great deal less than coal could be bought at now. If that be true—and surely it can be easily verified or otherwise—then it seems to me that the Government would be justified in saying to coal dealers. "My friends, you have been defrauding the public in charging 34s. and 35s. per ton when you could have sold the coal at a smaller price, and got a fair margin of profit at that price." I think the Government ought to go a step further and say, "Having ascertained that you have made an enormous profit which we think is an illegitimate profit, we will put a special war tax on you, and make sure that coal in future will yield a fair price." I think it naturally arises out of the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the other case.
  The Government may say, "We cannot regulate the price of corn at any particular time. The Government had a chance of doing so at one time. Whether they can do it now or not, I am not certain. They might overhaul the operations of corn dealers during the past six months, and if they found that they had been taking advantage of the nation's need they could also put a war tax on them in the same way as upon coal dealers, and so control the price of corn thereafter. These are the lines on which I think the Government ought to have gone before, and I venture to think that they might take some action now. I represent part of a city which has been very hard hit by the landlords. I think, having said so much with regard to landlords, I ought to say a little more, and express my pleasure
  1828
  and surprise that they have not raised rents a great deal more than they have done. In Glasgow rents have been considerably increased. I have had forwarded to me two batches of notices sent out by collectors to tenants. I got these in response to a suggestion of the Prime Minister that I should supply detailed information. These two batches of notices cover, I should say, a thousand tenants in Glasgow whose rents have been put up since the War began. That accounts for the strong feeling in Glasgow, when taken in connection with the high price of food as compared with the price six months ago. That has contributed to the present industrial unrest.
  Finally, let me say a word in regard to the wages of Government workmen. The Government, if they thought that wages should follow prices, ought I think to show an example to other employers in that respect. They have not done it. They have, it is true, given some war bonuses to the men at Woolwich Arsenal. I believe there has been something of the same kind in regard to the dockyards. They are giving war bonuses and increasing the wages of Government workmen where the workmen are organised and in a position to force the hands of the Government. But in those cases where the people are helpless and unorganised, wages are a great deal lower than in the dockyards or at Woolwich Arsenal. Absolutely nothing has been given for these workmen during the time of the War. Everybody admits that some of these workmen have been scandalously paid for a number of years. The Government have been pressed from time to time to give advances and the workmen have been promised advances. I was induced to take a question off the Paper some time ago in respect to the lowest class, so far as pay is concerned, namely, pensioned messengers. The right hon. Gentleman, representing the Treasury told me that they were going to get a rise. I put down the question again last week, and the whole thing is in exactly the same position as it was in last November.
  With regard to port watchers, I have asked questions from time to time. The Government has been taking advantage of the fact that these men have a miserable pittance of a few shillings a week for pension. I might run through the whole list of Government workmen. It is the maddening delays on the part of Government Departments in connection with these matters

  1829
  that go very far to produce the feeling of labour unrest and to stop industry, which, I am sure, everybody in the House deplores. I hope that the Government will do something in the first place to reassure the House in regard to prices. I hope that they are going to follow up the action they have taken in regard to coal dealers. If the statement in the "Review of Reviews" is true, or anything like true, then the greatest possible publicity should be given to the facts. I hope that the Government will go on to deal with other commodities, such as corn and other things, that might be mentioned. I hope they will give us some indication of what they propose to do. I think the seriousness of the present position requires action of some kind. We on these benches are sincerely desirous to help the Government and the nation through the tremendous task which lies in front of us. We can only do that successfully if working people are assured that by the action taken by the Government they will be fully protected, and now that they have laid by the weapon which they have wielded for their protection on former occasions.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to emphasise some of the points made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). There is undoubtedly in many parts of the country considerable labour unsettlement at the present moment. I believe that strikes are as little desired by trade-union leaders and by workmen who are members of trade unions as they are by Members of this House. Large numbers of workpeople are asking that there shall be something like equality of sacrifice, and that there shall be fair dealing between the various sections of the community whilst this War is going on. I think there is need for sympathy and understanding, and I make bold to say that since the War broke out no section of the community has made greater sacrifices than the working people have done. They closed down hundreds of trade disputes at the beginning of the War. They have given themselves and their sons by hundreds and thousands to the Colours, and they have mitigated the rigour of their trade union rules when they thought that these would restrict the output. They have worked for six or seven hours a day for months continuously, and if there is unrest to-day it is because they wonder whether the truce is going to be all on one side. They are beginning to think that there ought to be
  1830
  a truce to the rise in food prices where the rise is due to the greed of a particular interest.
  The difficulty is that the working people are not brought face to face with the nation. The workpeople are, in the first place, brought face to face with employers and landlords, and they think that these people do not always rise to a great height of patriotism in their dealings with working people at the present time. I do not believe that the masses of the people in this country would grudge any sacrifice in the public interest, but they do not want their sacrifices to be taken advantage of by others. Incidents have been discussed in this House which have been discussed in workshops. There is, for example, the Meyer case. That has been discussed in every workshop in the country. They think it hard that a man should be obtaining payment of large commissions from the Government for himself at this time when they are asked to make heavy sacrifices.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is well known in regard to various matters with respect to Army supplies that things of the same nature have been happening. Take the case of leather for boots—Army boots. The price of leather has gone up 35 per cent to 50 per cent., and whereas the Government before the War bought a pair of boots at 11s. to 13s. they are now paying 18s. to £1 for the same quality. The other day a firm of Liverpool leather merchants issued a prospectus in order to attract new capital. They announced that for the twelve months up to the end of March, 1913, their profits amounted to £22,000, and up to the end of March, 1914, £26,000, while to the end of December, 1914, nine months, which included about six months of the War, the profits were £84,000. If that continues to the end of the present month—the end of the financial year—at the same ratio, the profits will have still further increased. These facts are known to the working people and there is no doubt that they are bound to have an influence on this question of unrest when sacrifices hive been asked. I may give an illustration to show that working people are not getting the lead which they might get from those who are able to afford it. In Barrow-in-Furness there is one of the largest and one of the very richest armament firms in the whole world. When the War broke out the police constable of Barrow-in-Furness, for reasons that seemed adequate to him regarding the

  1831
  special character of the town and the work done there, decided that the town should be proscribed both for friendly and enemy aliens. Up to a certain point that order was observed. Then Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim wanted supplementary Belgian labour inside the factory, and they asked the police constable to put aside that part of the order dealing with friendly aliens.
  That was done, and Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim brought down numbers of Belgian workers, who are now at work in their shipyards. In order to get this done, and while awaiting the time when these workmen should be fixed up and lodged in private houses, they took a large house and converted it into a hostel for the temporary accommodation for the working people. Having done that, they actually sent in a bill for £550 to a local charity raised in connection with Belgian refugees and tried to recoup themselves from that fund for their outlay. The mayor of Barrow-in-Furness wrote to them that, in his view the fund for Belgian refugees did not exist in order to increase the dividends of Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim. The mayor of Barrow-in-Furness issued an appeal to householders asking them, even if they did not require to take in lodgers, to remember the special congestion due to heavy pressure of work and to undertake the inconvenience of taking lodgers into their homes. Two women, a mother and daughter, did respond to this appeal of the mayor, though they had no need to take in lodgers, and the result was that, because they took in a lodger, in the following week the landlord raised the rent by 2s. 6d. a week.
  That sort of thing is talked about in workshops. It has all a very real bearing upon the question of unrest, especially while in the other direction we find a statement like the following from a trade union organiser regarding the condition of the women and girls who are employed by Messrs. Armstrong and Whitworth at their Elswick works. The girls there work twelve hours per day with one and a half hours break for meals, Sundays as well. They are working two shifts at present, and girls are working all night. They have been working three shifts, but the girls were half-dead, and they found that they had to stop it. Girls of seventeen get 8s. a week; girls of eighteen, 9s. a week; girls of nineteen, 10s. a week; and girls of twenty, 11s. a week; and in addition
  1832
  to this there is a bonus which seems largely to be used for the purpose of speeding up the girls. The average wage is low, and the girls have to put in work at a very high rate of speed. The bonus rate is: Sundays, 4½d. an hour; ordinary times, 3d. an hour. Some of the girls say that they have worked twenty hours at a stretch since the War broke out. Many times they have worked ninety-five hours a week since the War broke out. If the girls take a Sunday out there is deducted all the bonus which the girls earn during the week. These facts have got to be, and ought to be, honestly faced. When we get leading articles in the newspapers running down the working people, these facts should be taken fully into account and compared with the other facts which I have given in regard to firms of leather merchants and so on.
  The other day I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposed doing anything in regard to special profits made out of this War. There are certain interests that are being enriched by the War. Many employers are suffering loss as a result of the War. In Lancashire cotton employers, together with cotton employés, have suffered heavy loss as a result of the War. These special War profits are made not only out of the country as a whole, but out of the other employers as well, and it is entirely fair and equitable that a special tax should be placed upon these War profits to show that the Government does mean to impose some equality of sacrifice all round. There is no doubt at all that a large amount of the restlessness is due to the rise in food prices. When we raised this matter last in the House, the Government told us that our views were unpractical. I am afraid that the opinion of numbers of the working people will always be regarded as unpractical, to a large extent, in this House if they touch rents or dividends in any way. However that may be, if their views are unpractical, it is the practical business of the Government to put better views before the House and propose remedies to us, unless they are going to leave the whole question to the law of supply and demand, as was hinted at in various Debates. It does not seem to me that that is a very satisfactory solution of the difficulty, because if the law of supply and demand in all its rigour and nakedness is going to apply to food, then workpeople can claim that their labour also shall be subject to the law of supply and demand, and can take advantage of the law of supply and demand.

  1833
  Workpeople to-day are in a better position than ever they were to take advantage of the law of supply and demand for themselves if that is going to apply to the question of the price of food. I hope that neither workpeople nor employers are going to do anything of the kind. I believe that it would not be in the best interests of the country that any section shall take advantage of the country's difficulties merely to get all they can out of it. But that rule ought not to apply only to one section. It ought to apply also to farmers, shopkeepers and Army contractors, and every section who are enriching themselves at the present time. I would suggest that even the advances in wages that are taking place are not a complete solution of the difficulty—first, because the advance in wages does not apply to millions of people, many of them the very people who need it most. It is very often the most skilled and the best organised workpeople who are able to force an advance in wages, while old age pensioners, charwomen and badly organised women workers who are paid miserably low wages, are left to feel the full blast of the rise in prices. In the second place, if the Government are going to exercise no kind of control over food prices, I am afraid that very often, even when some increase in wages is given, it may be almost entirely taken back again by another turn in the wheel and another rise in the cost of living.
  I read the other day in a telegram from Sydney, New South Wales, the account of a speech by the Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Holman. In an address to the Trades and Labour Council, he outlined the Government's proposal for the cheapening and the better regulation of food supplies. The Government proposed to create a market authority which would have control of the whole food supply of Sydney in connection with the Imperial military supplies. Mr. Holman said the Government would in some three weeks' time be killing sheep and shipping them direct, no middlemen being employed, and facilities would be provided for the better supply of fresh provisions and for the rapid transport of food and vegetables to the Metropolis. Mr. Hall, the State Minister of Justice, outlined a scheme for the establishment of a State bread trust for the benefit of the people, which would result in the reduction by a penny a loaf on the present price of bread. At any rate, they do not regard these schemes in Australia as being Utopian.
  1834
  In my opinion, every month's delay will make these problems more difficult to grapple with. While the workpeople do not want a strike, least of all at the present time, they are asking that there shall be certain standards and safeguards in regard to working-class conditions. They are looking to the Government for some form of protection against exorbitant food prices and that the Government shall in some way see to it that advantage of the sacrifices which the working people would willingly make for the nation is not I taken by employers for their own ends and not for the ends of the nation. I do believe that industrial peace can be maintained, and maintained on a just basis. I am not in favour of schemes of compulsory arbitration. I do not believe that peace can be maintained by compulsion. I believe that it is justice and right doing and fair and honest dealing all round, and not any form of compulsion, that would promote peace.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I wish to ask one or two questions on the subject of the new British Dyes Company, which is one of great interest to my Constituents. In the first place, I would like to know what response has been made to the appeal for funds which has been issued by the new company? I desire, also, to know what would be the position of non-subscribers to this company? The prospectus stated that priority would be given to subscribers. There are certain people in my Constituency who are not able to afford to subscribe to this company and who want to know what will be their position when the company have done what they say they intend to do, that is, buy up the different works in the country and get their supplies from the largest manufacturers in Switzerland? How are the people who have not subscribed to this company going to fare when they want to get dyes from this company? I would also like to know if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robertson) has heard a rumour, and, if so, is there any truth in it, to the effect that four Swiss firms who are engaged in the manufacture of aniline dyes in Switzerland held a meeting in London last week and decided not to have anything to do with the new company? I trust that the hon. Member will reply to these questions.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The question of the rise in prices of food and coal is one of the most important questions connected with the War. Various

  1835
  reasons have been given for these rises. I think that the great reason is on account of the very large number of merchant ships, trawlers and yachts which have been taken up for the purposes of our Army and to do cruiser work. This is not the time to criticise a lack of cruisers, but I think it is time to show the Government that there is need of inquiry as to whether or not the Admiralty have taken too many ships. Whole fleets of vessels have been taken from certain trades, in addition to which the whole of the German mercantile fleets have been driven off the seas. This has caused a shortage of shipping which it is difficult to replace in a short time. It is these facts which have led to the rise in the price of coal. No doubt a great deal of the argument as to supply and demand is true, but I think the Government should look into the facts in order to see, knowing the shortage of shipping, on what ground certain capitalists and employers are putting up prices, and they should closely investigate as to whether the profits being received are reasonable in time of war. If their profits are too heavy, then it is very unfair to the poorer part of the population to leave prices as they are.
  I have very often in this House, beginning years ago, called attention to the fact that contractors should be narrowly watched. As a rule they are honest men, but there are singular exceptions, and, so far as I know, there has never been any contractor who has made great profits, or who has supplied goods that were bad to the Army and Navy for the use of men who are risking their lives and liable to be shot at any moment, who has ever yet been brought to book. The Grand Duke Nicholas had his contractors brought before him, and addressing them said, he had not much to say to them, but, he added, "There is one thing I wish to state: If you thieve I will hang the lot of you." I do not want to go so far as that, but I do think that any contractor who is found out in supplying bad goods to the Army or Navy, and making great profits, should be made to suffer most severely. That has never been done yet. I sympathise with the hon. Member who has brought forward the question about the prices of food. What has happened? The Admiralty have taken up something like 2,600 ships of the mercantile marine—merchant vessels, yachts, and trawlers.
  In regard to colliers, you must have them, and apparently they are kept three
  1836
  or four months with coal on board and without discharging it; they are sent to some particular place to which squadrons of destroyers can go to get coal. Therefore, this takes up more shipping than would appear to be necessary; but I do think the Admiralty have taken up too large a number of vessels, for I know that they are not used for war purposes. If we had a sufficient number of destroyers and cruisers they could patrol, as could our submarines, at a certain distance from each other, and the need of using merchant vessels, which really are not intended for such work, would not occur. But we have not a sufficient number of destroyers and cruisers, and I am not blaming the Admiralty for taking the ships; they could do nothing else in the circumstances, though they may have taken too many. The real question for consideration is the prices of food and coal, and the point we have to look at is the interest of our working population. This rise in prices is going to become worse if we do not watch it, and it is for the Government to look into it. The Government have plenty of means of knowing whether contractors are making too much profit, and they ought to begin to look into the matter in order to see that too much profit is not made, and also to ascertain whether the Admiralty cannot spare some of the ships they have taken. It is this large shortage of shipping which has run up freights and caused the rise in the prices of food, and I hope the Government will give us some assurance that it is watching this very narrowly, because, if it does not, the prices of food will go up a great deal yet. They will have to go up to a certain extent, but what I want the Government to watch is that they do not go up in a way to provide such profits as would, if unjustifiable, certainly be a hardship on the working population of this country.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am very glad to be able heartily to give the Noble Lord the assurance for which he asks, that the Government are keeping watch on all matters of which he has just spoken. I need hardly say to the House that the Government has followed with the deepest anxiety the whole question of prices from the opening of the War. In fact, the whole nation has followed it with anxiety, and it would be impossible for the Government not to share in the general

  1837
  concern which is felt on the subject. I will try to deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friends and by the Noble Lord in so far as they suggest some line of practical action which might have the desired effect of reducing prices, or of controlling the prices of coal and food. First of all with regard to coal prices, we are in this position: We quite recently appointed a very strong Committee—I can give the names to the House if they wish—who have been sitting for a fortnight. They have gone very fully into the whole question of coal prices, and their Report is actually in preparation at this moment.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: The Report has nothing whatever to do with naval coal or commercial coal, but purely domestic coal.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is the question of domestic coal which is raised.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The question is raised of the big profits on coal supplied to the Admiralty.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The question of contracts with the Admiralty is one that every Government would look into.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: There is the question of the supply of bad goods.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: All those points are important, but the subject with which I am dealing is that raised by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, namely, the prices of domestic coal, which have been very largely increased. The Committee has its Report actually in preparation, and I am really unable to discuss the question of what action should be taken, as the Report is not yet out. Obviously any action that may be taken would be determined by the recommendations submitted by the Committee; I really do not know what the recommendations are, and I am therefore unfortunately barred from any kind of answer on that point. I am only dealing with the general argument of my hon. Friend on the question of the proportion between the rise in wages and the rise in food prices, and also in regard to the rise in rents. I cannot, of course, discuss the particular illustrations given by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), but I would say generally that, in so far as such statements are true, they will undoubtedly have an influence on public opinion, and I would strongly press
  1838
  them upon the attention of the particular film concerned. With regard to a certain class of firms, I do not profess for a moment to endorse the charge that most of them have received exorbitant profits.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I made it perfectly clear that I advanced no general charge against employers, but I referred to selected interests.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I hope that the hon. Member's statement in regard to those selected interests will go forth to the public, and I am quite sure that, so far as they are considered, they will have a useful effect. I would point out, however, that in the case of some firms it should be remembered that they are doing six times the business they did before the War, and that this accounts largely for their increased profits. If they appear exorbitant, it should be recollected that they represent six times the amount of business previously done. Simply to take the total profits is not therefore, on all occasions, a fair indication as to whether they are exorbitant. As regards the possibility of undue profits being made by certain classes of firms, I can only say that I trust that the action of the Government under the latest Defence of the Realm Act may do something to reassure the workers as to their extra services and toil in the interests of the nation. Hon. Members are quite right in saying that the workers of the country are ready to make any sacrifice and undergo any toil if they can be satisfied that the nation will get the good of it, and, remembering that, I trust that the action of the Government under the last Defence of the Realm Act may have a reassuring influence in regard to them. But when it comes to the prices of food, I am bound to say that my hon. Friend is not at all clear, and the cogency of his suggestions is not at all in proportion to his eloquence. The hon. Member for Blackfriars referred to the question of rents in Scotland. I understand that it is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.
  Mr. BARNES: It is taking a long time to consider.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is not an easy thing to deal with. It is a very simple thing to call upon the Government to take drastic action, and to tell the Government that the workers feel that something ought to be done. Merely to point to the action taken in Australia is of very little help to

  1839
  the Government, who have to deal with a problem infinitely more difficult and complex than that which was dealt with by the Australian Government. I quite agree that it looks hard to say that the law of supply and demand must operate in regard to food prices, while, on the other hand, it is taken for granted that the workers will not seek to exact their pound of flesh by striking for the highest possible wages they can get. Put in that way, the case looks fairly hard. There is a kind of action possible to the Australian Government, but there is nothing equivalent possible to the Government here in connection with the control of prices in the market. What we did do early in the War was to secure the services of gentlemen in the grocery and provision trade, who gave us their guidance as to what were, in their opinion, reasonable prices. Those lists of reasonable prices were repeatedly published, and we had reason to believe they had a useful controlling effect, and, in fact, we have had cases brought to our notice of refunds actually made to customers by traders who had charged them something over those prices. Those prices were published from time to time up to the middle of October. We had, further, the services of gentlemen of the National Federation of Meat Traders, who gave us similar advice and counsel, and there, again, the publication of the prices suggested by them as reasonable had a useful, controlling effect on the market.
  If the Government had reason to suppose that, food prices are now being raised in any abnormal way there could readily be a return to the price lists of which I have spoken, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the rise in food prices, and, above all, the rise in wheat prices—bread prices—is not a matter of what used to be called engrossing by particular people. If it could be suggested for a moment that bakers or wheat dealers were holding up quantities of food for the purpose of holding up prices, then there might be a case for calling on the Government to take special action, but that is not the explanation of the rise in wheat prices. The wheat price is a world price, and it is affected by the conditions of the world's supply. We have given answers in this House showing that the prices here, sadly high as they are, especially for the poorer buyers, are not higher here than they are elsewhere, and that the prices really indicate a world
  1840
  price, and that as regards bread in particular, the bread price in New York is very much higher than the sadly high price here. If we had from the Argentine reassuring reports as to the harvest, and the promise of an abundant crop, that would have an instant effect on the price such as could not be in any sense hoped for in respect of any action which the Government could take. I suspect if we got highly satisfactory news as to the passage of the Dardanelles, and the prospects of a speedy passage of Russian wheat, then again we should be rewarded by an announcement of a fall in wheat prices. I can only say I do not think my hon. Friends have indicated in any practical way whatever what steps the Government could take that have not been taken.
  On the general question of the possible control of the whole supply of food, which was, I think, what the argument pointed to, I would remind them of the substantial and, I may say, colossal failure of the attempts of the German Government to regulate food prices before they were driven to the desperate measure of seizing the whole food supply of the country. I have not the least belief that the colossal operations which seem to be indicated by those suggestions, such as the seizure of all the wheat in the country, and the seizure of all the imports that came in—I do not for a moment believe that you could get any good results whatever in that way, because if you announced that you were going to sell at a lower price then, as has been pointed out repeatedly from this Bench, you would simply cut off the supply of the wheat you want. You cannot get wheat in this country below the world price. If you announced that you were going to seize the supply of wheat below the world price, you limit the quantity; then there would soon be no more to seize. In regard to the very troublesome and very trying question of freights I would remind the House of what was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the discussion on this subject some weeks ago. The high freights are a phenomenon calculated to give very serious concern to everybody and to the Government in particular, but how can you remedy them. The Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) and other hon. Members have suggested that the Admiralty might release more ships.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: More interned ships.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: All interned ships are being used, except a few sailing ships, which it seems, are not worth using. All that can be done in that way has been done, and if the Admiralty see their way to release further ships so much the better. That seems to indicate broadly all that can be done. I think I informed the House of the facts with regard to the interned alien ships that are being used for the coal coasting trade. The managers of those ships who are under the regulation of the Government have been instructed always to resist the rise in freight. They have done that to the best of their ability, and obviously they could not do more. If you were to offer the whole of that supply of shipping at pre-War freights, what you would be doing would be merely making a bonus of cheap freights to the people who could avail themselves of them, while the greater mass would have to pay the ordinary market freights. That is not a practical course. The practical course is to try and resist the rise and always to keep a little below the level of the market. I am quite sure that the managers have gone as far in that direction as they could go. If hon. Members have anything further in their mind on this subject it would seem to me simply to mean that seizure of the whole mercantile marine which my right hon. Friend discussed so effectively from this place a few weeks ago. The management of the whole mercantile marine would really be a monstrous undertaking. I am not disparaging for a moment the measures that have been taken by the Australian Government at Sydney; but those are really simple and small matters in comparison with the colossal undertaking which my hon. Friends below the Gangway are really suggesting.
  I think it was a little unworthy of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) to say that the Government soon wearied in well doing. There is no kind of action the Government have taken that has been discussed in this connection that has been abandoned from any want of zeal or any lack of enterprise. The application of all the Government Departments to their duties has been unwearying and unremitting, and I suppose the phrase about wearying in well doing was used by the hon. Member merely in a Pickwickian sense. It does not in the least describe what has happened. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division raised the question of a War Tax. It is not for me to discuss that but for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he is not prepared to do so at this
  1842
  stage of the Session. I would point out to the hon. Member that what he suggested does not appear to be really a War Tax at all. He said that some firms were making exorbitant profits, and profits at the expense of other employers, and I understood him to suggest that the money should be taken from those people, which, would appear to be an act of confiscation. It might be perfectly just if all that is said is true, but it is not a tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not prepared to discuss even generally the question of a War Tax, still less am I prepared to discuss what does not strike me as being describable as a tax at all. A tax is not laid on a few persons, or in respect of a particular class. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Super-tax?"] With regard to that tax, the persons are not selected on the ground that they have made exorbitant profits, but every man above a certain income is liable for that tax, no matter how he got his income.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars raised several questions with regard to some poorer classes of Governmental employés. He will not suppose me to be making light of them when I explain that, owing to the unfortunate absence of the Secretary to the Treasury, I am unable to give him information as to what has been done. I do know, with regard to several classes of the poorly paid Government employés, a number of schemes have been under consideration. Perhaps he will take my assurance that it is an extremely difficult thing to carry out those schemes of reform with the minuteness and care which they call for at a time when the Treasury, like every other Department, is enormously pre-occupied with special necessities arising out of war emergencies. I think I have dealt, so far as I can, with the questions raised by my hon. Friend, and there remains the questions of the hon. Baronet the Member for Prestwich (Sir F. Cawley). He asked me three questions, and the first was with regard to the response that has been made to the appeal for capital for the Dye Company. I am unfortunately unable to answer.
  Mr. BOOTH: Has it gone to allotment?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware.
  Mr. LOUGH: Are we to get any information?
  Sir F. CAWLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to the subscriptions?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Figures were indicated showing that a very large amount had been promised weeks ago. I have not got the latest figures. With regard to the case of the alleged refusal of the four Swiss firms to have anything to do with the company, again I can only say I have no information whatever. If the hon. Baronet has any information on the subject, and if he is aware that efforts have been made to induce the Swiss firms not to have anything to do with the company, I am sure we will all be grateful for the information.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: I did not suggest that anyone tried to influence the Swiss firms. My question is whether four Swiss firms had of themselves declined to have anything to do with the company?
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman give the latest figures, as it is desirable that the House should get some information?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no figures about the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the subscriptions have been coming in.
  Mr. BOOTH: The list closed on Friday.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that you cannot tell at the moment how much has come in. With regard to the more practical point raised by the hon. Baronet, namely, as to the position of non-subscribers, I read out the wording of the phrase in the prospectus with regard to priority of supply. I understand him to ask me now what is the position of the small men who are quite unable to subscribe at all. I am afraid if there are men who are so small in the way of business that they cannot subscribe at all, it would be very difficult to do anything for them. I cannot imagine what would be the position of those men if merely left to the operation of private enterprise. I cannot conceive of any such very small traders as those contriving to get supplies for themselves. I may say we have had applications from men in a small way of dyeing who were troubled on this very point, and who put this case to us: "We are small men as regards the power to subscribe, but we use a large quantity of dyes. Are you going to supply us with dyes only on the purely pro rata principle in exact proportion to what we subscribe?" I understand that those gentlemen, who are prepared to subscribe up to their means, are quite reassured and satisfied that they will be
  1844
  treated in a liberal and sympathetic spirit by the company, and that pro rata will not mean the exact proportion pound for pound of what is subscribed, but that their financial position will be taken into account. They will be treated as persons who are supporting the scheme so far as they can. Their case being met to their satisfaction, it would appear to me that the case of the small man has really been very fairly dealt with. If the hon. Baronet asks what we are to do for men in such a small way of business that they cannot take any share at all, I am rather at a loss.
  Mr. BOOTH: They may have their money locked up in their own business; they may be neither poor nor small.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The subscriptions required and the rates at which the money has to be paid up are settled on a very liberal scale, and I do not think that the few very exceptional cases indicated by my hon. Friend would turn out to be a very great matter. In any event, the case of the small man has been considered in a way that is declared to be satisfactory by the representatives of a considerable number of such traders.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We have just listened to one of the most impractical speeches that it has been my lot to hear for many years. The hon. Member talked about practicable schemes, and so far as shipping goes he justified the Government obtaining high prices for freight, practically two or three times those prevailing before the War, by saying that if the Government accepted lower rates, so that people could get cheap food or coal, it would be merely making a present to the people who carried the coal.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member is using a very loose expression—"lower rates." The Government does give its freights at lower rates. The expression I used was that if they were to go back to pre-War freights they would be making a bonus to certain people.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That is what I said.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is not.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think that when the hon. Member to-morrow reads what he said he will find that he justified the Government taking a rate two or three times as much as that which prevailed before the I War, because that is the rate at which I these interned steamers are being used at

  1845
  the present time. On that analogy any coal-owner who chooses to sell his coal below the market rate, as some have agreed to do, is merely making a present to the middleman. That is a very dangerous doctrine, to be preached, even in an academic speech from the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I said that the Government always gave instructions to give lower rates than the market rates.

STATE WAR FACTORIES.

  COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes, but you are still charging rates double in excess of what they were before the War. If a similar principle were adopted by the coalowners we should be told that it was robbing a particular class. Therefore I entirely dissent from that argument. I wish to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Defence of the Realm Act was under consideration we had a discussion on the question of compensation. Some of us thought that the House ought to deal with the matter and not refer it to a Commission. Can the right hon. Gentleman now give the House the names of the Commissioners who are to settle the amount of compensation to be paid when factories are taken over? While we are all anxious that no undue amount should be given, we desire that fair and just compensation should be paid. There is another question to which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give a sympathetic reply. As he is no doubt aware, the price of coal in Wales was advanced at one moment on Saturday by a further 5s. per ton. The price has now been advanced by from 70 to 100 per cent., but the miners in the meantime have not received a penny increase in wages. What is the feeling among the working classes when they see these large prices prevailing at a time when everybody ought to be workng in the interests of the nation to produce all the munitions of war possible?
  We see a natural unrest among the workers, when, for no reason whatever except that the demand is greater than the supply, prices are forced up to this enormous extent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say that when the time comes to introduce his Budget he will have very serious regard for these big profits that are being made, and will tax to the
  1846
  extent of 20s. in the £ the people who are making those profits over and above what they had before the War, he would put a stopper on this increase of prices. A certain selfish class of people want to take advantage of the necessities of the nation to make large profits during the War. I think the House feels very strongly that this is not a time for any section of the community, especially those who are unable to be fighting at the front, to make profits of this kind. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make a statement of the kind I have indicated, I think it will have a good effect, as people are not going to raise prices if they know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put his hand into their pockets and take out the extra profit.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am always delighted when I find Members of the House of Commons urging new taxation. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said as to the desirability of taxing these great war profits; it is a very useful suggestion, and one well worthy of consideration. I do not think it would be desirable at this moment to anticipate my Budget statement; so that I cannot say anything further in regard to that suggestion. As to the other point raised by my hon. Friend, when the Defence of the Realm Act was under consideration, I promised to inform the House if possible before it separated for the Easter recess, who the Commissioners were that we intended to invite to adjudicate on the question of compensation, and also to indicate the terms of reference. The terms of reference are as follows:—
  "To inquire and determine and to report to His Majesty's Treasury what sum in cases not otherwise provided for ought in reason and fairness to be paid out of public funds to applicants, not being subjects of an enemy state, resident or carrying on business in the United Kingdom, in respect to the direct and substantial loss incurred and damage sustained by them by reason of interference with their property or business in the United Kingdom, in the exercise by the Crown of its rights and duties under the Defence of the Realm Act."
  That will cover not only the case of the farmer, but the case of the man whose business has been taken over and of the man whose business has been knocked down. The composition of the Commission was a very difficult matter to determine; because, if you set up a commission of experts, you might have a man who has been an expert in one subject, but who knows nothing about others. We rather want to get it out of expert lines. They

  1847
  have been so much in the habit of estimating compensation upon very elaborate and settled principles which introduce all sorts of elements that we are not anxious to have introduced into the determination of this question. We thought on the whole it would be better to get men whose standing would commend them to the confidence of the country generally as fair-minded men rather than men who were experts in any particular line.
  Therefore we have invited the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) to take the Chair—a very eminent lawyer, with a very judicial mind. We have asked also to act Sir James Woodhouse, one of the Railway Commissioners, and Sir Matthew Wallace, a very eminent Scottish agriculturist. Those are the three Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter has consented to take the Chair. Everybody who knows how busy a man he is and how high is his standing in the legal profession must also know that when he accepts a task of this kind, which is a gigantic one, it is at very great sacrifice to himself; and I am sure the House will join me in expressing our gratitude to him for what he has done. Sir James Woodhouse is one of the Railway Commissioners, a very able man indeed, and I am sure his knowledge of business will be exceedingly useful in dealing with this question. Sir Matthew Wallace is a very able Scotch agriculturist. We thought that we ought to have a man with some practical acquaintance with agriculture; otherwise it would be rather difficult for the Commission to decide upon principles to be applicable to a new set of circumstances—the question of how much a farm is damaged in the cases we have in view. I am not in a position to give the name of the business man who will be chosen to superintend the business. That is still under discussion.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is there anything to be said as to the procedure of the Commission, or as to whether the persons alleged to be injured will be entitled to appear?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think we must leave all these questions of procedure to the Commissioners themselves; it is not for the Government to decide. I think that when we have men of this eminence and acquaintance with procedure, we might very well leave the matter for them.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are they unpaid?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I wish to call the attention of the House to the remarkable treatment by the Home Office of the Reigate Corporation. The hon. Member for Reigate (Colonel Rawson) would have raised the question himself had he not been serving with his regiment at the present time. The facts are shortly these: Last year the British Petroleum Company applied to the Reigate Corporation for a licence to store petroleum in that town. The application was refused on the ground that the building in which it was proposed to store the petroleum was unsatisfactory. The British Petroleum Company appealed to the Home Office, who sent down Major Cooper-Key to inquire into the matter. An arrangement was made by which the position of the building was altered, and it was arranged that a licence would be granted in due course. In the meantime war broke out, and when an application was made by the British Petroleum Company, the Reigate Corporation refused to grant the licence on the ground that they did not wish to encourage the trading of alien enemies in their midst. The next thing they heard was that the Home Office had granted a licence over their heads to the company, although that Department well knew that the licence had been refused because the Corporation had come to the conclusion that the company was really controlled by Germans. On 9th February last I put the following question to the Home Secretary:
  "To ask the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Redhill town council refused after the outbreak of War to grant a licence to the British Petroleum Company to store petroleum in Redhill on the ground that it was a German concern; and whether, when he decided to grant a licence over the heads of and against the wishes of the town council, he was aware that practically all the shares of this company were owned by the Europaische Petroleum Union, which is clearly a German entity carrying on business in Germany?"
  The answer I received was this:
  "Mr. McKenna: A licence was refused by the town council of Reigate on the ground stated. In allowing the appeal of the company against this decision, I was aware of the German interests in the company, but it is misleading to describe it as a German concern. The European Petroleum Company, which holds all but a few of the shares in the English company, though registered in Germany, is an international company and 50 per cent. of its capital is held by Belgian and Russian interests. The employés of the British company are all British, and 350 of them are serving with the Colours. The licence was not granted until power had been given by the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act to prevent any dividends or profits being paid to German shareholders. A supervisor of the business has been appointed by the Board of Trade under that Act, The company are very large distributing agents throughout the United Kingdom, and hold, I understand, large contracts with the War Office and Admiralty, and great public inconvenience would be caused if the company were not allowed to hold licences."—OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th February. 1915, col. 413, Vol. LXIX.]

  1849
  I gather from that answer that there were two reasons why the Home Secretary took this rather unusual step of riding roughshod over the corporation, without giving them any opportunity to put before him their reason for refusing this licence. One reason was that the Home Secretary does not think that this company is a German concern, and the second was on the ground of public convenience, and on the ground that as the War Office and the Admiralty are trading with this company, it would be against the interests of the country to refuse the licence to the British Petroleum Company. I would like to point out to the House that the British Petroleum Company is really in a very curious position. This company is registered in England. Practically all the shares are owned by the European Petroleum Company, which is registered in Germany. The Home Secretary seems to contend that because the British Petroleum Company is registered in England it is English—it does not matter who the shareholders are—but as regards the European Petroleum Company, because it is registered in Germany it is not German: it is international because some of the shareholders live in different countries. I would like to ask a question of the representative of the Home Office: Does he think that the registration of a company denotes its nationality, or is it its shareholders? According to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me, in one case he takes the registration to denote nationality, and in the other case he takes the shareholders.
  I notice that this very question of the nationality of these two companies has been already raised. The curious thing is this: That while the Home Secretary tells me in this House that it is misleading to describe this company as a German concern, the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General in the Law Courts not only describes it as a German concern, but convinces the President of the Court that it is so. The President in summing up says—I will quote his words—"This is clearly a German company and one which I shall refer to as the German Company." This was in a case where a ship carrying oil which belonged to the European Petroleum Company was seized and the contents confiscated on the ground that this was a German company. It is rather difficult to form an opinion when we find that one right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite says that it is misleading to describe it as a German concern, and another one
  1850
  proves to the satisfaction of the Law Courts that it is so.
  The other reason that the Home Secretary gave for granting this licence was that this is a British Petroleum Company, that it is a company which is trading with the War Office and the Admiralty, and great public inconvenience would be caused if the company was not allowed to hold the licence. I do not suppose the hon. Member who is to answer for the Home Office will contend that it really matters one jot to the War Office or the Admiralty whether or not a licence is granted to the British Petroleum Company in Reigate, so that there was no particular reason or haste for taking this step over the heads of the local authorities in Reigate. If it is so important in the public interest that this company should continue to trade with the War Office and the Admiralty, I would suggest to the hon. Member that the Government should exercise those powers which they have taken upon themselves of late and take over this company altogether and so avoid the feeling which I think is justified in many quarters that alien companies or companies which are practically alien—which are either controlled or largely owned by aliens have at the present time been receiving a preference at the hands of certain Departments of the Government. I think that when there is any doubt about such things at the present time, the Government should not go out of their way to grant facilities either to aliens or to alien companies trading in this country. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me some reason—some definite reason—for treating the corporation in such a high-handed manner by granting the licence without in any way referring the matter to them or giving any explanation at all.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne that there was no intention on the part of the Home Office to ride rough-shod over the corporation of Reigate, or to treat it otherwise than in an entirely regular and courteous manner. He, I am sure, is not aware of the procedure which governs the granting of licences in these cases. The first body to apply to is the local authority, and a great majority of these licences are granted by the local authority. In certain cases, however, the Home Office intervenes. By certain provisions of the Act of 1871 there is expressly reserved to the

  1851
  Secretary of State the right to grant a licence over the heads of the local authority. I personally attempted to reassure the hon. Member in this respect that no power of licence of the Home Office favoured any particular petroleum company, nor did the Home Office intervene in any unusual way on behalf of any such company. The sole consideration before the Home Office is the convenience and need of public supply. The hon. Gentleman has said a good deal about the nationality of this company. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sufficiently explained that matter in his answer to the question put by my hon. Friend, and which he has read to the House.
  No doubt the parent company, the European Petroleum Company, has an international complexion—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be inclined to say, too much German complexion. The company with which we are dealing is the British Petroleum Company. Although I understand that a considerable number—the vast majority—of the shares of the British company are held by the European company, we have to remember that the British company, according to the law of the land, according to the Trading with the Enemy Act, is a British company. The Home Secretary, therefore, is not entitled to go behind the law as it stands. He is obliged to treat this company as a British company, and not to have any regard to any consideration that may possibly be attached to it in respect of its German connection. The Home Office had no desire to override the Corporation of Reigate—to ride rough-shod over it. It is simply, as I understand it, a matter of considering the needs of the public services. I should explain that the proceedings with regard to the particular licence have got to a more mature stage than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne is aware of. It appears that early last year the Petroleum Company applied to the Corporation of Reigate for a licence. Owing to some technical difficulty, of which I have no information, there was a difference of opinion between the two, and an inquiry was held, as the hon. Gentleman says, on 13th May last. The local authorities then withdrew their objection, and, according to my information, the town clerk wrote to the company on 20th June to the effect that the Watch Committee had recommended that the company should
  1852
  receive their licence. Again, on 9th July, the town clerk wrote to the company to say that the council had confirmed the recommendation of the Watch Committee, and that the licence was being prepared. On that information the company proceeded to build its petroleum stores. It was not until after all these events that the town council of Reigate decided to refuse the licence on the ground that this was a German company. I submit, again, that it was not for the Home Office to adopt this entirely novel ground for refusing the licence to this company. A public authority like the Home Office is bound to take the law as it finds it. This company is a British company according to Statute and Proclamation—as British as any other in the Kingdom.
  Perhaps I may be permitted to point out to the hon. Member that, supposing the Home Office had declined to meet the appeal of the company and had refused the licence, it would not have been a matter for serious consideration in the case of Reigate—although we have no information as to that. But if this policy were adopted all over the country the greatest possible disadvantage would follow at the present time to the public services. I may inform the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne that this company has large contracts with the Admiralty and the War Office. The matter might not be of great importance to Reigate. If, however, this policy were adopted—and there are indications of there being a desire to adopt it on a large scale—there is not the slightest doubt whatever that people generally would adopt it, and there would be the greatest possible disadvantage—perhaps even danger—to some of these important public services. I have been in communication with the War Office since this question was raised, and I am assured that the supplies of this company—I need not go more into particulars—are necessary to the efficient services of the War Office in many parts of the Kingdom. I think on the statement of the facts of the case, the House will agree—and I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne will agree—that the corporation of Reigate have no serious grievance, and that the Home Office have, in point of fact, acted in the interests of the country.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Last week the attention of the House was drawn to the preference which, in some cases, was given to non-professional soldiers over

  1853
  those who have given the work of their life to making themselves proficient in their profession. I want for a moment to-night to draw the attention of the House to an analogous case—the preference which is given in some cases to officers and men serving in the new formation over men who joined the Territorial Army in time of peace. Apart from the question of justice, I think it is very important that the War Office should avoid giving the impression to men in the Territorial Army that because they joined in time of peace, and did what they could to render themselves efficient, they are to be penalised in time of War in promotion and in pay. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that men in the Territorial Force who volunteered for foreign service should suffer in respect of promotion. That is inevitable because the Territorial Force is now divided into two classes, those who volunteer for foreign service and those who do not.
  Thousands of men by signing the form which undertakes an obligation for foreign service have put back their own promotion. They have seen men who would not accept this obligation, who were junior to them in the Territorial Force before the War, going to the Reserve and being given very rapid promotion. Nobody grumbles at that; one recognises it is inevitable. But, in view of this inevitable hardship on the Territorial, I do think the War Office ought to go out of their way to avoid discriminating between men who are joining the New Armies and men who already find themselves in the Territorial Force. At the present time there are many cases in which the Territorial suffers as compared with the member of the New Army, not only as regards promotion but also as regards pay. Of course, the case which I want to make to-night really applies to the man whose services are on all fours with the man who joins the New Army. I am not talking of the man who does not accept the obligation of foreign service, but the Territorial who since the new Army Order is liable to foreign service in the same way as a man who joins Kitchener's Army, and I claim he ought to have the same treatment.
  I will only take one case, that of doctors. Doctors in the Territorial Force in many cases have come out at disastrous results to their professional positions and prospects. In many cases they only had two days' notice. At that time it was absolutely impossible to find a locum tenens.
  1854
  Cases have been brought to my notice where men came away from practices which they had built up for themselves by years of painstaking attention, and they had to leave those practices without anyone to look after them for six or eight weeks. These men, who have probably reached comfortable positions financially, suddenly found their income reduced to 14s. a day. That income was, no doubt, reasonable enough for the annual training, but they feel that it is most unjust that, while they are receiving 14s. a day, doctors who are now joining the New Armies with the same rank of lieuteant are receiving 24s. a day and allowances in addition. You are giving the best pay to those who have made the least sacrifices.
  In many cases, doctors who join the New Armies are only just qualified. I am informed that the examining body of medicine and surgery who, in past times were passing only 55 per cent. of the candidates are now passing 90 per cent., and a very large proportion of these newly-qualified doctors are joining the New Armies. Even in the case of men who have given up practices, their sacrifices have been considerably less than the Territorials, because those men have in many cases taken four or five months to arrange about a locum tenens and put their affairs in order. It is probably necessary to make some distinction. I do not say it is possible or reasonable that you should pay the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps officer in the same way that you pay the officer in the same class in the New Army; but I think you have drawn your line in the wrong place. You ought to have drawn it not between one class of casual medical officer who will come back to civilian employment and another, but between the permanent Army doctor and the temporary one.
  Pay which is suitable enough for a permanent Army doctor is quite insufficient for a man who is much older, and probably has got a family to keep, and who has made a very large sacrifice of his civilian practice. The permanent Army doctor has got a pension assured to him at the end of his period of service, but, of course, there is no pension offered to the Territorial who throws up his practice. The Army doctor is younger and he probably has not got a wife and family to keep on 14s. a day, the pay of an Army Medical Corps subaltern. When your temporary doctor returns to civil life he finds his practice is gone and he will probably have to work right up again from the beginning.

  1855
  I know what the War Office answer is. It is that these Territorial medical officers contracted during peace time on certain terms, and it is only reasonable that they should carry out their bond; that the War Office has to go out in the open market and buy men for what their services will fetch. That is not a fair answer.
  It is not true that the Territorial medical officer is carrying out the contract which he undertook in time of peace. It is not so in two respects. First of all, in time of peace he only made himself liable for service at home. The vast majority of Territorial medical officers, the only ones for whom I am pleading, have accepted the obligation to serve abroad. Again, these men joined in a particular unit. They were distinctly given to understand that, though they were members of the Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force), they would be definitely attached throughout the whole period of their service to a selected unit. A few weeks ago they received a circular that it was impossible, in view of the dearth of officers, to retain that system which had been maintained in the Territorial Force prior to the outbreak of hostilities, so that in two respects these doctors for whom I am pleading are in an absolutely different position from that which was contemplated when they joined the Territorial Force.
  It is quite true they joined at a particular pay, but they trusted to the fair-play of the War Office, and they felt sure that if the War Office felt that they were receiving less than a reasonable rate of pay, and found it necessary to pay more to other men with less qualifications, they would be allowed to share the same advantage. I think that this action of the War Office in giving 10s. a day more to the man who comes forward and joins now than they are giving to the man who bore the heat and burden of the day, is encouraging the wrong spirit. You want to appeal to patriotism, and do not want a man to wait and haggle for better terms, and if you go on with this system I am afraid, instead of helping recruiting, you will put it back very much and you will probably cause a ring among certain classes of labour needed for the new Army, artisans and mechanics, and you will find it impossible to get men at reasonable rates at all.
  On the particular case of doctors, I should like to say that I hold in the greatest honour every doctor whenever he joins. I recognise that they are all doing
  1856
  their work, not only with efficiency, but with heroism; but I ask in the case of the men who joined in time of peace you should avoid raising a burning sense of injustice. The case of veterinary officers is almost on all fours, and so is the case of the shoeing-smiths and the men called away from the smithies. Many of these men are master smiths who could not arrange for their businesses to be carried on in their absence, and they are getting a very much smaller rate of pay than the men now being taken for the new Army. It is just the same with the motor drivers. The Territorial motor drivers get 1s. 2d. a day, while the motor drivers in the New Army receive 6s. a day. There are many other classes such as cooks and saddlers, the details of whose pay I need not go into. The fact may not be realised by the War Office that the Territorial now sees that, although he made a greater sacrifice and came out at a time of national emergency, he is worse off than the man who waited and haggled about terms. I would ask that all men who have taken up soldiering as a temporary measure in response to their country's need should be treated alike, and you should not treat the Territorials, who joined before or at the outbreak of hostilities, in a way which penalises them as compared with the men who have joined for the War.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: The complaint I wish to bring before the House is in regard to the veterinary surgeons in the Territorial regiments, and it is very much the same complaint as that which has been raised by my hon. Friend. To my knowledge there are many men who have left practices worth from £600 to £800 a year, from patriotic motives, in order to do something towards bringing this War to an end and making themselves useful. Some of these veterinary surgeons are well known in the towns and districts of England, and they have joined the Territorial Force. At the present moment, no doubt because veterinary surgeons are so much wanted in the Army—I know from my own knowledge how much they are wanted—officers who now join and take temporary commissions get the following advantages over veterinary surgeons who joined the Territorial regiments at the beginning of the War. In the first place, they get a grant of uniform; in the second place, they get a bonus of sixty days' pay for each twelve months' service; and, thirdly, they get a gratuity of sixty days' pay also when they sign on. It is very galling to

  1857
  skilled veterinary surgeons who have been for many years practising their business to find that young men who have only just passed through their examination can join the Army and can get much better terms than they get. I think it is a great mistake that any sense of injustice should be left in the minds of these veterinary surgeons. They are an extremely well-known class of people.
  In the country town the veterinary surgeon probably knows everybody in the place; he is a hail-fellow-well-met with the farmer class, and he is probably one of the very best known people in the district, and that these men who, for patriotic motives, have joined the Territorial Force as veterinary surgeons, should feel that they are not being properly treated does not add prestige to the Army. The veterinary surgeons of this country are far too good fellows to make any unnecessary disturbance, more especially if they thought their action would do anything to injure in the slightest manner our Army at the present time. But there is a burning sense of injustice amongst them at the present time. I have in my hands a letter from a veterinary surgeon I know very well, and I can answer that what he writes is absolutely true. I do ask, therefore, that the Government should put the veterinary surgeons who join for the War, and who are willing to go out on active service, whether they have joined the Territorial Force or Lord Kitchener's New Army, on the same terms, and let them have the same benefits. I ask the Government to remember that many of these men have thrown up good practices, and, in some cases, have put someone to look after their practices, while some see their business going to the winds because they are doing the right thing and, from patriotic motives, have volunteered their services to do the best they can.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not that I feel very strongly that the Government are, inadvertently no doubt, but still with really serious consequences in my opinion, treating the Territorials very differently from what they treat the men who join the Army to-day. Territorials recognise the importance of the country preparing to meet emergencies, and I am bound to say that I think the establishment of the Territorials has proved a very considerable success. Men have given a great deal of time and been put to expense to qualify to defend their country, and it is rather
  1858
  hard, after they have made those sacrifices, that they should be paid so much less than is the case with the men who join the Army to-day. I mention veterinary surgeons—a point that has been dealt with so ably by my hon. Friend—but I wish also to mention the case of the motor dispatch riders in the Territorials, who have rendered great service. I know that in Devonshire we have had men who have become greatly experienced in motor dispatch riding, These men are receiving 1s. 2d. a day, with twopence towards their outfit, whereas if they had postponed joining and had joined Lord Kitchener's Army at the last moment they would now be getting 5s. a day for doing precisely the same work.
  There are many men in the Devon Regiment who have volunteered to go abroad, and they are receiving 1s. 2d. a day, with an allowance of 2d. for repair of kit, whereas the men who joined the Engineers have 3s. a day, and that is not too much, while those who joined Lord Kitchener's Army have 5s. a day. I think this inequality is most unjust, and it is a deterrent to patriotic men devoting their time to the service of their country in times of peace in order to qualify to defend their country. I appeal to the light hon. Gentleman to do something to make the remuneration of motor dispatch riders a little more equal than it is at present. It seems monstrous that men who have devoted some years to the learning of their profession should have to be content with 1s. 2d. a day, whereas the men who are joining now are getting 5s. a day. More than that, I think the Government are responsible for misleading these men in some direction. In the Territarial drill halls there were indications put up to men to join as dispatch riders at 5s. a day. I know that some of these men joined with the anticipation that they would ultimately have 5s. a day, and they are now very much disappointed to find that they have only 1s. 2d. I think a slight increase has been made to about 1s. 4d., but that is most inadequate, remuneration, because some of these men are farmers who have left their farms at considerable pecuniary loss, and merely to have this pittance necessitates their sending home for money to maintain themselves while in the service of their country as dispatch riders. We recognise the importance of economy in this eaormous expenditure on the War, but this cheeseparing must be a deterrent, and I hope this

  1859
  question of the remuneration of veterinary surgeons and motor dispatch riders in the Territorial Force will receive some attention at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: On Thursday last my hon. Friend the Member for the Chertsey Division of Surrey (Mr. Macmaster) raised a question in regard to an alternative to the rum ration, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with his characteristic courtesy, asked me, as I had asked a supplementary question, whether I could suggest anything instead of the rum ration which is being given to the troops at the present time. Since that date I have read the controversy which has taken place in the "British Medical Journal" in regard to this matter, and, as many eminent doctors differ in regard to the value of the rum ration and also in regard to other liquids which might possibly be taken, I will express no opinion, except that if it is possible, I think it would be wise to find an alternative of some kind. I understand that there are in the Army a very large number of men who have always been teetotalers. These men in many cases are Good Templars, and I understand that they lose their benefits through taking the rum ration when on Service. It seems to me, if it is possible to find an alternative to the rum ration, that it would be wise for the War Office to give it to the troops.
  A difficulty arises in regard to beating. I understand that in many cases it is practically impossible to obtain hot water when required, in order to give something else which stimulates in the same way as rum. I do not claim to have any particular knowledge in regard to these questions, but since last week I have had put before me by various persons various beverages, and I should like to say, if it were possible to find hot water, that it would be well to give either Bovril or Oxo, or some meat extract of that kind, to those who are not able conscientiously to take the rum ration. I understand also that one motor kitchen carries enough Oxo, with the necessary amount of water, for giving rations to 5,000 men. I dare say, therefore, that on many occasions it might be possible to give the troops something of that kind. I believe the best cold beverage that could be given—I have formed this view from evidence put before me—is Horlick's malted milk, or some
  1860
  condensed milk of some kind. I do not know whether the troops would consider this suitable for the purpose, or whether it would be acceptable for them, but, as the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question with regard to the matter, I have thought it only right to answer him and to say, if it is felt by the War Office to be possible to give an alternative to the rum ration which is acceptable to the troops, I hope that they will see their way to make the change.
  Major MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I am sure I have only to show that a slight injustice has been done to certain officers, and the right hon. Gentleman, from whom one always meets with great courtesy when he makes a suggestion, will at once see that it is put right. When the pay was increased last November the effect on the majors and captains of the Army Service Corps was as follows: The pay of a major was raised from 13s. 7d. to 15s., and at the same time his corps pay was reduced from 5s. 4d. to 4s. The result is that a major instead of receiving £20 7s. 6d. for 30 days receives £22 10s. The Income Tax, however, is taken off, and whereas that used to amount to £1 0s. 5d. it now amounts to £1 2s. 6d., so that there is a slight loss there. The effect with regard to the corps pay is that whereas he used to receive £8 he now only receives £6. The net result, therefore, is that at the end of 30 days the whole of the benefit he receives is 5d. The case of the captain is different. His pay was raised from 11s. 7d. to 12s. 6d., and his corps pay was reduced from 4s. to 3s. The result is that whereas he formerly got £17 7s. 6d. pay for 30 days he now gets £18 15s., while his corps pay has been reduced from £6 to £4 10s. The net result is that although his pay has been raised from 11s. 7d. to 12s. 6d. he actually loses 3s. 10d. Something of the same sort obtains in the Artillery with regard to the heavy batteries through the reduction in the armament pay, although the nominal pay has increased. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, the War Office, and the Government are all most anxious to avoid any injustice to these officers and that I have only to point this out and they will do their very best to meet this real grievance of a very deserving lot of officers.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I wish to call attention to the serious mortality and sickness which has occurred in Army horses in the

  1861
  camps in England, owing to their being pegged out in places which were often exposed and unsuitable during the past winter. This has a humanitarian side, and it has also an economic side. It is our duty to see that no horses are exposed to unnecessary suffering, and we ought also to attend to the economic side, and see that the taxpayer is exposed to no unnecessary cost. This matter has this special peculiarity. Horses are not like other stores which can be multiplied almost at will. It is very difficult to replace troop horses during war time. That is an additional reason why we should be careful to avoid any unnecessary loss. I do not raise this question out of any desire for carping criticism or to find fault with the War Office. I realise that every man at the War Office has done his utmost during this War, and I think the nation is grateful to them for it, but there are certain matters which have occurred in this connection to which I should like to call attention, because it is possible that they may be able to avoid unnecessary losses among the horses in the future.
  What happened was this. Horses were commandeered and bought in very large numbers. Many came from private stables, often too hot stables, and they were at once turned into open, exposed places without any shelter of any sort or kind. They were placed in camps often badly chosen, up almost to their hocks in water or mud, and the necessary result was that they suffered from cold, pneumonia, and other diseases, producing in many cases death. How many died I do not know. I dare say I should be far below the mark if I said hundreds. It is more likely that thousands died. I have heard it said that you must harden horses in order to fit them for service abroad. Yes, but you should do it gradually. You should not take them straight out of warm stables and put them in exposed places. If you take a horse and turn him out loose he may not suffer so much, as he can move about and choose any natural shelter there may be, but if you picket a horse and tie him up so that he has to lie down in mud and water, and if he is without any shelter, natural or otherwise, he must suffer. I am going to ask attention to two or three specific cases, which have been brought to my attention by persons who have had adequate means of knowing the facts, and have done their best to make accurate observations.
  1862
  The first case is that of the Remount Depôt at Swaythling, near Southampton. There the horses were picketed out in the open, without any natural or artificial shelter; the fields were almost a quagmire, and pneumonia and other diseases resulted, It is stated that, in Christmas week alone, thirty horses died, and in the previous week some seventy-five. Then there is the Avonmouth Camp case. There the stables were placed, in the first instance, in a low-lying hollow. Huts were erected for the horses, but the hollow became, in a very short time, a swamp. The horses suffered severely, and eventually the stables had to be taken higher up the hill, on to a ridge, where, no doubt, the animals fared better. But my information is that, on the 20th February, there were nearly 600 horses sick from exposure in that camp. I mentioned the case of the Hursley Camp the other day. I said that when the 8th Division left Hursley in November last, 500 sick horses were left behind. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to inform me, by letter, that of these 500 horses only thirty have since died, the rest having recovered. I am exceedingly glad to hear it.
  Then there is the Winchester district camp. My information is that between the 10th November and the 19th December a very large number of horses were picketed out there, and no fewer than 308 died and their bodies were removed from the lines by knackers, while twenty others were buried by the Military authorities. In one week in January it was snowing, and the weather was very bitter indeed. Six hundred horses were picketed out without any shelter, artificial or natural, and, in the week ending the 23rd January, no fewer than five horses died. The last case to which I wish to refer is that of Cambridge. In January of this year there were a considerable number of horses of the Field Artillery picketed out on Midsummer Common, not a very pleasant place, as those acquainted with the locality well know. This winter, unfortunately, the common was deep in water and mud. There was a good deal of cold and coughing amongst the horses, and considerable mortality resulted. I am informed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that their attention was drawn to this state of things, and that they did their utmost to relieve and help the horses, by supplying them with artificial shelters and with a good many rugs, no doubt with good effect.

  1863
  Let me recall what the right hon. Gentleman told me on the 17th of last month. He said that little or no mortality could be directly attributed to the exposure of Army horses alone. I cannot but think that if one-tenth of the information which I have on the subject is well founded, that is really too optimistic a view. We have all seen horses picketed out in extremely exposed situations and in places where they have had to lie in mud and water. I cannot believe it is possible, under these circumstances, that there was not much mortality in consequence of the exposure. It is really inconsistent with what one knows of horses. I dare say there were other causes of mortality, such as infectious diseases—infectious pneumonia, for instance, which, I believe, is not due to exposure, although it is possible that, if a horse is in a weak condition owing to exposure, it is more liable to suffer and die from that disease. But my information goes to show that there must have been a large amount of mortality due to exposure.
  May I make one or two suggestions, for what they are worth, to the War Office. One is, that they should use special care in the selection of sites for camps for horses. With regard to the Avonmouth site, I am told that adequate care was not taken. I am not blaming the War Office. I know the enormous amount of work which was cast upon it, but I think they would be wise to take the advice of local people who know the site, who know what the fields are likely to be in the winter, and who also know the nature of the soil. Another suggestion I should like to make is that, when possible, sick horses should be put in stables. I know that, in cases of infectious disease, people do not like their stables to be so used, but, in many cases, I am convinced that horses suffering from cold, or similar trouble, if put into proper stables, would probably have their lives saved. There is one other matter, a relatively small and unimportant one, and that is the question of rugs. If you put a rug on a horse when it is picketed out and it gets thoroughly wet, and if you leave the rug to dry upon the horse's back, it acts as a kind of poultice, and is the cause of very serious mischief to the animal. If they are to have rugs the War Office might consider the question of supplying them with waterproof rugs, such as are used in New Zealand, where horses are largely kept in the open and where these rugs are found to be of great advantage.
  1864
  The last suggestion I would make is that there should be as frequent and as complete an inspection as possible. There, again, I know the difficulties owing to the enormous number of horses, but I am sure the War Office will do their best to see that their competent staff of veterinary and other officers should inspect the sites and horses as much as possible. I make these suggestions in the hope that they may be favourably considered, and that the very serious losses which have already occurred should be arrested.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Pike Pease) has been good enough to make suggestions to me by which it is hoped that an alternative may be found to the rations for that large and growing body of men who object on principle of taking alcohol to be supplied as an alternative to rum in the trenches. I can assure him that I will bring to the notice of the Director of Medical Services and the Director of Supplies the suggestions he has made, and I dare say, if we all try together, we may find something which it will be suitable and possible to provide to that very deserving class of total abstainers.
  I welcome the opportunity which the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has given me of making a short statement upon the position of our remount camps and the condition of the horses in them. Everyone will sympathise with the questions which he has brought to the notice of myself and my colleagues in the War Office, and of Members of this House, namely, the question of cruelty, which is a most important one, and the economic question, which is only second to that. I should like to assure him and the House that the officers who are charged with the duty of seeing to the horse population are very zealous and attentive to their duties, are fully seized of the great responsibility under which they work, and are most anxious to do nothing by which any member of the horse population would suffer. Having said that, I should like to explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman what these various depots are. Swaythling is a depot for heavy draught horses only. I mean by that that the great bulk of the horses there are of a heavy draught character. As he knows, the heavy draught horse is more prone to sickness and disease than the lighter type of horse—in fact, it is rather a strange product and not a natural one.

  1865
  9.0 P.M.
  This is the depot for horses which have been drawn from all parts of the world, although principally from this country, before they cross the water to France and Belgium. This class of horse has been discovered to be, and is well known to be, peculiarly susceptible to the contagious form of pneumonia which is the principal cause of the mortality which has occurred. I am told that somewhere about 80 per cent. of the cases of sickness and death is due to contagious pneumonia. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right when he says that the form of contagious pneumonia is quite distinct from one's ordinary idea of pneumonia caught by the human being from cold and exposure. Pneumonia from chill is practically non-existent in horses, although the hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that other illnesses may be derived from exposure and chill. These horses have to be brought together somehow. You cannot keep them isolated in the way that they have been accustomed to be, either housed or treated in small groups of six or ten. We have to take them in very large camps, and we have horse hospitals which contain as many as 1,200 horses. Unfortunately, one horse bringing contagious pneumonia into a camp makes it possible for the whole of the camp to be infected. It is almost impossible to avert the possibility of infection. Nearly the whole of the illness which has occurred in all the camps is due to this fact. The Avonmouth camp is a receiving depot for horses from Canada and America. A large number of horses which came from that part of the world have been infected, unfortunately, with this very contagious disease. So bad has it been that out of 80,000 horses sent to a particular port in Canada for shipment to this country no less than 2,000 had to be killed or died before they were put on board ship. That will give the House some idea of the amount of sickness and illness which comes from that cause. A great number of the horses get sick on board ship. At Avonmouth we have all classes of horses, not only the heavy draught horses. The next camp mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman was Winchester, which is a receiving hospital only for sick horses left behind by the Divisions mobilising in the Southern Command. There, again, we take all classes of horses. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that at Avonmouth in the month of February there were 400 sick horses.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I said there were 600 sick horses.
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not deny those figures, although I am not able to corroborate it. I may tell him this, that approximately on the date in question there were 588 horses in that camp, and in that week fourteen died and three had to be destroyed, making a total of seventeen.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the cause of the deaths?
  Mr. TENNANT: The individual causes are not given, but about 80 per cent. of the total of these illnesses in all these camps is put down to contagious pneumonia. Strangles may have broken out, and perhaps the horses really died from strangles. I am unable to give further information, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that sometimes horses have to be destroyed through accidents and other causes. In the case of the 8th and 27th Divisions, when they mobilised there was, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, a certain number, a rather larger number than usual, of badly infected horses suffering from contagious pneumonia and also some cases of strangles. At Cambridge we have no record of undue sickness of horses. The figures which have been given to me are that out of 80,000 horses, fifty-four deaths occurred in December, and fifty in January. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would think of those figures, it is not a very large number out of 80,000. That is the kind of mortality which must be expected. I do not think we could possibly do without a mortality of about that number. I want to say, generally, what the relative mortality is between horses at home and horses at the front. At the front there is complete exposure. There is no stabling at all. The horses are absolutely in the open, and there they live under infinitely worse conditions than they would do here. The climate is colder than here, and there is no protection of any kind in the way of hills. It is absolutely a flat country where they are, and there has been this terrific rainfall in the winter and conditions of mud and slush unequalled, I suppose, by anything we know of. They are also exposed, of course, to shot and shell.
  Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman including the remount camps abroad or only the horses at the front?
  Mr. TENNANT: The whole of the horses, including the remount camps and the horses actually, engaged in active operations in the field. At the present rate of deaths and destruction it works out at something like 15 per cent. per annum from all causes. That is including horses which were lost in the retreat from Mons. That is a very singular and significant fact. It shows that in spite of the great exposure, it is not exposure that kills them, and it is not the conditions which the hon. and learned Gentleman somewhat fears. We should not have had anything like so much mortality here if we could have avoided contagious pneumonia; but horses being brought from all parts of the world have had to be massed together somewhere, and any spot of infection produces this very great mortality. So to set against all the deaths from shot and shell and the bad conditions, you have this contagious pneumonia on this side, and these two things just balance one another. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will dismiss from his mind what I know occupies it, because he told us so, that conditions of exposure are liable to render horses unfit for use. That is not the case. The case is really the opposite, that sickness amongst the horses abroad is very rare indeed. If you take that mortality of 15 per cent. both abroad and here and compare it with former wars, I find that in South Africa the war mortality was somewhere between 55 per cent. and 65 per cent. There, of course, the climatic conditions were absolutely ideal and everything that could be desired, so that 15 per cent. in this War against 55 per cent. to 65 per cent. in the South African war is really a very great stride which the veterinary authorities have made, and for which I should like the House to give them due credit.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Was the 55 per cent. sickness from all causes?
  Mr. TENNANT: All causes, and all causes is what I am dealing with now—missing, wounded, killed, accidents and sickness. So far from exposure being the real source of mortality among horses, the worse difficulties we were confronted with occurred in some stables here in London where there was a great amount of sickness. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having made the suggestions which he has made. I have dealt with the question of the selection of the site at Avonmouth once before. I am
  1868
  assured that while there is low-lying ground in the camp it is so large a place that there is a great deal of higher ground which has natural protection of hills and that the officers who selected that site were put in communication with the local gentry, so that they could get the information which was considered necessary.
  The hon. and learned Member asked that sick horses should be put in stables. Of course, in the veterinary hospitals that is done at once and they are treated there and you can get rid of infection. The difficulty of stables is to get rid of the infection, and we have not really been able to do that completely yet. Again, he suggests, that rugs of the New Zealand type, which are waterproof, shall be utilised. On that point I know the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that there is a distinct disadvantage in the waterproof rug inasmuch as it induces sweating to a very large extent and extra cold may be the result of that sweating. But that matter has not been lost sight of and the question of making a new waterproof rug is constantly before the veterinary authorities and I think they have the matter well in hand. I hope I have said enough to show that this matter is one in which the War Office is intensely interested, and that our officers are exceedingly anxious to do everything they can, and I think from what I have said it will be seen that their efforts have not been unavailing.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to defer his reply for a few moments, because I shall have one matter to refer to which I think he, rather than the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baker) would be concerned with. I must first, however, add to the shower of small points with which we have rather peppered him this evening. Doubtless he realises that, though they may seem very small points—questions of a small addition or substraction from pay between one class of soldier and another—nevertheless, they are matters which assume very considerable importance and interest to the men concerned. All this sort of points, with which many of my hon. Friends have dealt, really arise from this cause that we had to face in this great War, unprecedented, of course, we are almost tired of calling it in all its aspects, with an Army which was utterly inadequate for the purpose and a Home Army behind it which was not intended

  1869
  for active service abroad, and, in order to meet the new conditions, the War Office, with very great success, has created a New Army, so that we are carrying on a war with three perfectly distinct armies or forces raised under different conditions, with different traditions and with different regulations guiding their operations and their existence. What some of us maintain is that, so far as the actual War itself is concerned, when our soldiers go to the front the members of the three great Armies—the Regular Army, the Territorial Force, and Lord Kitchener's New Army—should be on exactly the same footing when vis-à-vis with the enemy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) and my hon. Friend behind me brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman one or two particulars in which the Territorial Force is at a disadvantage as compared with the new Army. I am going to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one small matter in which it is the other way about, the Territorial Force being in a better position than the New Army; I think they should be put on the same footing. I refer to what is known as "proficiency pay." That is a small matter in one respect. It is only a question of 3d. a day, but still 3d. a day to a man who is serving may be a matter of great interest and importance. If my information is correct, proficiency pay is, for some unexplained reason, confined to the Territorial Force. It is not given to members of the New Army. That seems to me to be a very unfair arrangement. Many members of the New Army are really old soldiers, many of them having served for many years. Some of them actually wear the long service medal, and yet these men are debarred from receiving proficiency pay while the Territorials are able to enjoy it.
  My Friend who opened this Debate referred to the grievance of the medical profession serving in the Army. I wish to refer to a complaint with regard to the grant for the provision of kit and uniform. As I understand the matter, it stands in this way; There were a number of retired medical officers who at the time of mobilisation were in charge of depots, and who, on mobilisation, were recalled to the Service. By a certain rule in the Regulations of the Army, officers who have retired and who are recalled to the Service at a time of emergency are allowed a grant of £100 towards their outfit. At the time of the
  1870
  outbreak of the War the Army Council issued various orders to the commands referred to and advertised this grant which officers were entitled to. Medical officers were, if I am correctly informed, under no obligation in regard to the providing of uniform until a comparatively short time before the outbreak of the War. I think it was in May last year that they were first called upon to provide themselves with uniform, and when the War broke out and the various orders were made known, there was nothing to lead the medical officers to know that they would be treated differently from other officers of similar rank and position. To begin with, their pay is much smaller. They have much less means for providing themselves with uniform, and they naturally expected equal treatment. A few weeks after the mobilisation order—three weeks, I think—they were suddenly told that they were not to expect this grant, although other officers of the Regular Forces were to receive their £100 for providing uniform. Medical officers were not to be given anything towards the provision of that. That, is a grievance, and they feel, I think, rather keenly that they are in a worse position than their brother officers of the fighting line. They think that they ought to receive the same consideration.
  I wish to refer to one matter which has been brought before the House several times in one form or another, but upon which I think we have not got a really satisfactory answer from the Government. I refer to the matter of the National Reserve and the great inequality of treatment, and, as I cannot help thinking, the inequitable treatment in some respects meted out to the National Reserve in regard to their bonus on joining. Several times the answer has been given that the men gave a certain undertaking on joining that they would serve in a certain way, and that they are not entitled to the bonus unless their joining the Colours took place in that precise manner. The first class of the National Reserve are entitled to a bonus of £10, and the second class, who are confined to those who sign for Home defence with the Territorial Force, are entitled to a bonus of £5.
  The particular case to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the case of men who really have shown very great keenness to serve the Crown and country. They are men who

  1871
  belong to Class I., and who, if they had been called upon would have been entitled to receive a bonus of £10. I know one case—and there must be many others—where the man waited and expected to be called out in the National Reserve, Class I. He held himself in readiness, and I am informed that until late in September he waited and received no summon to report himself. He then went and enlisted in a Territorial battalion in order that he might serve. He volunteered for active service, but I do not know whether he has gone to the front. Anyhow, he was prepared to go to the front, and he is entitled, according to the regulations, to £10 if called upon in the class to which he belonged. He did not even get the smaller sum of £5 he would have been entitled to if he had originally belonged to the Territorial Force and had joined his regiment on the outbreak of War.
  Of course, I can quite see the kind of technical reply that may be given to a case of this sort. This man, so to speak, fell between two stools. He belonged to Class I., and because he was not called up in Class I., he went to serve as he would have done if he belonged to Class II. It does seem rather bard that when he showed a particular zeal to serve in this way he should be debarred from receiving either one allowance or the other. I know that similar cases have been brought up before in the House. I hope, although it is getting a little late to bring these matters forward, that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the technical, red tape view of this matter might be departed from and equitable treatment meted out to these various classes of Reservists. There is another point to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is what appears again to be inequitable treatment, not as between one class of Reservists and another, but as between Territorial officers and their men. In the case of the Territorial regiments who are in London—and I suppose that the same thing applies in other large towns—numbers of the officers live at home in their own houses. Of course, numbers of men are also in the same condition. The men receive an allowance of 2s. a day to represent rations and light and fuel, and matters of that kind—I think that the latter are in addition to the 2s.—whereas the officers receive no such allowance at all. I do not know whether the reason is that the officers
  1872
  are supposed to be in a better financial position than the men, and that, therefore, it is fair to leave them to shift for themselves and feed themselves, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are now many officers who have been promoted from the ranks, and that, apart from that, there are many others who are not by any means millionaires; and it seems to be anomalous that the men serving in these regiments should receive an allowance of that sort in lieu of rations and other necessaries of life, whereas the officers receive nothing at all. It goes beyond that, because the men who have to go from their homes to their military duties every day get their travelling expenses paid both from and to their homes, and, moreover, if after three months' service they go on furlough they receive a free railway warrant for their travelling expenses, while none of those allowances are extended to the officers. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether officers and men ought not to be treated, in this respect, with more equality, so that so much favour should not be shown to the rank and file at the expense of the officers.
  In reference to the question of quartermasters, on a former occasion I brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that quartermasters in the Territorial Force are paid, as I am informed, 9s. a day, no matter what the length of their service may be. If they were not in the Territorials, but were in the Regular Army, they would, of course, be receiving an increase of pay according to their length of service, and in the case of some would be receiving captain's pay or major's pay, and so on. I know of one man who has served thirty years in the ranks and eight years as commissioned officer. The thirty years in the ranks would count as fifteen years in the commissioned ranks. That would give him twenty-three years' service, and he is an honorary major, and yet, because he belongs to the Territorial Army, he is still only receiving the 9s. a day instead of the pay proportionate to his rank, as he would do if he were in the Regular Force. There, again, I would really suggest that in this time of war, when we are using the various branches of the Forces of the Crown, all for one common object, and when they are all fighting, or will be fighting, shoulder to shoulder against the enemy, they ought, for the purpose of this War and while the War lasts, all be treated as if they were one Force. Do not let us think too much

  1873
  of the problems which may arrive when the War is over, but which may very well be left to take care of themselves when that time arrives.
  There is another question which is also of particular interest to me. I refer to the figures for recruiting, especially in relation to recruiting in Ireland. Several times, both in this House and in another place, attempts have been made to get the Government to give some precise information as to the recruiting which has been going on and the numbers who have joined the Colours. The Government have, for reasons which I am not at all going to question, refused persistently to give us any such information, and have told us—I think the right hon. Gentleman himself said in this House—that it would not be in the public interest to give that information, and that certainly he was not going to be led into doing so. That is all very well, but if that is done it ought to be done fairly, and the information should be kept from everybody. It is not fair to keep it from us and to give it to somebody else. I have seen the report of a speech, which was made in December last, by the hon. Member for Waterford. This speech was made in Ireland, and it gave the recruiting figures which, the hon. Member said, had been supplied to him by the Government.
  Mr. TENNANT: I answered a question on that subject not very long ago. They were figures which were given by the Irish Office, and I particularly said that they must not be taken too literally, and that too much importance must not be attached to them.
  Mr. McNEILL: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but that does not quite meet my complaint. The Irish Government, I presume, is part of His Majesty's Government. I understood the right hon. Gentleman in this House, and Lord Kitchener at the other end of the corridor, to say that it was not consistent with the public interest to give any figures in reference to recruiting. That was the policy of the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman now tells me that the Irish Office have given these figures. If so, they must have got them from the War Office.
  Mr. TENNANT: I must disabuse the hon. Member's mind of that impression. The Irish Government made surmises as to certain figures. They have some information to proceed upon, local government
  1874
  reports, police reports, and things of that kind, and I am informed that they made certain surmises upon these. But I really think that it would be better if the ton. Member would address himself to the Chief Secretary, because I am not able, at a moment's notice, to say on what material those surmises were made.
  Mr. McNEILL: As the right hon. Gentleman seems not to know exactly what has taken place, perhaps he will allow me to give him the information so far as I have it. At all events the hon. Member for Waterford made that speech, saying that he had got the figures from the Government. I now learn that it was from the Irish Government. But the matter does not rest there, and I think that it was not very long after that—it was in the very early part of the sittings—that the right hon. Gentleman, when pressed with regard to recruiting, gave the caution, which he has now repeated, that these figures were not to be taken too literally. That makes it all the more extraordinary when I find that on the 16th February, which was a considerable time after the time to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—or, at all events, a very long time after the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, which was made on the 6th December, no less a person than Lord Aberdeen gave what purported to be the recruiting figures for Ireland. Again I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said that I ought to address myself to the Chief Secretary, who, for reasons which no one deplores more than I, is not able to be present.
  But there is no Member of the Irish Government here and the House rises tomorrow, and therefore with the best will in the world to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman I am afraid that I cannot at the present moment address myself to the Irish Government, There was a Member of the Irish Government on that Front Bench this evening. I do not know whether he has had anything to do with giving these figures. At all events, the point I want to make is that Lord Aberdeen himself on the 16th February gave figures, derived, we are told, from various sources—conjecture, returns from the police, and so forth—and it surprises me that a man in the position of Lord Aberdeen, collecting statistics, sweeping them up from these different sources, should give those figures, when he had only to apply to the right hon.

  1875
  Gentleman to get one of two things: Either the correct figures, or a warning that he should give no figures at all. Under these circumstances it is very extraordinary that Lord Aberdeen, without consulting the right hon. Gentleman or any representative of the War Office, should give this information:—
  "The approximate number of men recruited in Ireland and serving in the Army, taken from the latest return up to 15th January, was 95,300, made up thus:—Regular Army. 20,750; Special Reserve, 12,150; Reservists who rejoined on mobilisation, 17,800; Recruits joining since mobilisation, 44,300—total, 95,300."
  However inaccurate and imperfect Lord Aberdeen's information and figures may be, they are interesting in view of the fact that the total is not very dissimilar, taking into account the difference of time, from those which were given by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who had jumbled the figures up together, And did not separate recruits from Reservists, and had given an entirely false impression—as I could show if there were any occasion to do so—on the point which we are dealing with by making that confusion. Therefore, Lord Aberdeen deserves our thanks for clearing it up and showing us how many recruits joined since the mobilisation, and how many belonged to the Army before that. Then comes a thing which was still more extraordinary for a man in Lord Aberdeen's position. Of course, those of us who are familiar with Ireland all know, and I dare cay the right hon. Gentleman himself knows enough about it to know, that in Ireland if you are going to appoint a dispensary doctor or a remount officer, you do not appoint him because he knows anything about medicine, or because he knows anything about horses, but you appoint him in each case on account of his religious opinions. Lord Aberdeen is now in Scotland, but he seems to have learned when in Ireland that root-fact with regard to Irish life, because he thought it worth while to go on to explain what the religious opinions of the recruits are. He tells us that in the "so-called" religious divisions—I do not know whether that is a respectful way of speaking of this matter by one who is a Presbyterian—the Roman Catholic proportion of soldiers is 55,850 and of Protestant, 39,450. Of course, this did not include, he added, a very large number of Irish people already serving in the Army before the War.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can make any suggestion which
  1876
  would explain Lord Aberdeen's motive in referring to the religious opinions of these recruits. I cannot suppose that a nobleman who was at that time just giving up the Vice-Regal position in Ireland, had any such object in giving these particulars regarding the recruits, as no doubt there was, in the case of the hon. Member for Waterford, namely, to make a little party capital out of the recruiting figures for Ireland. I cannot believe that was in Lord Aberdeen's mind. I do not know whether these peculiar circumstances account for the fact of these recruiting figures, collected by hook or by crook, swept by from various sources, having been given for Ireland, in spite of the stern determination of the right hon. Gentleman to give nothing of the sort to the rest of the country. If we are to consider the various merits of Catholics and Protestants—and I hope I may say as an Irish Protestant that I do not believe that there are any finer troops in the world than Irish Catholics—was the object to lead us to infer, as the hon. Member for Waterford in his speech apparently tried to do, that the Catholics of Ireland were doing more than their share in this patriotic movement?
  The inference is certainly not to be drawn from the figures given by Lord Aberdeen, because if his figures are correct, if you take the Protestant population as being, roughly speaking, one-fourth of the whole, then, in order to bear their fair share, one would have expected it to be not 55,850 Roman Catholic recruits, but 118,350. I do not wish myself to draw any inference from these figures; I only regret very much that Lord Aberdeen or anyone else should have thought it necessary to go into these particulars from a point of view which ought to have been entirely irrelevant, and that they should have been introduced by a person in so high a position. It is at least fair to the persons concerned that they should know the true facts and draw the true inference. I hope if the right hon. Gentleman at any future time has occasion to refer to recruiting in this country or in Ireland, he will be able perhaps to explain these circumstances, which are entirely beyond my knowledge, or that he will see to preserving that silence upon these matters in Ireland which is imposed upon the rest of the country.
  Mr. PETO: I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a question which I raised in the House the other day, namely, the useful employment

  1877
  of German prisoners in this country. I should be the last person to suggest anything in the nature of reprisals, or anything in the nature of giving these prisoners of war work of an improper character, or anything of that sort. In the course of constructing our great camps, particularly all through the South of England, there are long stretches of roads which are obviously necessary to lead to the camps—very often 10 miles in extent. Most of the roads have been practically destroyed for any ordinary traffic by the heavy traffic put over them. These camps are concentrated in the very districts and those very parts of the country where we are most short of agricultural labour, and it is a great pity, if it cannot be managed, that the labour which is so absolutely suited to agriculture, and which is used upon these roads to such a very large extent, could not be liberated, in view of the very great difficulty farmers find in getting labour.
  The worst season of the year is passed, the right hon. Gentleman said to me, for camping under canvas, but he did not see that he could deal with the matter in that way, and he said also that the labour would not be worth having when they took into consideration all the cost. Each of these great main roads leads through parts of the camps, and there would be no difficulty or expense in guarding the prisoners. There is a large number of troops in those camps, and some sections would be usefully employed in doing that work. The hon. Baronet who represents Agriculture told us the other day that the Board of Agriculture had made a rough estimate that the number of agricultural labourers who had joined the Colours was from 10 to 12 per cent. According to the 1911 census, agricultural labourers in England and Wales totalled 1,250,000, so that, according to the figures, we are short at least from 120,000 to 130,000. We have what I am glad to think is an increasing number of prisoners of war in this country, and there is a very fertile source of labour which is exactly suited to farmers, and which will save the employment of youthful labour which some hon. Members have not approved of using. It would also only be a kindness to the prisoners to find them some useful work.
  The next point to which I wish to refer concerns the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and is as to the contracts for bacon. I asked a question recently what
  1878
  proportion of the bacon supplied to the troops was from Great Britain, from Ireland, from the Colonies and foreign countries, and the reply I received was that Great Britain supplied 11.3 per cent., Ireland 45.4 per cent., the Colonies 25.5 per cent., and foreign countries 17.8 per cent. We hear a great deal about injustices to Ireland, but I do suggest that half the bacon supplied to the troops coming from Ireland, and the amount from Great Britain, a little over a tenth, is certainly an injustice to Great Britain and the farmers of this country. It would seem almost inexplicable if I had not had a little insight as to how the contracts could be divided in this extraordinarily unfair manner. I have got here an abstract of sixteen replies from different members of the Western Curers' Association, and in every case they have received absolutely no order whatever for bacon during the present year. I notice that Wiltshire, in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Wilts is interested, has not supplied a single pound of bacon to the troops during the whole of the present year. Perhaps he will make some inquiries in his constituency on this point. There is the firm of Harris and Company, of Calne, Wiltshire, which is perhaps the best known Wiltshire bacon curers in the world, and they write this:—
  "Have had no inquiry since the Expeditionary Force first left for France, when some thousands of sides of bacon were supplied."
  It is particularly hard in a case like that; before the War Office had organised their supplies on the present lines Messrs. Harris put their ordinary customers on one side and sent in their thousands of sides, and since that time no more bacon is wanted from them, but is taken from Ireland and the Colonies and Denmark. The Yeovil Bacon Curing Company state:—
  "Wrote the War Office in October, and made application for an opportunity to supply, but received a postcard in acknowledgment. Nothing further has been heard."
  Another firm, Messrs. Oake Woods and Company, of Gillingham, supplied some bacon early in the War through a wholesale firm, but they have not been asked to do so since. The whole of these sixteen firms agree in one thing, that they have not been asked and have not supplied any bacon during the present year. I find from one of my correspondents that the War Office have placed the whole of the bacon buying for the troops in the hands of Messrs. E. M. Denny and Company, Hibernia Chambers, London Bridge, S.E.

  1879
  Messrs. Denny ordinarily do business with a firm of the same name who are large Irish bacon curers, and have also a very large connection with Denmark. It seems to me quite obvious if one firm only has to supply all the bacon, and if the actual producers and manufacturers of the article can only get an order through that firm, and it is very natural that the whole course of the orders should run in the direction of their ordinary trade in peace time, so that when the War is over they shall be able to point to these people and say, "How well we have done for you and what an enormous share of lucrative orders have gone to Denmark and to Ireland." I think that obviously accounts for the answer to the hon. Gentleman that Ireland supplies 45 per cent. and foreign countries nearly 18 per cent. of the bacon for the troops. I hope he will see his way to let the actual curers, and associations like the Western Curers' Association, get into direct touch with the War Office, and not put them off on a firm which would naturally favour their own regular sources of supply.
  I wish also to refer to the question of contracts for the hut camps. There are three points with regard to them: The first is the question of cost and the basis on which a large part of the contracts has been placed, and then there is the question as to the method of laying out and construction, and as to the class of labour that is employed and the amount of work that the taxpayer is obtaining for his money. On the 9th February, in Debate, I was told that
  "The average cost of those huts for camps was £13per man, of which £4 represented the hut and £9 for recreation room, stores, light, and so forth. If you compare those figures with the figures for hut erection at the time of the South African war you will find that those tatter cost three times as much."
  In view of what the hon. Gentleman told me on the 16th February, that considerably more than half of these camps are not paid for by contract sum at all, but on the basis of percentage of cost, I really cannot see how he can give the House the definite cost per man, since in January and February, out of twelve camps I visited, in not one single case was the work complete, or anything near complete, while in 52 per cent. of the whole of the camps the hon. Member tells us they are not on a contract basis at all, and until the last board is nailed and the whole thing is finished, the total cost cannot possibly be ascertained. I do not think it matters, comparatively
  1880
  speaking, what the actual percentage payment is. The hon. Gentleman said that the average percentage of profit, including establishment charges, was 5½. That is extraordinarily moderate, because, in my experience of building, establishment charges alone are taken to be only about covered by 5 per cent. on the cost of the works executed. The hon. Gentleman told us in the same Debate that he had camps actually finished on the 9th February for 400,000 men. As I failed to find a single camp anywhere near finished I can only conclude that I should not be far wrong in assuming that the total hutting in course of construction was calculated for 1,000,000 men. On the hon. Gentleman's own figures that means an expenditure of £13,000,000. My own impression is that is much below the mark; 52 per cent. of that is £6,750,000; therefore there is a profit of £371,250 being paid on the basis of a percentage on cost. Whether it is much or little does not much matter; it is the basis of paying a percentage on cost which is absolutely demoralising. As to what the actual cost is, I will only say that at a much later date—the 8th March—two questions were asked on this particular subject. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler) asked what was the cost of hutting for a single battalion of the New Army, and he was told £15,000. Apparently the cost had gone up by a couple of pounds per man. At the end of Question time the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) asked, on private notice, a question regarding the housing of prisoners at Donington Hall, and the Under-Secretary of State replied:—
  "I should estimate the cost of putting up huts for the whole of the prisoners and guards, 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."
  I have worked out the sum—not a very difficult one—of dividing 585 into a cost of £20,500, and I find it just £35 per man, or about the cost which the Financial Secretary said was the cost of the huts, erected after the Boer war, and nearly three times the cost of the huts erected for the New Army. The Under-Secretary of State in making that reply was anxious to show how much more expensive the huts would have been than the housing at present arranged at Donington Hall; but it is very remarkable that his figure should happen to be over twice as much as that given on the same day by the Financial Secretary. What renders this method of

  1881
  payment so undesirable is that it is to nobody's interest to limit the amount of the cost. If you pay such and such a percentage on the cost, and delays occur, it is not the contractor who loses, but the unfortunate taxpayer. Far worse than that is the method on which these huts have been constructed. The hon. Member practically admitted that in most cases, owing to the anxiety of the War Office to get the troops into the huts as quickly as possible, the construction of roads, drains, and so forth had been left to the very last. That has produced exactly the opposite result. It has been a case of more haste less speed; it has delayed the whole of the work enormously. This method is exactly the opposite to that suggested to the War Office, as far back as September or October last year, by one of the most eminent civil engineers in the country.
  10.0 P.M.
  The result is you have to collect an enormous mass of labour upon these isolated sites, and a great deal of that labour is extremely unsatisfactory. I have a number of reports from different people living in the neighbourhood of these camps, and there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer. About a fortnight ago, Mr. Appleton, the Secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions, writing in one of the Sunday papers, in reference to the labour difficulties on the Clyde, said that it all began with these camps:—
  "The first sign of trouble became visible when the truth about the soldiers' huts began to leak out. As soon as it was known that contractors were charging 4d. a cubit foot for huts that were costing something like 2d. a cubit foot, irritation was manifested, and workmen refused to work at less than the regular rate for this kind of work."
  So far from that being the fact, we know from the hon. Gentleman that the bulk of the work is not done on a contract basis at all. As to the men refusing to work for less than the ordinary rate of wage, I should like to give the House a few instances. These facts were given to me by a member of one of the best known firms of estate agents in the South of England in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, and they deal with cases that have come under his own observation. He says:—
  "Most of the men employed are of an unusually low type. In fact one hears of painters' labourers, and bricklayers throwing up their ordinary occupations, and starting off with a saw and a few other tools in their baskets, and getting put on as carpenters, earning between £2 10s. and £3 per week. Only on Saturday I heard of a painter who was an absolute novice at carpentering, undertaking this work, and boasting that his earnings were £3 2s. 6d. a week."
  1882
  He refers to boys of fifteen or sixteen years of age engaged at 45s. a week, and other boys straight from school earring 38s. and 39s. per week. This is absolutely demoralising labour in the South. To show how entirely in the hands of labour these contractors are, I understand that in older to get the men to come back, not on Christmas Day, nor on Boxing Day, but on the proper day for recommencing work, the day after Boxing Day, at the great camp at Codford where 1,500 men were employed, they paid a bonus of 10s. to each man who turned up.
  The result of that is that if about 1,000 men turned up £500 would be paid in bonuses alone in order to get them to come, with £50 for the contractor. A great many of these men are what really would be called "deadheads." They go and take out a ticket in the morning, and disappear to various occupations during the day. When the time comes for overtime they turn in. They thus get pay for overtime as well as for their so-called work. I have this report from a builder living close to one of these camps. He has had the thing very closely under his own observation, it being in his own trade, and therefore interesting him. He says:—
  "Huts, etc., are being built on a percentage basis."
  Then he goes on to say,—
  "Take the Ridge at Romsey, a retired builder living near says the men get their tickets in the morning, then go off after rabbits for the best part of the day at 11½d. per hour, then work or play at overtime. One labourer started to dig three post holes per diem. The foreman and ganger told him if he worked so hard the rest. would strike. One and a-half holes were enough, or value about 1s. 6d. for a day's pay. This is general everywhere."
  I could give many more instances of that kind, and as to actual absence from work In the case of the camp at Warminster the attention of the War Office appears to have been called to it, and they sent an officer down from the War Officii—a practical step which I hope to see repeated. I feel practically certain that they will find a similar result and do a great deal of good. The officer turned up and told the ganger to assemble the men who were doing any kind of labouring and navvy work. The reason he gave—and it was very ingenious and worked admirably—was that he wanted to pick out half a dozen of the men for a very special job. He asked the timekeeper how many there were, and the reply was fifty-five. There was then a search high and low for these men, but only thirty-one could be found. During the rest of the day a hunt was made for

  1883
  the remaining twenty-four. Many were found to be in the public-houses in the neighbourhood; the rest were reclining in a particular hut where the door was shut, and where they thought nobody would look to find them.
  That is going on all over the place. I should not have raised this question if it were not that something practical could be done. I am quite sure that having entrusted contractors with over half of this vast expenditure on a basis which means that the taxpayers lose if the money is wasted, it is the obvious duty of the War Office to send down and find out for themselves what amount of this kind of loafing and waste of time is going on. I would ask attention to the matter, particularly from this point of view: I can imagine nothing more absolutely undesirable than for the recruits assembled in such numbers near these camps to be mixed up, as they are, with all this civilian labour of a most undesirable kind, and to find that these men are under no kind of control or discipline.
  I could give the hon. Member examples of what was going on only a fortnight ago in one big camp near Godalming, where the official—so it appeared to the colonel who spoke to me about it—had no kind of control over the men. They were behaving in a very disgusting manner which was very insanitary from the point of view of the camp, and they continued to do so when the matter was complained of—and, indeed, increased the nuisance about which complaint was made. That, obviously, is very bad for disicpline and ought never to have been allowed to get to its present position at all. It, indeed, need never to have occurred at all if the War Office had made a firm rule from the beginning that no man should be employed upon work in these camps, and mixed up with our young recruits, if he was not subject to military discipline. It may be too late to carry that out now. But I do ask the hon. Gentleman to see if steps can be taken to find out whether the statements I have made are correct, and to get rid of a very large part of these so-called labour corps. I am perfectly certain that the residue will get on very much quicker. It would do far less to upset the labour conditions in the neighbourhood, and to deprive farmers of the labour which they so badly need upon their farms.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I have been wondering this afternoon why we should pass the Motion which you, Mr. Speaker, are about to put from the Chair. There has been a crowd of important and interesting subjects discussed. At the end of it all we are asked to shut down the House of Commons for four weeks. The nation looks to Parliament for an answer to all its questions, problems, and puzzles, and for the redress of its grievances. When it looks it finds the shutters are up, the blinds are drawn, and the Members are away from the scene. I do think there ought to be some permanent arrangement for the meeting of Parliament, and that it should, in fact, sit continuously. I came across a few lines yesterday in a certain journal of high reputation which said:—
  "The Government should trust persuasion and debate rather than executive order. They ought to keep Parliament at work, instead of summoning it for a series of brief and breathless Sessions."
  With that I entirely agree. There have this afternoon been twenty subjects pressed upon the attention of the Government. In many of them I am deeply interested, and would gladly have taken part in some discussion. Yet, at the end of it, we are asked to shut the whole place up and not to allow these questions to go on any further. No doubt the House of Commons is a changed placed. We are all of one party. There is no party feeling. The King's enemies have arranged our differences. Still, the House of Commons ought to be a place doing its duty, and teaching the nation to do its duty, and where the interrogation of the Government can go on on behalf of the nation. Therefore, I do put forward a plea that the House of Commons ought to be kept sitting, if only for one or two days a week, all the year round. I am a little afraid of any Government being unchecked for four weeks. Even the Press itself is being muzzled. I get uneasy when the House of Commons is closed. The common belief in the country is that that is the time when scandals arise, and when jobs are perpetrated.
  Even in normal times that is so. These are not normal times. We have given the Government arbitrary powers. I do feel that it is a dangerous thing for Parliament, so to speak, to exclude itself. It is rather a terrible thing, in any case, to fall into the hands of an autocratic Government, and that we have now. We must accept terrible things in war-time, no doubt. Emergency laws have given tremendous powers to the Government.

  1885
  There is martial law, the censorship, and prohibitions of all sorts. I find it hard enough to obey all the normal laws, but with these emergency laws I am in daily dread of finding myself some morning in the Tower of London. Therefore, even in the expiring moments of this part of the Session, I ask the Government not to carry on its work in camera, but to let us know what we want to know. We have at least 100 questions on the paper every day raising all sorts of important matters, and while there is this righteous appetite for knowledge and for information, I do think that the Government ought to let us know what it can. I am, of course, not asking for anything that will help the enemy, but only that which will help the nation to bear its burdens, and help the Government by getting more and more trust and confidence from the House.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): There are a great number of points connected with the Army being raised in the course of these Debates, but I hope, in spite of the appeal which my hon. Friend just made, the House will not think it remiss if I limit the length of my remarks to the size of the audience. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) dealt at some length with the question of huts, a question with which he has a direct personal knowledge, which he acquired by visiting various camps. I will not follow him in detail through all the various comments which he made, but I assure him that those points which related to the future shall certainly receive the most careful consideration, and, in particular, that very difficult question of the labour conditions which prevail in those camps not yet completed. But there are one or two points with which, perhaps, I should deal in regard to the cost. He quoted the statement which I made that the cost of those huts worked out on an average at £13 per man. That figure of £13 was, in fact, based on as near an estimate as could be made of all the camps put up in the Aldershot command. There are a great variety, and I think it may fairly be claimed that the hutments in that command were a very good sample of those being put up all over the country, and the figure was based on the estimate of that date. I think he is right in assuming it has been slightly increased since then. The hon. Member then went on to compare it with a figure given by
  1886
  my right hon. Friend in connection with Donington Hall. I can assure him that as both those figures came from the same source, the discrepancy is probably an imaginary one, and I think in the calculation he made he entirely failed to observe the very large proportion of officers, for whom the scale of comfort, of course is greater, who are housed in Donington Hall.
  Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman was quite specific. He was not saying any different kind of huts; he said if done on the same lines as the officers' and men's huts in the New Army.
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, that means making provision for that very large number of officers, the same as in the Army.
  Mr. PETO: German officers on the same basis as our officers?
  Mr. BAKER: That was the hypothetical basis of my right hon. Friend's calculation; if the officers were housed as in our Army, then the cost would be on that scale. I pass from that to the rather sectional appeal which the hon. Member made on behalf of Wiltshire bacon. My information on this subject does not correspond by any means closely to that which he offered to the House. I am told, if I may leave Wiltshire for the moment, and take a larger and broader view, and consider British bacon curers, that they have been given full opportunity to offer for army supply, and that when they have offered, their bacon has nearly all been accepted. Some gave as a reason for not offering that they have no surplus over their ordinary trade requirements at present, and certainly the number of those who do offer has fallen rather since the outbreak of war.
  The hon. Member attributed the neglect of Wiltshire—and no one, I think, will deny the merits of Wiltshire bacon—to the fact that the buying had been put in the hands of Messrs. E. M. Denny, of London. I would point out that that firm is one that buys and sells for us purely as agents. They buy through merchants who get the smoked bacon from all available sources, and if a very large proportion comes from Ireland the reason is that Irish bacon is obtainable and is found satisfactory in use. I pass from the hon. Member for Devizes to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine Division, and I hope he will forgive me if I treat his speech more cursorily than

  1887
  it deserves. He raised the question of proficiency pay. The conditions which a man must fulfil for proficiency pay have been dealt with and very carefully considered, and have only been laid down after very careful consideration. New circumstances have arisen in the course of the present War, and the whole question of the future temporary conditions during this War is at this moment also being considered. I think the hon. Member may assume that matters will not stay on the old peace footing. He referred to what has become a very familiar question—the bounty for National Reservists. I have always tried to make it clear that that bounty is given for one definite thing only—namely, for men in time of peace having undertaken an honourable obligation to come out for service when called upon. It was given for the very obvious reason that from a military point of view it was highly important to know the number of trained men we could count upon for the various military duties of Class I. or Class II. There never was any misunderstanding about it from the beginning, and it was only some time after the outbreak of War that cases began to appear, in which National Reservists claimed that they did not receive the bonus they were entitled to. Considerable relaxation was made in extending the date from the first day of the War to 11th August. I undertook, and the undertaking has been faithfully performed, that in any case in which it could be shown that a man might be considered entitled to a bounty, I would examine the facts, and if those facts were supported by evidence the bounty should be paid. Many cases have been examined, and in a certain proportion of them it was found there was no justification whatsoever, and the rest have received the bounty.
  Mr. McNEILL: Would the hon. Member consider the case I mentioned in which a reservist of Class I. was not called up at all, and, after waiting for many weeks, he enlisted independently? Will the hon. Member consider that case?
  Mr. BAKER: I will consider any case when I have an opportunity of examining into the facts. I should wish to know, before giving an answer, how it was that the man came not to be called up. The hon. Member for Staffordshire (Major Meysey-Thompson) raised a point about corps and armament pay. I can assure him that matter shall be carefully considered, and at the moment I would only say that the
  1888
  new scale of corps and armament pay was only arrived at after very careful consideration. I will see that attention is paid to the particular anomalies which he has pointed out.
  Major MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I was quite sure that the hon. Member would be perfectly willing to inquire into the matter. I only brought it up because I thought that it had escaped notice.
  Mr. BAKER: I come, last, to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) as to certain cases in which he said members of the Territorial Force were penalised in connection with promotion and pay compared with those who had joined the New Army, He took, in particular, the case of doctors, and he pointed out what has been pointed out by others, that it appears that a lieutenant in the Territorial Force or the Royal Army Medical Corps receives 14s. a day, whereas the same person performing the same duties in the New Army receives 24s., apparently a difference of 10s., which does seem very considerable. The hon. Member omitted altogether, however, the question of allowances to which these two types are respectively entitled. Whereas the man in the Territorial Force with his 14s. a day is entitled to allowances which may bring him up to 21s. 9d. as a maximum, the civilian who came into the New Army can never, in any case, get a greater sum than 25s. 9d. The difference, therefore, instead of being so great as 10s., is, in fact, 4s. There is still a difference, and the difference does exist, as he pointed out, in other cases. He was wrong in saying that there was no title to pension in the case of those in the Territorial Force. On embodiment they are all entitled to the benefits of the Regular Army. He went on and said that there were other cases in which there was a similar disparity of reward. He quoted the case of the veterinary doctor, and that was reinforced by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Newdegate), and the case of shoeing smiths; and the case of motor dispatch riders was referred to by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear). Those cases all taken together raise a very broad question of principle. I agree that it is not altogether easy. What are you to do when you find your supply of a particular kind of soldier is falling off, and in order to increase the supply you have to raise the price in the market? What are you to do when those who originally entered on the

  1889
  lower basis find that their position, though it was satisfactory before, is now not so satisfactory compared with the later recruits? You can, of course, do one of two things. You cannot level down. You must either leave them as they are or you must level up. Levelling up is a very big business if you set about it in that way. It has hitherto been the practice to leave people as they are. It was done in the South African war; it was not then thought necessary that the first comers should be raised to the higher rates paid to the later comers. In cases it may seem hard to a man that he should be doing precisely similar work to the man beside him for a lower rate of pay. But when once the levelling-up process begins it may become endless, and if you begin to put up rates you cannot confine to a small section—the increase must apply to all who have gone before. In putting it thus I hope I shall not be thought to depreciate in any way the very great sacrifices which hon. Members have described and which undoubtedly are being borne by members of the medical profession on behalf of our country. There is, no doubt, that doctors all over the country have given up valuable practices and have given their time and their energy and their service to the country.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: When was the salary for the doctors raised? My impression is that it was immediately after the War began.
  Mr. BAKER: It was when the formation of the New Army began.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then how did you know that a sufficient number of doctors would not be forthcoming at the old rate?
  Mr. BAKER: The higher rate was, of course, based on information in the possession of the Director-General of the Army Medical Service, who is in close touch with the profession. He knew the enormous number that would be required as well as the number likely to be available. Very careful records are kept in peace times of the doctors who may be expected to serve, and I do not doubt that it was upon these statistics that the decision was come to that, if the necessary number of doctors was to be obtained, the rate of pay must be slightly increased.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about the exclusion of medical officers from the kit grant?
  Mr. BAKER: I wished to deal with the hon. Gentleman's statement on that point separately. It did not appear to me to be quite in accordance with the actual practice, and if he desires I will communicate with him by letter. I will conclude by saying that in all these cases of men working side by side on differential rates of pay, I hope the hon. Member will not suppose it is through any indifference to the merits of this or that class, or through any failure to recognise the great sacrifices which they are making, that the present principle is observed.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Before the House adjourns I want to refer to a matter of national importance—one by no means of the least importance. It is the question of the food supply of this country. More particularly I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Government intends taking any steps for the purpose of increasing the growth of cereals in the United Kingdom. This matter was raised last year with regard to the question of wheat, and the Government then, I am sorry to say, did not see their way to take the steps we suggested. It is now too late to do so. But there is still the oat supply to be considered, and it is not too late at the present moment to put in oat seed. Everyone will agree that oats are a very valuable source of food. There can be no dispute as to the necessity for anxiety on this matter. It is practically admitted that the crop of 1915–16 must of necessity be smaller than it was last year or the year before, and, having regard to the War, there must be a smaller number of acres under cultivation. Apart from that, there will be another important fact. A considerable proportion of the corn which, in the ordinary course, would come to this country will, in consequence of the War, be deflected to other countries, who, in future, will be importing instead of being, as in the past, exporting countries.
  I do not raise this question on my own initiative, for the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathhurst) asked me to put these points to the hon. Baronet. The hon Member is unfortunately unable to be in his place, because he is serving in His Majesty's Forces. We all know a Consultative Council has been sitting for the purpose of advising the Board of Agriculture. Of that Committee the hon. Member for the Wilton Division is a member. That Committee has been

  1891
  sitting more or less with closed doors. We do not know what their report has been, although we should like to see it. Of course, the hon. Member has not broken any confidence to me, but I gather from the fact that he has asked me to raise this question that he looks upon it as a serious matter. The point is, that if the shortage comes at all it will come, in all probability, at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Cannot the Government now—it is not too late, although it is the last moment—especially in the North of England, where oats are not put in yet—
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Nor in the Midlands.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Cannot the Government now do something? It is not for me to suggest methods to the hon. Baronet, but there is one method which has been suggested—that is, for the Government to guarantee a minimum price for oats to the farmers. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much?"] That would have to be settled by experts. At present oats are about 30s. a quarter. If they remain at that price, in all probability farmers would be delighted to grow them. The farmers say that if they can see their way to getting anything like a decent price for oats they will grow a crop. There are many farmers, not large farmers, who could afford to have one or two fields ploughed in such an emergency as that through which we are passing. Certainly in the North of England there are many such. There may be other methods, but no doubt the Board of Agriculture and the Consultative Council have considered the matter. It may be that the Government cannot see their way to give the guarantee I suggest. At all events, if they do not do that, if I can obtain from the hon. Baronet to-night a statement emphasising the importance of this matter and bringing the influence of the Board to bear upon farmers generally in the direction I suggest, my words will not have been spoken in vain. It is a matter of the gravest possible importance, and one that does not brook delay. I have seen it stated in the newspapers that the Government has bought one year's crop, or part of one year's crop in the Argentine. Whether that is so or not, I do not know. If they have, it will have an important bearing on the subject with which I am dealing, but I should be glad if the hon.
  1892
  Baronet will bring the matter to the attention of the Board, as it is one of the greatest urgency. If they have not considered it, they ought to consider it at once, because if they have not, there is still time for this important matter to be attended to. That is the excuse, if any excuse is needed, for raising this matter at the last moment.
  Mr. KING: The hon. Member's speech raises a very large question. I hope, and I believe, that feeling generally on this side of the House seems to be that there will be nothing in the nature of a promise given to the agricultural interest that a minimum price will be fixed. In our opinion it is totally unnecessary, and I think that it would be extremely unfair, unless it were also accompanied by a minimum wage to labourers. The question really at present is not whether farmers should be, or can be, encouraged to grow more corn, but whether labourers should be, and can be, encouraged to go to work on the land. The question of labour is essential to the question of a greater food supply.
  Inquiries in my part of the country show that it is largely due to the lack of facilities on the railways that more corn is not being sold. I have been inquiring of a very large farmer only this morning who tells me that the greatest difficulty he has—and he supplies a very large number of farmers with their seed-corn, a great amount of which comes from Scotland—in getting stocks through on the railways. If he were promised within the next fortnight large consignments of seed-corn brought through on the railways, he could guarantee, from his own experience, a very considerable extension of spring wheat.
  There is one question which was not touched upon by the hon. Member which certainly in my part of the country affects a very large area. I think every facility ought to be given to work on areas of ground which are available. There is a large amount of ground on railway banks and elsewhere which might be broken up and used for vegetables and other crops which is held back for one reason or another. I have one or two pieces of this class of ground in my mind which could easily be thrown open to labourers in towns or urban districts for extension allotments. The first suggestion I should make is that large landed proprietors who have deer parks where great herds of deer are eating off the fodder

  1893
  and lessening the possible amount of hay which will be produced this summer, should kill off their deer as soon as possible and allow the whole of that large acreage to be used.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): Certainly the Board of Agriculture is nothing but grateful to the hon. Member (Mr. Sanderson) for raising this extremely important question and also my hon. Friend (Mr. King) for his very practical suggestion. He raised the question of the difficulty with the railway companies of getting different things through. There has been a question also raised of seed potatoes from Scotland to England. What we ask him is to let us know the exact details, who is the person he refers to, and what is the exact difficulty. If we have accurate information as to someone who requires seed potatoes in a particular place in Scotland which he is not able to get, we will investigate it and see what we can do to facilitate transport; but if we are merely told that, generally speaking, there is a difficulty in getting it it is difficult to take any particular action. I think his suggestion of killing deer in parks will have consideration at the Board of Agriculture. If I may deal with a point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Sanderson), I think he will be the first to see that it would be criminal on the part of the Board of Agriculture if at the eleventh hour we suddenly reversed a settled policy which has been adopted by the Board ever since the matter was first raised in September, and Certainly anything in the way of a bounty or a guarantee is not considered by the Board to be either possible or desirable, but it gives me an opportunity of emphasising what he has already said that the Board of Agriculture urge farmers to sow every acre they can with wheat if it is not too late, or with oats.
  With regard to the question of a guarantee or a bounty, of course, there are difficulties—economic difficulties. As far as the Board of Agriculture is concerned, if the emergency is proved, economics go. The great thing is that food shall be provided, and if the emergency is proved, and the way to meet it is considered best, no stilted ideas of economics will stand in the way of carrying out such a policy. We have at the Board of Agriculture more
  1894
  opportunity of knowing what is going on in different parts of the country in agricultural districts than any individual can have. We receive constant letters from correspondents, we have our own inspectors, and we have all sorts of means of finding out the facts. Certainly no evidence has been brought before the Board of Agriculture at present to show that where farmers can sow their wheat or oats they have not done so. There is a great deal of evidence to show that owing to shortage of labour, or weather, or different conditions, they have not been able to do so. That information comes to us constantly. I do not think there has ever been a case of real evidence where it has come before us that the farmer has said he will not sow unless he gets a particular guarantee or a particular bounty.
  The hon. Member must have a very poor opinion of the farmer if he thinks that that would be so. I know he does not. I dare say he agrees with me that the farmer is no fool. I have much too high an opinion of him to think that it would be necessary or desirable to bribe him to do something in his own and the country's interest. I cannot do better at the close of an important subject at the end of an important Debate than by reminding the House of what was said this afternoon on the great authority of the Prime Minister in answer to a question on this very subject. The Prime Minister's words were: "The Government consider that there is no need to offer an inducement to farmers to do what is advantageous to the country and profitable to themselves."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That To-morrow Mr. Speaker, so soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House, without Question put, until Wednesday, 14th April, and that Committees have leave to sit up to and including 25th March, notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  TAXES (YIELD).
  TAXES (YIELD).
  LODGER VOTERS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  LODGER VOTERS (MILITARY SERVICE).
PRISONERS OF WAR.
  HIRE OF SHIPS FOR INTERNMENT.
  HIRE OF SHIPS FOR INTERNMENT.
  BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS DETAINED, CAPTURED, OR DESTROYED.
  BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS DETAINED, CAPTURED, OR DESTROYED.
  CAMPING GROUNDS.
  CAMPING GROUNDS.
  SCOTTISH FUSILIERS (BANDMASTER).
  SCOTTISH FUSILIERS (BANDMASTER).
  MANCHESTER REGIMENT.
  MANCHESTER REGIMENT.
  GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL AGENTS (UNITED STATES).
  GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL AGENTS (UNITED STATES).
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MILITARY HUTS.
  MILITARY HUTS.
  INTERNED ENEMY STEAMERS.
  INTERNED ENEMY STEAMERS.
  Sanatoria (Capital Grants).
  Sanatoria (Capital Grants).
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  CENSUS, 1911 (GERMANS AND AUSTRO-HUNGARIANS).
  CENSUS, 1911 (GERMANS AND AUSTRO-HUNGARIANS).
  Nursing Grant-in-Aid.
  Nursing Grant-in-Aid.
  National Amalgamated Approved Society.
  National Amalgamated Approved Society.
  West Ealing Post Office Extension.
  West Ealing Post Office Extension.
  Irish Cattle (Exportation to Argentine).
  Irish Cattle (Exportation to Argentine).
  Metropolitan Police (Holidays).
  Metropolitan Police (Holidays).
  Convict Prisons (Civil Guards).
  Convict Prisons (Civil Guards).
  Taxi-Cabs (Fire Extinguishers).
  Taxi-Cabs (Fire Extinguishers).
  Drift Survey (Ireland).
  Drift Survey (Ireland).
  Post Office (Surveyors' Clerks).
  Post Office (Surveyors' Clerks).
SPENNYMOOR AND TUDHOE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
DEAF AND DUMB POOR ASYLUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Strachie). (No. 56.)

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess at Easter.

THE WAR.
LABOUR DIFFICULTIES.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, for many weeks only trench fighting has been possible owing to the climatic conditions and waterlogged state of the ground. During this period of apparent inaction, it must not be forgotten that our troops have had to exercise the utmost individual vigilance and resource, and owing to the proximity
720
of the enemy's lines a great strain has been imposed upon them. Prolonged warfare of this sort might be expected to affect the morale of an Army, but the traditional qualities of patience, good temper, and determination have maintained our men, though highly tried, in a condition ready to act with all the initiative and courage required when the moment for an advance arrived. The recently published accounts of the fighting in France have enabled us to appreciate how successfully our troops have taken the offensive. The German troops, notwithstanding their carefully prepared and strongly entrenched positions, have been driven back for a considerable distance, and the villages of Neuve Chapelle and L'Epinette have been captured and held by our Army, with heavy losses to the enemy.
In these operations our Indian troops took a prominent part and displayed fine fighting qualities. I will in this connection read a telegram I have received from Sir John French—
"Please transmit following message to Viceroy of India: I am glad to be able to inform your Excellency that the Indian troops under General Sir James Willcocks fought with great gallantry and marked success in the capture of Neuve Chapelle and subsequent fighting which took place on the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth of this month. The fighting was very severe and the losses heavy, but nothing daunted them. Their tenacity, courage, and endurance were admirable and worthy of the best traditions of the soldiers of India."
I should like also to mention that the Canadian Division showed their mettle, and have received the warm commendation of Sir John French for the high spirit and bravery with which they have performed their part. Our casualties during the three days' fighting, though probably severe, are not nearly so heavy as those suffered by the enemy, from whom a large number of prisoners have been taken.
Since I last spoke in this House substantial reinforcements have been sent to France. They include the Canadian Division, the North Midland Division, and the 2nd London Division, besides other units. These are the first complete Divisions of the Territorial Force to go to France, where I am sure they will do credit to themselves and sustain the high reputation which the Territorials have already won for themselves there. The health of the troops has been remarkably good, and their freedom from enteric fever

721
and from the usual diseases incidental to field operations is a striking testimony to the value of inoculation and to the advice and skill of the Royal Army Medical Corps and its auxiliary organisations. The French Army, except for a slight withdrawal near Soissons, owing to their reinforcements being cut off by the swollen state of the Aisne River, have made further important progress at various points on the long line they hold, especially in Champagne. Association with both our Allies in the Western theatre has only deepened our admiration of their resolute tenacity and fighting qualities.
In the Eastern theatre the violent German attacks on Warsaw have failed in their purpose, and considerable concentrations of German troops to attack the Russian positions in East Prussia, after causing a retirement, are now either well held or are being driven back. In the Caucasus fresh defeats have been inflicted by the Russians on the Turks, and the latter have also been repulsed by our forces in Egypt when they attempted to attack the Suez Canal. The operations now proceeding against the Dardanelles show the great power of the Allied Fleets, and although at the present stage I can say no more than what is given in the public Press on the subject, your Lordships may rest assured that the matter is well in hand.
The work of supplying and equipping new Armies depends largely on our ability to obtain the war material required. Our demands on the industries concerned with the manufacture of munitions of war in this country have naturally been very great, and have necessitated that they and other ancillary trades should work at the highest possible pressure. The armament firms have promptly responded to our appeal, and have undertaken orders of vast magnitude. The great majority also of the employees have loyally risen to the occasion and have worked, and are working, overtime and on night shifts in all the various workshops and factories in the country. Notwithstanding these efforts to meet our requirements, we have unfortunately found that the output is not only not equal to our necessities but does not fulfil our expectations, for a very large number of our orders have not been completed by the dates on which they were promised.
722
The progress in equipping our new Armies and also in supplying the necessary war material for our forces in the field has been seriously hampered by the failure to obtain sufficient labour and by delays in the production of the necessary plant, largely due to the enormous demands not only of ourselves but of our Allies. While the workmen generally, as I have said, have worked loyally and well there have, I regret to say, been instances where absence, irregular time-keeping, and slack work have led to a marked diminution in the output of our factories. In some cases the temptations of drink account for this failure to work up to the high standard expected. It has been brought to my notice on more than one occasion that the restrictions of trade unions have undoubtedly added to our difficulties, not so much in obtaining sufficient labour as in making the best use of that labour. I am confident, however, that the seriousness of the position as regards our supplies has only to be mentioned and all concerned will agree to waive for the period of the war any of those restrictions which prevent in the very slightest degree our utilising all the labour available to the fullest extent that is possible.
I cannot too earnestly point out that unless the whole nation works with us and for us, not only in supplying the manhood of the country to serve in our ranks but also in supplying the necessary arms, ammunition, and equipment, successful operations in the various parts of the world in which we are engaged will be very serioulsy hampered and delayed. I have heard rumours that the workmen in some factories have an idea that the war is going so well that there is no necessity for them to work their hardest. I can only say that the supply of war material at the present moment and for the next two or three months is causing me very serious anxiety, and I wish all those engaged in the manufacture and supply of these stores to realise that it is absolutely essential, not only that the arrears in the deliveries of our munitions of war should be wiped off, but that the output of every round of ammunition is of the utmost importance and has a large influence on our operations in the field.
The Bill which my noble friend the Leader of the House is about to place before your Lordships as an amendment

723
to the Defence of the Realm Act is calculated to rectify this state of things as far as is possible, and in my opinion it is imperatively necessary. In such a large manufacturing country as our own the enormous output of what we require to place our troops in the field thoroughly equipped and found with ammunition is undoubtedly possible; but, my Lords, this output can only be obtained by a careful and deliberate organisation for developing the resources of the country so as to enable each competent workman to utilise in the most useful manner possible all his ability and energy in the common object which we all have in view, which is the successful prosecution and victorious termination of this war. I feel sure that there is no business or manufacturing firm in this country that will object for one moment to any delay or loss caused in the produce of their particular industry when they feel that they and their men are taking part with us in maintaining the soldiers in the field with those necessaries without which they cannot fight.
As I have said, the regular armament firms have taken on enormous contracts vastly in excess of their ordinary engagements in normal times of peace. We have also spread orders both in the form of direct contracts and sub-contracts over a large number of subsidiary firms not accustomed in peace time to this class of manufacture. It will, I am sure, be readily understood that when new plant is available for the production of war material those firms that are not now so engaged should release from their own work the labour necessary to keep the machinery fully occupied on the production for which it is being laid down as well as to supply sufficient labour to keep working at full power the whole of the machinery which we now have. I hope, my Lords, that this result will be attained under the provisions of the Bill now about to be placed before you.
Labour may very rightly ask that their patriotic work should not be used to inflate the profits of the directors and shareholders of the various great industrial and armament firms, and we are therefore arranging a system under which the important armament firms will come under Government control, and we hope that workmen who work regularly by keeping good time shall reap some of the benefits
724
which the war automatically confers on these great companies. I feel strongly, my Lords, that the men working long hours in the shops by day and by night, week in and week out, are doing their duty for their King and country in a like manner with those who have joined the Army for active service in the field. They are thus taking their part in the war and displaying the patriotism that has been so manifestly shown by the nation in all ranks, and I am glad to be able to state that His Majesty has approved that where service in this great work of supplying the munitions of war has been thoroughly, loyally, and continuously rendered, the award of a medal will be granted on the successful termination of the war.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, last week we suspended Standing Order No. XXXIX, but the effect of the Motion expired with the week. I therefore beg to make the same Motion in respect of this week.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the week.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I may remind the House that by the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act which became law towards the end of November power was granted to the Government to take over factories engaged in the manufacture of war material in the widest sense of that term—that is to say, not merely armour, cannon, or shells, but all the various supplies and munitions required for the troops serving His Majesty. This Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, extends a similar power to all factories of every kind for the same object and purposes. Its effects are to turn on to the production of

725
war material all factories which may be capable of undertaking such work. It also gives the power to diminish the number of workshops devoted to other work, to close them altogether, or to remove plant from them to places where it may be more conveniently applied for the production of war material. It also gives the power to house workmen in unoccupied premises of different kinds where their labour is needed for this purpose and in places where there is no proper housing accommodation for them. It cannot be denied that a measure of this kind involves a tremendous interference with the free play of industry, with the free employment of capital, and with the free application of labour. We do not for a moment attempt to dispute the width of the area which is covered by such a measure as this. My noble and gallant friend behind me has explained the existing circumstances which in our opinion make this measure necessary, and he has done so speaking with an authority altogether unequalled, an authority which certainly none of his colleagues in the Government would attempt to claim to the same extent with which he is able to exercise it.
But there are one or two points arising out or the Bill on which, perhaps, I ought to offer some explanation to the House. I should like, in the first place, to point out that this is in the main a measure of organisation. It is, indeed, rather a measure of organisation than of the actual displacement of industry. That is a point which I would ask the House to bear in mind. And this means that; in bringing it into operation the Government desire to consult in all possible ways the manufacturers engaged in different kinds of production, and also those who are able in a representative capacity to speak for the workmen employed in these different branches of labour. We know, on the authority of a great political writer, that it is impossible to draw an indictment against a nation; it is usually almost equally unwise to draw an indictment against a class, and when my noble and gallant friend was speaking he made it quite clear that, although charges have been publicly brought and repeated both against those who supply the capital for manufactures and those engaged in labour, and although in some individual cases those charges may be taken to be wellfounded, yet it would be altogether unfair to bring charges of want of patriotism
726
against either the class of employers or of employed.
For instance, it is altogether untrue to say of the manufacturers as a class, whether they be individuals or directors of limited companies, that they are thinking only of their profits and their dividends. On the contrary, I believe that among them there has been an almost universal desire to help in this great national crisis. But in many cases, just as we have seen in different branches of activity of a private kind, people who have desired to help have not really known how to set about it or where to begin, and for the provision of that information I hope that the passage of this measure may do something. Equally as regards the class of workmen. To bring against them general accusations of irregularity, of slacking off when wages are high, or of excessive drinking would, I believe, be altogether unfair. There have been such cases, but a general charge of that kind ought not to be made. I believe that especially in the ranks of skilled labour there has been an amount of loyalty and devotion to duty in giving extra work of which it is hardly possible to speak too highly. I have been told of one case—I have not got the actual facts before me—which occurred I think at Sheffield in some armour plate works where the shifts of some of the furnace men, owing to the intensely trying quality of the labour, are in normal times exceedingly short. These men, I was told, volunteered to double the length of their shift, at a cost not merely of great discomfort but I have no doubt of some positive danger to health. Those are admirable cases which we ought to remember when we hear general accusations of slackness or of imperfect work.
But it cannot be denied that there has existed a certain suspicion, as my noble and gallant friend pointed out, both in the ranks of the employers and of those of the employed, in which the other class respectively bas been involved. There have been suspicions on the part of some of the workmen that their employers were thinking exclusively of profit; there have been suspicions on the part of some of the employers that their men were anxious to do as little as they could provided they could earn a week's average wage. We hope that the general system of consultation and discussion which will take place

727
as the result of the passing of this measure will do much to dispel on both sides those suspicions, unfounded in the main as we believe them to be, so far as they exist. Therefore, my Lords, even if it should prove as some have prophesied—I think Mr. Bonar Law made the statement in another place—that the actual transactions under a measure of this kind are not very numerous—and I think it is exceedingly difficult to say how numerous the actual transactions are likely to be—yet at the same time I venture to think that no small amount of solid national benefit may come from the passage of this measure.
We have been asked why, if an operation of this kind is likely to be beneficial, it was not undertaken before, and how it is that so many months have been permitted to pass without our having made some suggestion of this kind. That is not an unnatural question to ask, but I think that there are one or two considerations which may be adduced in reply. In the first place, if a suggestion of this kind, enormously drastic as we all agree that it is, had been made at a far earlier stage of the war I do not say that Parliament would have refused us the powers—because we most freely acknowledge the large attitude which the Opposition and the country generally have taken up in the matter of giving powers to the Government—but I think we should have run the risk of being told that we were grasping at a rather exuberant dictatorship without being able to produce sufficient data to justify us in demanding immense powers of this kind, and at that time it might not have been a very easy criticism to reply to. In the second place, it is only fair to point out that, altogether apart from this, the time of the War Office and also of the Admiralty has been taken up, as all the world knows, day and night with matters of urgent concern, and it is important to remember that there are limits even to the possibilities of devolution, and the mere operation of arranging and formulating a system of this kind, involving extensive devolution, is in itself a piece of very hard work, and it is not one which, in my judgment, we could have expected the two great Service Departments to have undertaken before this date.
Then, my Lords, there is a question to
728
which I think my noble and gallant friend did not draw any special attention, naturally, as he was dealing with the purely military side of this demand which we are making—that of the degree and character of compensation which ought to be given to those who are adversely affected by the passage of this measure. The view of the Government, generally speaking, is this. We entirely agree that there is not and cannot be any room for that sort of vicarious patriotism which glows over the sacrifices made by other people for the sake of the country's good. If people individually are put to loss for the purposes covered by this Bill they ought not to suffer thereby. That is one side of the question. But, on the other side, we hold most distinctly that the ordinary methods of compensation for land taken for public purposes under the Lands Clauses Acts cannot be made to apply in these instances, and I am glad to know that this is not a question as between the two Parties or the two sides of the House, because I observed that in another place similar views were expressed by those who are in general agreement with noble Lords opposite.
It would never do for laymen like us to run our heads up against such arcana as the doctrine of eminent domain or such mysterious subjects as those, which I have no doubt are mere playthings to many noble and learned Lords in this House; but we do hold the view—I wish to make this quite clear—that it is not possible to admit a statutory or legal right of compensation for loss or damage suffered under this Bill. We do not in any way mean that people ought not to be properly compensated for loss which they suffer for the good of the country, but we are not prepared to embark on that vast ocean of litigation which would stretch before us if we were to attempt to include in this measure a statutory system of compensation for damage. There will be a strong Committee appointed to deal with all these matters and, indeed, to carry on the general negotiations with those who are likely to be affected. I am glad to believe that a most distinguished lawyer who is not a supporter of the Government—Mr. Duke—is likely to consent to preside over that Committee, and I have no doubt the House will agree that no more capable occupant of the post could be found. I am not in a position at this moment to

729
give any of the other names of this small body or to give the terms of reference, which I had almost hoped I might have been able to do. Perhaps later in the debate I may be able to do so. This authority, of course, is set up in some measure to determine the principles upon which and the scope within which compensation ought to be paid to those who suffer loss.
I think anybody who has looked at the Bill will see that this measure is founded on the one principle which His Majesty's Government desire to enforce and which we wish to commend to the country—namely, that all persons should ask themselves, Does any particular action that is taken either publicly or privately, or does any abstention from action which might be taken, produce an effect for or against the prosecution of the war? It seems to me that this is the question which everybody ought to put to himself and herself with regard to any action either public or private, because I believe it to be the only genuine criterion for deciding whether any form of legislation or, indeed, any form of action in private life, is or is not desirable or admissible. That criterion applies to the intensely difficult question to which some passing allusion was made by my noble and gallant friend—that of the hours and conditions in which licensed premises ought to be opened. That is a question of great difficulty and complexity, and it is one upon which we of the comfortable classes are bound also to bear in mind what I have referred to as the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice—that it is very easy for us to deplore the mischiefs which may be caused by excessive hours for the opening of public-houses, we ourselves being, of course, altogether unaffected by those hours. But if we apply this test, Will the closing of licensed premises in certain areas for certain hours prove to be a definite help to the prosecution of the war by such means as the provision of material? then that becomes one of the questions which has to be faced.
Another question of the same sort to which a similar criterion applies is that of the restriction of the use of capital for a great number of purposes. The Government have thought it necessary to impose close restrictions upon the use of capital for private enterprise which in ordinary times we should desire most fully to encourage.
730
We also restrict the use of capital for municipal improvements, often of the most desirable character in themselves and to which, again, in normal times we should give our full approval. We go further. We place close restrictions on the issue in London of capital by India, by the great Dominions, and by the Colonies for purposes altogether admirable in themselves, objects which would commend themselves to any thinking man. We do that, my Lords, in obedience to this same criterion—namely, because we hold that the locking-up of capital for long periods as the result of such issues is bound to have a prejudicial effect upon our national credit, which thereby becomes impaired; and the maintenance of the national credit in its full perfection is, of course, one of our main and principal objects.
Precisely the same criterion as to whether action or abstention from action is going to assist in the prosecution of the war may be applied to a great number of other things—to the continued existence of amusements of all kinds, to the carrying on of field sports to the opening of theatres, or to a subject which has, I observe, become one of much controversy, that of the continuance of racing; and I cannot help saying that, if the public attention had been more steadily fixed upon what I venture to call this ruling criterion by which we all ought to be bound, we should have been spared a certain amount of what I cannot help calling rather gushing correspondence on the subject of race-courses which we have seen in the columns of the public Press. I repeat that this criterion of keeping our eyes steadily fixed upon the prosecution of the war and seeing that we in our respective spheres and according to our respective capacities do everything in the world that we can to assist it and nothing in the world to hinder it, is the only criterion which at this moment is worth considering. Probably the most cherished single utterance in the whole of our national history is Nelson's great signal at Trafalgar. That signal is being repeated to-day, not merely to the men of the fighting Services, but to every man and to every woman in these islands it must be a continuous watchword throughout the whole progress of this war and until victory is achieved.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Creue.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we are all, I am sure, grateful to the noble and gallant Field-Marshal for the remarks with which he prefaced the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the House. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal has duties which render it out of the question that he should take a frequent part in our discussions, but for that very reason we appreciate it all the more when he is able to come here from time to time and tell us not only something of the progress of events at the Front but something of his own opinions with regard to high questions of policy such as those which are raised by the Bill now on the Table, and I am bound to say that a portion at any rate of the speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal seemed to me to be the gravest appeal which has yet been made to the people of this country in connection with the present war.
I will come in a moment to the Bill which the Secretary of State for India has moved. But perhaps before doing so I may be permitted to express the feeling of sympathy with which we heard the noble and gallant Field-Marshal's testimony to the conduct of the British troops who are upholding the honour of this country in the field. We civilians have no right to express opinions upon purely military points, but there are some things which I venture to think we can understand quite as well as any soldier. For example, we can realise that there are qualities displayed by men quite unknown to fame, of whose performances there is no record—qualities of fortitude and endurance under the most trying circumstances—which deserve every whit as much recognition and respect as the more brilliant and conspicuous acts which are from time to time recorded in the annals of this war. We rejoice to think that after long weeks and months of inaction, or, at any rate, of mainly defensive action, our troops should have lately been able to take the offensive and to take it with brilliant success. It is particularly satisfactory—most of all, perhaps, to those who, like the noble and gallant Field-Marshal and myself, have had to do with Indian affairs—to know that our Indian soldiers have lately acquitted themselves with so much distinction. Their performance in connection with the taking of Neuve Chapelle seems to have been highly creditable, and I am glad that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has been able to
732
bear witness to it. The same is true of the behaviour of our Canadian troops. We all felt sure that they were only waiting for an opportunity of distinguishing themselves. They have had the opportunity, and have availed themselves of it. May I also be permitted to say how much many of us appreciate the compliment paid by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal to the Territorial Forces now engaged at the Front. I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack must have felt a special thrill of satisfaction when he listened to those words, for we all know the part which he took in calling those Forces into existence.
The noble and gallant Field-Marshal also singled out for special praise the manner in which our Armies had been supplied with all the necessaries which they require. I venture to think that in the whole military history of this country there has never been a more remarkable feat than that which has been performed by those military departments to whom has been entrusted the supplies both of the new Armies at home and of the great Army at the Front. It is remarkable that from almost every quarter there comes to us testimony as to the admirable way in which our troops at the Front have been fed. One other point I noted, and that was what the noble and gallant Field-Marshal said as to the health of the troops. Nothing could be more satisfactory than that he should be able to give us such a report. And may I say how gladly I recognise the credit which he is able to give to the Royal Army Medical Corps? If I may be permitted to indulge in a reminiscence, I can recall the time when a considerable controversy arose as to the propriety of giving military rank to the members of that corps. I do not think anybody now will be found to get up and express a doubt as to the propriety of allowing these gallant men, who risk their lives like all the other officers of the Army, to enjoy the distinction which a military rank confers. It was also pleasant to hear the noble and gallant Field-Marshal give an encouraging account of the progress of our operations in the Dardanelles, and of the progress made by our gallant Allies the Russians in the Eastern theatre of war.
Now may I pass to the Bill which we are

733
asked to read a second time to-clay. The noble Marquess who leads the House described it as one conferring enormously drastic powers upon His Majesty's Government and I do not think that the expression which he used was at all too strong, but the country is certainly not in a mood to challenge demands of this kind when they are put forward by His Majesty's Government in circumstances such as those which at present confront us merely because they are drastic. The noble Marquess expressed sonic doubt as to whether it would have been possible for him and his colleagues to ask for powers of this kind at an earlier stage in the progress of these hostilities. He anticipated that the demand might not have been so readily met if it had been preferred earlier in the day. These are matters of conjecture. All I will take leave to say is that these powers are not being asked for one day too soon. With regard to the principle involved in this Bill, I think it fair to recall that we are not altogether unused to the idea of these, in appearance, arbitrary interferences with the interests of private individuals. We have already passed several Bills under which very serious interferences with private interests are sanctioned. Under the Act which we passed in the last months of last year the Government of the day already has the power of appropriating the whole of the output of all shops and factories in which anything which can be described as munitions of war is being manufactured. I confess that, so far as the principle of the thing is concerned, I do not see very much difference between annexing the output of a factory in which munitions of war are made and annexing the output of any other factory. The principle seems to me to be exactly the same. What you have to consider is not the particular kind of thing which is manufactured in the particular shop, but the kind of interference with the individual to which you are driven to resort. Therefore so far as the arbitrariness of this measure is concerned I do not think we are going so very much further than we have already declared our readiness to go.
But, my Lords, I do think that it will be held by the people of this country that, while the most arbitrary interference is permissible, you are bound to deal as fairly as you can with the persons with
734
whose interests you interfere. I noticed with some interest what was said by the noble Marquess upon the question of compensation. What I gathered from him was that, while His Majesty's Government were reluctant to admit a statutory right to compensation, they were not unprepared in principle to recognise that compensation was due where injury is done to individuals. I think that conclusion is inevitable. Under the Defence of the Realm Act of last year we have already introduced Regulations under one of which the owner of a factory or workshop whose output is taken from him may go to a Judge of the High Court to have the amount of compensation to which he is entitled fixed by that Judge. There was another Bill which we passed the other evening under which we gave the right to people whose animals or vehicles were taken from them of going to a County Court Judge to get their claims for compensation dealt with. And in this case there is an amount of interference for more violent titan any which is contemplated in either of these other Acts. You descend upon a perfectly innocent individual, a man who may be running a highly specialised industry; you invade his premises; you convert his plant and remove it if it does not suit you; and I must say that it seems to me quite obvious that you cannot altogether exclude the idea of compensation in such a case. What I take it we should all desire to avoid is the encouragement of exorbitant claims and also any arrangement under which these claims would be likely to involve the Government in prolonged litigation. The noble Marquess said, and said rightly, that the idea of having recourse in cases of this kind to the full-blown procedure of the Lands Clauses Acts would be impossible. I quite agree. But I venture to think it should be made clear—I should have thought it might have been made clear on the face of the Bill—at any rate it should be made clear by the language of Ministers that there is no question that we recognise the right of the individual to reasonable compensation in cases where he is a pecuniary sufferer by the action of His Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess was good enough to tell us that His Majesty's Government intended to set up a Committee for the purpose of dealing with these claims, and I feel sure that no better president for that body could be selected than the hon. Member of Parlia-

735
ment whose name the noble Marquess mentioned—Mr. Duke. Perhaps the noble Marquess will consider whether the reference to the Committee might not be couched in terms which would leave no doubt as to the intention of the Government to give compensation, which I suppose would be described as reasonable compensation having regard to all the circumstances of the ease, whenever such compensation seemed to be desirable. I can only say that I hope in these respects this Bill will afford the means of making good a part of the leeway to which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal referred, and that he will be able to tell us before we are much older that there is no longer any disappointment with regard to the manner in which the orders given by His Majesty's Government are fulfilled by the contractors.
There is one other point in the Bill as to which I should like to say two or three words. It is, I think, quite clear that under this Bill His Majesty's Government intend to take power not only to deal with the plant in these factories and workshops but also with the labour employed in them. The speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal left us under no misapprehension on that point. I am bound to say that if that is the intention of His Majesty's Government they are to my mind amply justified in asking for powers to deal with that part of the case. I trust that it may not be found necessary to exercise those powers or to exercise them often, but if the occasion does arise I feel sure that they will be exercised fearlessly and without hesitation. I say this although I am one of those who have always in and out of this House stood up for the right of Labour to combine, who have always believed that our great trade unions, far from being a danger to the community, were really a source of safety to it. But while I hold those views as strongly as I ever held them, I feel that at a moment like the present there should be some power in the Government of the country to interfere if the circumstances require it. I can understand—we can all of us understand—that there should be in the minds of the men at times a feeling of weariness of long hours and of overtime, that there should be a suspicion that they are not getting the share to which they are entitled of the large profits which are undoubtedly being made at the present
736
time in some cases; but I cannot help believing that differences upon such points as these should not be beyond our power to compose, and I have no doubt that under this Bill means will be found of composing them. It is to my mind intolerable that at a time like the present our productive powers should be in jeopardy of paralysis from causes of this kind. We congratulate ourselves upon the fact that, owing to our great superiority at sea and owing to our insular position, our factories and workshops have escaped the fate which has fallen upon factories and workshops in Belgium and in the North of France. But, my Lords, it is terrible to think that our great industries should run the risk of being sapped and destroyed by an enemy within our own gates, and that the ranks of that enemy should be recruited from those who are the brothers of the men who are giving their lives for us at the Front. I trust that this reproach will be removed. If it remains, and if His Majesty's Government have to deal with it, they will have the support of the country in dealing with it vigorously. At any rate, I feel sure that when the appeal which was made just now by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal to the workmen of the country comes to their knowledge, many of those who, as the noble and gallant Earl told us, really do not realise what kind of a struggle this country is engaged in, will see that the time has come when they must settle their differences with their employers by some means other than action which would arrest the industrial progress of the country and deprive it of things which are as necessary to it as the food upon which the people live or the munitions of war with which they defend themselves.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the weighty words which have just fallen from the noble Marquess with regard to this question, coupled with those contained in the speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. I feel sure that those remarks will be read with interest, and will have great weight throughout the country. That in many parts of the country the people do not yet realise the position in which we are with regard to this war I have not the slightest doubt, and I am confident that the speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal as to the requirements which are necessary will do more to open the eyes of the country

737
than perhaps anything that we have had put before us up to the present time.
This Bill has been well described as a most drastic measure. I doubt whether any powers have been asked from Parliament at any time in the history of this country so drastic as these. This Bill practically gives a blank cheque to His Majesty's Government to take over any works which they feel disposed to take over. There is no compensation mentioned, but it is left entirely to the Government to say what special compensation should be given. I realise the necessity for the demand which the Government are making. This is a time when everybody must make great sacrifices. All classes should realise their duty in the interests of our Empire, and when the facts are brought before the workmen of the country and they see the necessity for co-operating with their employers and the Government in getting the output up to the highest possible point, I cannot help thinking that the workmen will respond. I realise that there have been difficulties owing to the restrictions of the trade unions with regard to the output of the various industries, but if the trade unions were satisfied that the restrictions if removed now would not be removed permanently but only until the war is finished, I do not think that His Majesty's Government would have very much difficulty in inducing them to waive the restrictions which now operate so badly against production. I come into contact with workmen to a large extent, and I am happy to say that the two counties which I represent—Northumberland and Durham—stand highest of all the counties in Great Britain for the number of recruits they have sent to the Colours. Northumberland has sent no less than 33 battalions and Durham has sent 26. Surely you cannot accuse workmen of any disloyalty when they are prepared to come forward in that way. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that when once workmen generally realise the necessity of a Bill of this kind the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will get all the output that he requires.
Something has been said with regard to the delay in bringing forward this measure. I cannot help thinking that it would have been better if it had been
738
brought forward earlier, because it would have had a great effect in opening the eyes of many people in this country to the serious position in which we are placed. To me it seems an extraordinary thing, when this country has probably the vastest productive power of any country in the world, that we should be deficient in ammunition, in guns, or in anything else that is required for military purposes. If the Government find that the present works which have been supplying munitions in time of peace are not equal to supplying them in time of war, surely they are justified in utilising some of the other works which have not been devoting their time to this kind of production. As soon as they saw they were likely to be deficient in munitions of war it would have been very much better had they brought forward a Bill like this, drastic though it is.
I was glad to hear the question of compensation so ably dealt with by the noble Marquess. Of course, you must give compensation in a reasonable way to any one individual or company, who suffers serious loss. These individuals pay their rates and taxes like everybody else, and the Government could not expect to get a special sacrifice from them without giving reasonable compensation. Let the burden be borne in a proper and fair way. I realise that if it were made a statutory obligation, unless it were very carefully hedged round, the demands would be exorbitant. We have seen in cases where the Government required land, houses, or property, that very often most exorbitant demands have been made. We do not want to have that in connection with this matter. But I hope that when the Committee is appointed it will be impartial and have full power to deal with compensation outside any Department of the State. I trust that it will take a reasonable and fair view of the serious losses which any particular individual may suffer owing to this great power which is given to the Government. There are many men who have worked the whole of their lives to get into their present position, and if he Government take over their works and apply them to other purposes these men will lose practically the whole benefit that they have been striving for all their lives. In many instances their good-will will be gone; their customers will have gone; and naturally they will suffer great loss.

739
I do not ask for any unreasonable compensation, but I feel sure that any impartial Committee which had power to go into these matters would give what is reasonable and avoid giving an extravagant figure.
This is, as I have said, a great power which is being given to the Government. I fully recognise that this is a special time, and that we are in great difficulties, but I hope that this will not form a precedent in the future. It should be clearly recognised that the present is a special case owing to the serious condition in which the country is placed by this war, and the action now taken should not form a precedent should the Government wish to take over other industries at any other time. I am satisfied, too, that the Government will be very careful how these particular industries are managed. It is an easy matter to take over special works, but after all the duty of the Government is to consider whether by so doing they will increase the production above what it would probably be if the works remained in the hands of the various owners and those owners were asked to go in for the special productions that the Government required. I am not much of a believer in Government management of yards and works, and I hope that the Government will put this matter into the hands of some very able men to advise them or to control the works. On this will depend a great deal whether the concern is successful or not. It is like our great Army and Navy. Whether they are successful or not depends very largely upon the people who are at the head of them and control them. I hope that before the Government definitely fix into whose hands they will put these great powers they will see that they are men who are likely to justify the position and realise the Government's expectations. Many of the best men will not apply for these posts, but there are men who are managing great industries in the country, who have great reputations, and who could be got if they were asked to come and assist the Government in this matter. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not hesitate to go outside the ordinary applicants and ask some of those gentlemen, many of whom are pretty well known, to come forward in a time of emergency of this kind and render their valuable services to the Government.
740
This Bill not only applies to the Army; it applies to the Navy as well, I gather. Many people in the country do not realise what our Navy is doing. I have myself heard many complaints. People are asking what the Navy is doing. My answer has always been that one of the chief things it is doing is that of protecting our trade routes, and that we have cheap food at the present time owing entirely to His Majesty's Navy. We have seen some little advance in prices with regard to various things that we import, but the increase is nothing to what it would have been had not the Navy been on the constant watch and protected our trade routes as admirably as it has done. There is one little suggest on I should like to make to His Majesty's Government. I see in subsection (2) of Clause 1 a provision to this effect—
"It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any person of any contract is interfered with by the necessity on the part of himself or any other person of complying with any requirement, regulation, or restriction of the Admiralty or the Army Council under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, or this Act, or any regulations made thereunder, that necessity is a good defence to any action or proceedings taken against that person in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to that interference."
That is a very necessary subsection, but in my judgment it does not go far enough. It ought to apply to what has been done in the past, and I think if it were to be taken hack to apply to anything that had been done since the declaration of war it would remove many difficulties which are existing at the present time. Most employers are very anxious to assist the Government, but there are people who will not relieve their contractors from the covenants of their contracts because they have taken Government work. I hope that His Majesty's Government, when this Bill goes into Committee, will put in a clause to provide for that particular matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House as to whether this Bill should be proceeded with now, or whether the Committee stage should be deferred until to-morrow, when there is some business on the Paper which will probably occupy a considerable time. I do not know whether there is any proba-

741
bility that noble Lords will desire to put down Amendments on this Bill. My noble friend who has just spoken mentioned a particular point with reference to subsection (2) of Clause 1, the scope of which he thought might be somewhat extended. I did not precisely apprehend how far back my noble friend thought that the freedom given by this subsection ought to extend. He will observe that the subsection applies not merely to this Act but also to the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act which became law on November 27 last. That was the first Act by which we had taken powers to interfere with the output of works supplying war material. Therefore I did not quite follow what my noble friend's desire was with regard to a further extension of this power. He could not, I think, have proposed that it should apply to engagements between parties which had no special reference to the supply of material to the Government. I should be glad if he would explain precisely what the point is.
LORD JOICEY: I want it to be retrospective to the beginning of the war; but, failing that, certainly retrospective to the time when the Government took the powers under the 1914 Act. This subsection, I imagine, only applies to any case which may arise after the present Bill is passed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think any contract under the Act of 1914 would be included.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My noble friend can attain his object by Changing the word "is" into "has been." The whole of the period of the war would then be covered.
LORD JOICEY: That is a matter for Committee. I hope the Government will give the point consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The point that my noble friend has raised is an important one, and therefore I think it would not be wise to proceed with the Committee stage at this moment, but to take it to-morrow, if the noble Marquess opposite agrees.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) RILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, this is a war emergency Bill. It is proposed that it should only remain in force, if your Lordships see fit to pass it, during the continuation of the war, and ipso facto it will come to an end at the conclusion of the war. An Inter-Departmental Conference sat to consider the question of trading with the enemy, and it was in consequence of the recommendations made by that Conference that this Bill is introduced. Although the Customs have great powers at the present moment to deal with goods which are exported from this country, yet there are small powers to deal with stores, and no notice is required to be given to the Customs in regard to stores being put on a vessel, for what purpose they are to be used, or their destination. Therefore we take power under this Bill to require that during the war the Customs shall have the same power as regards stores just as much as over goods. I can give your Lordships an instance of the necessity for this provision from the fact that not so long ago a ship was going from Swansea to Havre, and it took in stores at Swansea to the amount of 400 gallons of petrol notwithstanding that it was not a motor-boat and there was no reason to suppose that it would require petrol to that amount for any purpose. She was a neutral; it was known that in the direction in which she was going there were enemy ships which, might be supplied by that ship; yet there was no power for the Customs to interfere and prohibit her taking 400 gallons of petrol for a voyage from Swansea to Havre.
There is also a provision imposing a penalty upon coasting vessels leaving a port without proper clearance notice. That is also considered by the Customs to be important. Then there is another power which the Admiralty desire the Customs to have. Under an Order in Council while there is power for the Customs to prohibit neutral ships from conveying goods on bills of lading made out to order only, without any name of consignee, there is no power at the present moment for the Customs to apply a similar treatment to

743
British ships. It is thought that it would be only fair to neutral countries that we should have power, if we think fit, to make this provision applicable to British ships as well. There is another important provision. Under this Bill the Customs may call upon any exporter to prove that goods that had been sent out to a neutral country had not reached the enemy, or at any rate had not reached the enemy with his connivance or consent. There is also power for the Customs to detain any suspected goods; and the last provision in the Bill gives power to seize all goods suspected as coming from the enemies' countries. I think that your Lordships will see that this Bill is one of great importance, and that it is desirable to pass it at the earliest possible moment. Therefore I hope your Lordships will allow me not only to take the Second Reading to-day but to pass it through all its subsequent stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill repeated the story which the Attorney-General told the House of Commons the other day. I must say it is the most extraordinary confession which has ever been put by a Government before a nation at a time of crisis. What is the confession? It is that because the law was too weak a neutral vessel was allowed only two or three weeks ago to leave Swansea loaded with petrol which was known to be destined for German submarines that were hovering in the Channel. I do not care what the state of the law was. At the very worst the Government could have had an Act of Indemnity for stopping that petrol. Considering that Parliament has given the Government every power for which they have asked, I think it is an extraordinary thing that the Custom House authorities and the Admiralty between them, whatever the state of the law, should have allowed such a ship to leave our ports with such a cargo.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX) having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENEMIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, certain classes of cases have arisen and given considerable trouble in respect of contracts which have been entered into before the war but the operation of which is still pending. Legal questions arise as to the effect of the war upon these contracts, and at present the difficulty is that the person is often an alien enemy out of the jurisdiction of the Court. The Bill which I am submitting to your Lordships has been framed in consultation with the Judges to get over the difficulty and to allow substituted service under proper restrictions, and its operation is confined to obtaining the necessary declaration as to the effect of the war upon existing contracts. The Bill is a simple one. But there are one or two small Amendments which I wish to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments are in Clause 1 to leave out "The Lord Chief Justice shall give directions" and insert "The Lord Chancellor may make such rules as he thinks fit." The purpose of these Amendments is simply this, that the proper authority to make the rule is to be the Lord Chancellor and not the Lord Chief Justice.
Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 57.)

BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to obtain an independent Report on the treatment of British prisoners in Germany. The subject-matter of this Question has already been dealt with in another place but I make no apology for returning to it, because there is, I have reason to believe, considerable anxiety throughout the country with regard to the treatment of prisoners in Germany. In the second place there is an impression, which I cannot help thinking is a mistaken impression, that His Majesty's Government are unwilling to pursue the investigations and push them through thoroughly, in order not to embitter our relations with Germany. Personally I am unable to conceive of any circumstances which would further embitter the feeling of Germany towards this country at the present moment. Like presumably many other persons, I was disposed to think for a long time that these statements with regard to the treatment of British officers and soldiers in Germany were considerably exaggerated, and that impression was rather strengthened by the fact that I had come across instances of cases in which wounded British officers and men were treated with conspicuous humanity and skill by German medical officers. But as the war has progressed and as evidence has accumulated I think it is very difficult to resist the conclusion that this opinion was a somewhat too favourable one.
There are in Germany, as there are here, two categories of prisoners. There are interned civilians and there are prisoners of war. The interned civilians are, if I am not mistaken, all concentrated at Ruhleben. Ruhleben is a racing ground, and racing not being there considered so sacrosanct an institution as it is in this country, the racing stables have been converted to the use of prisoners who are lodged in the stalls, in the loose-boxes, and in the lofts. A letter appeared in The Times either of to-day or of Saturday describing the conditions, and it is evident that these lofts, stalls, and so on are greatly over-crowded, that the place is not properly heated, that the food is scanty unless the prisoners are able to purchase provisions at their own cost, that the sanitary arrangements are bad, and that there are many weak, infirm, and diseased people confined there; but it is only fair to say that there is no actual
746
charge of ill-treatment. The only thing that one can say is that the treatment is, perhaps, more severe than might have been anticipated by persons whose only offence was that they were either residing in or passing through Germany at the outbreak of war; and it is perfectly safe to state that the conditions there are certainly less tolerable than in any analogous camps in this country.
Now as regards prisoners of war. According to the numerous letters and statements which have appeared, the ill-treatment of these prisoners began directly they were taken. We have all read only too frequently accounts of the neglect of the wounded and of the herding of wounded and unwounded men into cattle trucks, often of a filthy description. I am acquainted with an officer who was thrust with fifty-one companions into a covered truck. He was kept there for three days and nights, and in the course of the journey was ordered by a German officer, the commandant de place, to present himself at the open door of this truck. The German officer addressed to him a long speech composed entirely of abuse of British prisoners and of the British nation, and it was concluded by an injunction to one of the sentries who stood at the side of this officer to kick him. This action was ordered by the German officer, and was carried out apparently for the sole reason that the officer in question happened to be the senior British officer available. We must hope that instances of similar brutality are rare. But it seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that evidence tends to show that the majority of British prisoners proceeding to their places of detention were treated with great harshness, that they were in many instances refused food and drink, and that they were exposed to the insults and outrages of the civilian population. I doubt whether there has been a similar exhibition of hostility on the part of one nation towards another for some considerable time, and it can only be described as an eloquent tribute to the success of that campaign of hate which has been so carefully organised in Germany against this country.
It may be said that all this is inevitable and inseparable from the conduct of a campaign; but unfortunately it appears that the ill-treatment of British prisoners was not confined to the journey towards

747
their places of detention but was continued in many instances in the military hospitals and in the concentration camps where they were confined. I desire to make this statement as concise as I can, and therefore will say next to nothing about the case of officers. I think it is fairly plain that British officers have been much better treated than the men, and that they have less to complain of. I desire to draw attention mainly to the treatment of British soldiers, and above all to endeavour to impress upon the House that the treatment of the British soldier has been in many cases distinctly worse than the treatment of French and Belgian soldiers who were confined in the same place; and that to my mind is the really important part of the question. It may, perhaps, have been noticed that when I mentioned French and Belgian soldiers I omitted purposely the Russians, because, if my information is correct, the Russian soldiers have been in many instances treated as badly as our own.
It is perfectly easy to obtain information on the subject, not from what appears in the newspapers but at first hand. At the present moment there are a number of wounded officers and men who have recently arrived in this country, and who have been exchanged because they were considered unfit for further service. I, like I dare say other members of this House, have taken the trouble to visit many of these men and hear their stories, and I have examined a number of men who have been imprisoned at various places in Germany, including, for instance, such places as Münster, Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Salzwedel, Halberstadt, Bielefeld, Mülheim, Wüzburg, Magdeburg, Dortmund, Aix, and Cologne, and the conclusion to my mind is absolutely irresistible that there has been, with the exception of certain places, of which Würzburg is one, discrimination as between British soldiers and French and Belgian soldiers, and that discrimination apparently extends to their treatment not only in the hospitals but in the concentration camps as well. In the hospitals in Germany—if what these men state is correct, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity—the French and the Belgian soldiers were better fed, were treated with greater consideration, and were allowed certain small comforts and privileges. On the other hand, the English prisoners, so far as my informants' ex-
748
perience went, were apparently treated with absolutely undisguised hatred and contempt. They were neglected and were subjected to a series of petty insults and bullying, which in some cases even took the malignant form of operations being performed on British soldiers without anæsthetics, whereas anæsthetics were administered to the men of other nationalities.
As regards the question of the concentration camps, I have been informed by a certain number of these men that they were discharged from the hospitals still suffering or, at all events, not properly cured of their wounds, and that when they were put into the concentration camps they were made to work although in no case was work exacted from the French and the Belgians. And as in the hospitals so in the concentration camps the English soldiers, if what they state is correct, were habitually worse fed; they were left in a disgusting state of filth; they were denied the small privileges which were accorded to their fellow-prisoners, and if there was any particularly repulsive work to perform they were always the men selected to do it. It is evident that the conditions vary in different camps, but one cannot help feeling a very strong suspicion that instructions have emanated from high quarters to subject British prisoners to what I can only term a course of vindictive bullying.
I said that I was not going to say much about the case of the officers, but there is a case to which I feel bound to refer, and that is an incident which took place at the prisoners' camp at Crefeld. Crefeld was visited by an officer of high rank who commanded the district, Baron von Bissing—I understand he has a brother who is enjoying the hospitality of this country at this moment. General von Bissing visited this camp and made a speech to the British officers in which he indulged in violent denunciations of this country. He wound up by saying that they were too comfortable, and that he should see that they were made less comfortable. These British officers were considerably crowded, but were kept together. Well, as the result of Baron von Bissing's instructions the officers were divided and Russian officers were placed with the English officers for the reason that the Russian officers could speak no French, and therefore there were no means

749
of inter-communication between the two. That is an action of petty and malignant spite which seems almost incredible, but which I know to be absolutely true.
Now, the object of this conduct is plain enough. The object of the German authorities who have subjected our officers and men to such treatment is not only to wreak vengeance upon these unfortunate persons but to show our Allies that we are the real enemy, and that we are the people who are really responsible for the tragedy of the present war. It is quite easy, as I have already said, to test these allegations at first hand. I believe that certain steps have already been taken in that direction, and I confess that it seems to me that the case for an independent inquiry is evident. Our conscience with regard to this question is perfectly clear. We have nothing whatever with which to reproach ourselves. We have nothing to conceal. We, I imagine, are prepared to court the fullest investigation. I imagine that there would be no objection raised in this country if the Germans desired to send a purely German commission over here in order to visit and report upon the prisons and concentration camps. As a matter of fact, an official or a semi-official emissary has been over here from Germany who has visited the concentration camps, and if I am not mistaken his report was entirely favourable. Of one thing I feel quite certain, and that is that if any German mission came over here with the object of investigating and reporting upon the conditions of the German prisoners in this country they would certainly admit that there is no discrimination here between one nationality and another, and that a German is treated precisely in the same way as, say, an Austrian, a Hungarian, or a Turk.
There are many people in this country, with whom I totally disagree, who urge what is called retaliation. I disagree with a proposal of that kind for two reasons. In the first place, it is contrary to our traditions, and contrary, I might almost say, to the practice of civilised nations. In the second place, it appears to me that it would only produce a disastrous result. The people who urge retaliation upon German prisoners in this country seem to me to be under a complete misapprehension of the German spirit. A very distinguished man, no less a person than the French
750
Commander-in-Chief, General Joffre, remarked to me some months ago, "The German spirit as displayed in this war is quite different from the spirit displayed in 1870." It must be clear to everybody by this time that the Germans are largely hoping to win by the sheer force of terrorising nations and individuals, and for my part I decline altogether to believe that the German Government is much concerned over the fate of their own prisoners. My impression is that these prisoners are looked upon by them as wreckage, that they are considered as so much lost capital which need no longer be considered; and the only effect of our retaliating upon German prisoners in this country would be to afford them, if they chose it, an excuse for exhibiting greater inhumanity towards such prisoners of our nationality as they held in their hands. In my humble opinion the only thing which is likely to exert any real influence over the procedure of the German Government in this matter is the intervention of a powerful neutral State—in other words, the intervention of the United States. I believe that the mere announcement that the American Government had agreed to send an independent representative to report upon the condition of British prisoners in Germany would at once cause a material improvement in their treatment. I do not think that we can well exaggerate the services which the American Government has rendered to this country during the war. I do not think that we can show ourselves too grateful for what the American Government has done for us, not only in Europe but also in other parts of the world. Considering what they have done, it might seem almost ungracious to ask them to do something else. But I submit that there would be justification in asking them to undertake the task which I have just suggested on the simple grounds of humanity and justice.
I believe that His Majesty's Government have been negotiating for some considerable time, for some months, in the endeavour to obtain an inquiry of some kind; and judging from what fell from the Under-Secretary in the House of Commons the other day, I gather that negotiations are going on with regard to the engagement of a number of American quartermasters whose special business it shall be to see that British prisoners receive the food which is sent to them and to which they

751
are legitimately entitled. This may be a sound and practical suggestion, and it may result in an improvement in these unfortunate men's conditions; but without being too presumptuous I venture to express the opinion that a scheme of this kind is not quite sufficient. I should be the last person who would desire to embarrass the Foreign Office in any way, but I think we have the right to demand that every effort should be made by the Government to secure that a prisoner of war in Germany should not be treated worse than another man merely because he happens to be of British nationality.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I desire to support the statements which have been made by my noble friend Lord Newton. As several men of my own regiment have returned with those so grievously wounded that they are unfit for service, I went to Millbank the day after they arrived and had an opportunity of hearing their stories. These men were not young soldiers; they were mostly men of the Reserve—good old soldiers, who were quite prepared to take the rough with the smooth. But some of the stories they told me—and I feel perfectly certain they were true—were so dreadful that I should hardly like to repeat them to your Lordships. I will only mention one case, that of a man who had been severely wounded. On one side two ribs had been carried away, and his right arm after several operations was eventually amputated. Yet on arrival at the place in which he was to be interned as a prisoner he was absolutely given over to the fury of the mob. This man told me that he was pushed about and his clothes torn, and his guard stood by laughing and enjoying it. When he was almost in a state of collapse they interfered and took him away. The men stated that in France and Belgium they were well treated. Of the hospitals there and of the doctors attached to them they had no complaint whatever. It was only when they arrived in Germany, and when they got especially to Prussia, that they met with insult and injury; and, as my noble friend has stated, discrimination was made between them and the men of other nationalities who were prisoners.
There is another question which the noble Lord has not touched upon. I have received many communications from depôts, from regimental committees, and
752
from private people that I am anxious to mention it to your Lordships' House. I refer to the question of money, and parcels containing food, clothing, and other things. Enormous quantities of the latter are sent from various organisations, and in some places very few of them appear to arrive. In the case of His Majesty's Guards I have had letters in which I have been told that the committee has sent off numberless parcels with food and clothing, but in the greater number of cases the parcels have not been delivered. I saw to-day at the Bar of the House an officer who had come to listen to the proceedings. I asked him whether he had had any experience in this matter, and he told me of a colonel in his regiment who had been in prison for many months. His relations and the regimental organisation had sent him parcels almost without number, and during a period of some months he had never received a single one. The real fact is that in Germany there appears to be no settled system regarding the feeding or the treatment of the prisoners. Some of the men told me that they were well treated; others said they had perfectly different rations from those given to the men to whom I had spoken before; and it seems to be left to each commandant to treat these unfortunate British soldiers in whatever way they please.
I sincerely trust that some public inquiry will be made. I think it would be an advantage if the German people were to know—if it ever could possibly get to them—the manner in which our men have been treated. I am sure we are most grateful to American gentlemen for the way they have worked. I have spoken to some, and in some cases they have found it absolutely impossible to assist our unfortunate men in any way. I think, my Lords, that there really is a necessity for en inquiry into this matter. I agree with Lord Newton that we could not possibly descend to reprisals upon the German soldiers who have fought for their country by treating them in the way that our officers and men have been treated in Germany.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to add a few words. I am grateful to Lord Newton for calling atten-

753
tion to this matter. I feel that every one in the House must realise how urgently important it is that we and neutral States also should know at this moment what are the facts as to the treatment in Germany of those who are there as prisoners, whether belonging to our own nationality or to our Allies. I hope to hear from the noble Earl who will reply on behalf of the Government to-night that the efforts are likely to prove successful which have, as I understand, been made in the hope of obtaining the leave of Germany for an independent inspection of the facts and an independent report upon the condition of the camps and of the prisoners. The very fact of an inquiry being made would, I am quite certain, do very real good. In England we have had, formally or informally, more than one inquiry, and I am quite certain of the gain which has resulted in the satisfaction to British people of knowing that our honour is being rightly maintained as regards the treatment we are giving to those who are in our power in their helpless condition; and further, I am certain that what has now been reported must be giving satisfaction outside our own country. Your Lordships are aware that a semi-formal inquiry has been made into our own camps and prisons and places of restraint by a representative of the United States who is familiar also with Germany, and that his satisfactory testimony is based on the investigation which he was specially competent to make.
But what is, I think, still more important, is the Report which some of your Lordships, I dare say, have seen—the Report now issued on behalf of the International Red Cross Committee, which has been drawn up by the two representatives who visited the camps in England, M. Ed. Naville and M. V. van Berchem. M. Naville I had the advantage of seeing several times while he was in England. No more competent or impartial investigator could possibly have been chosen, and I am sure your Lordships who have got his Report will share with me the satisfaction I feel in finding that, with regard both to the military and civilian camps, after bringing forward all the criticisms he thinks it right and necessary to bring, he says that the impression left on his mind in each case is perfectly satisfactory. He points out that there were difficulties which had not at the moment of his visit been completely
754
overcome, but all of which were in process of being overcome at the very time when he was there. One of the main complaints or criticisms which occurs in almost all camps relates to a practical inconvenience certainly not peculiar to those interned, and that is a complaint about the occasional delay in the receipt of letters from abroad. That is a complaint current in most camps; and the very fact that they complain that the letters take fortnight to be delivered, of itself shows the nature of the conditions existing when that delay in postal arrangements is the worst complaint they can make. The Report on the whole is, to my mind, extremely satisfactory reading for us who have so earnestly desired that everything that is right should be done as regards the treatment of the prisoners. One interesting point in the Report made by these two independent foreigners which I think ought to be dwelt upon is the perfect freedom which was allowed by the authorities in London to these Swiss and German gentlemen in making their inquiries. They were allowed to go without any notice to every camp; no kind of restriction was placed upon their interviews with the prisoners interned; no Englishman was there present while the interviews took place; they conversed with the prisoners with absolute freedom wherever they desired to do so; and they express in the introductory chapter of their Report their cordial recognition of the absolute readiness on the part of the authorities, both central and local, to facilitate their inquiries in every way. Nothing could be more satisfactory than that, and the few suggestions which they made are receiving, as I know, at this moment the most careful attention, and some of them had been already remedied before the Report was made public.
There are two points upon which I desire, from some personal knowledge of the matter, to say a word. One is with regard to a point dwelt upon by M. Naville in his Report—the question of religious ministration to those who desire it in the camps. Some might feel, in face of difficulties so urgent and pressing as those of camp life, that the religious demand would come second to the supply of physical necessities. I do not wish to express any opinion about that. But this is certain. In the enforced leisure in the camps there are necessarily times of

755
the extremest depression, anxiety, and discomfort other than the purely physical, and those are the moments when it is particularly desirable that those who feel the need for it should have such ministry given to them as they may wish for. I have been in communication with the Foreign Office and even with some persons in Germany with regard to the possibility of securing in Germany anything at all corresponding to what we have already been able to secure in England. In the English camps, I believe I am right in saying, there is not at this moment one single camp in which we are not ministering to Germans in German and for the most part by Germans themselves. That has been a matter of great difficulty to arrange, because the number of persons who are able to minister competently in German and who are sufficiently free from other duties to be able to render this service is not very large, and I think it redounds to the credit of those who have taken it in hand that such good results have been achieved. Arrangements are being made for the German Lutherans, German Roman Catholics (where there are any), and others to whom it can be possible to minister in our camps in England to-day. Whether anything corresponding to that is being satisfactorily done in Germany is at present most doubtful. There is one heroic man working in and around Berlin, Dr. Williams, the chaplain there, who has been allowed through the friendliness of the German authorities free access to some of the camps in that neighbourhood, and I have direct testimony to the great value which is attached to the ministrations he has been able to give. I venture to hope that in that matter as well as in other matters—I know the Foreign Office are considering it—the success that has attended our endeavours in England may be emulated in the camps in Germany. There is no difficulty in furnishing in any number the necessary clergy provided they can obtain the leave of the German authorities to have access to the camps. We have quite a number of good and capable men ready to start at a moment's notice who would minister to those who are in the camps in our own language.
I past to the other point. I am very anxious to be allowed to endorse what has been said by both the noble Lords who have spoken as to the question which has
756
been sometimes raised of retaliation or reprisal on our part in view of the indisputable hardships and wrongs which have come to light as having happened in Germany. The records given to us tonight correspond very largely with what had already reached me, though I had heard more favourable accounts than the two noble Lords gave as regards the actual treatment of our wounded soldiers in the hospitals. I think it is fair to say that Iat least have had no intimation, though receiving communications on the subject, of the kind of hardship to our wounded in the hospitals to which reference has been made to-night. But with regard to the journeys from the places where the men were taken prisoners to their ultimate destination, or from one place of internment to another, or again with regard to the differentiation made by the Germans between British prisoners and French and Belgian prisoners in kindness of treatment accorded—as to those matters I am afraid it is difficult to think there is any doubt at all. If the facts are misrepresented, it is in the power of the German authorities to have the misrepresentation set right. I am absolutely sure that there are thousands of good men and women in Germany to whom it would be as detestable as it is to ourselves that these cruelties and wrongs should be tolerated. But whatever be the result of any independent inquiry, however dark be the picture such inquirers are able to paint, I hope that this country will not go one step forward in the direction of anything like reprisal or retaliation. To my mind nothing could be more contrary to the honourable traditions of English history or more foreign to the principles which should actuate us in matters of this kind, principles both of religion and of civilisation generally. There are many ways in which this war may possibly do harm to England and the English people, but one disaster would be greater than any other that I can imagine. I mean this, and I say it with my whole heart. If once we became infected with a lower spirit and adopted a lower ideal in these matters by imitating bad habits and bad ways of which we might hear elsewhere it would be the worst misfortune that the war could bring upon us. At present I believe we are being actuated in our whole treatment of those who are now under restraint in our land by the firmest determination that no endeavours shall be spared to alleviate for them to the utmost

757
the tedium of what must necessarily be a time of extreme trial; and I trust that whatever revelations as to the treatment of our own countrymen in Germany may come to light we shall resist with scorn the temptation to retaliate or to do anything which is unworthy of our traditions, unworthy of our ideals, or lowering to that self-respect which is an honourable asset in our country's life.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, it is not surprising that the noble Lord opposite should have raised this question, because I am sure every member of your Lordships' House must feel a very real sympathy with the prisoners who are now in Germany and with the deep anxiety which their relatives must have especially in view of such distressing stories as those to which we have listened from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. The noble Lord who generally answers for the Foreign Office is unfortunately unwell, and is unable to take part in this discussion. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord opposite will excuse me if I confine myself to the Question which he has on the Paper and do not discuss the various other matters which have been merged into the debate. Heartily as I agree with his remarks upon retaliation, I shall abstain from following him or the most rev. Primate in what was said on that subject.
As the noble Lord said, this matter has already been discussed in another place, and I do not suppose that he will be surprised to hear that I have nothing new to tell him. In view of the conflicting reports which had reached His Majesty's 'Government, mainly from private sources, as to the condition of internment of British prisoners of war, a proposal was made some time ago through the United States to Germany that United States officials, lent by their own Government for the purpose, should be in permanent touch with the commandants of the various camps, and that they should generally supervise the distribution of relief to the British prisoners of war. As no answer could be obtained from the German Government to this proposal, His Majesty's Government then requested the United States Government to obtain permission
758
from the German Government for an American representative, selected by the United States Embassy in London, to proceed to Germany and visit the camps in which British prisoners were interned, just in the same way as Mr. Jackson from the United States Embassy in Berlin visited the camps in the United Kingdom. There is now, however, reason to hope that the German Government will accept the proposal of His Majesty's Government for the adoption of the permanent scheme which has been outlined. It is believed that this will afford better guarantees for the proper treatment of British prisoners of war than a cursory inspection of prison camps.
It is quite evident to those of your Lordships who have followed the discussion that the noble Lord who asked the Question has evinced a great deal of interest in the matter and taken a great deal of trouble with regard to the presenting of the case to your Lordships. Will he allow me to suggest that he should be good enough to indicate to the Foreign Office the results of his inquiries? I am sure they will be glad to have them at first hand; and I venture to hope that if he repeats his inquiry at a later period in this House we may have a better account to give him of the treatment of British prisoners of war in Germany.
LORD NEWTON: May I suggest that a much simpler course would be that the men should give the evidence themselves rather than that I should supply the information.

DEFENCE OE THE REALM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it is suggested that the House should meet at half-past three o'clock to-morrow afternoon. I understand that that is considered generally convenient.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.