Sitting of 4 May 1915

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon, Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. DRPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report, from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge) Bill [Lords].

Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords.]

Brighton and Hove Gas Bill [Lords].

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords).

Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Salop County Council Bill [Lords],

Warwick Gas Bill [Lords].

Falmouth Dock Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a second time.
London County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case, of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a second time.
Provisional Orders Bill (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First
942
Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Sea Fisheries (Cardigan Bay) Provisional Order Bill.

Sea Fisheries (Poole) Provisional Order Bill.

Conway Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill,
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Barnoldswick Urban District Council Water Bill,
Mersey Railway Bill [Lords],
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extensions, etc.) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Methodist Church in Ireland Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Dewsbury Corporation Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered.
Amendment proposed by Promoters.
Mr. LOUGH: I believe that this Amendment is suggested in order to meet a proposal of which some of us had given notice. If we receive an assurance that the object we had in view will be secured by this Amendment withdrawing the Clause, we shall be satisfied. Perhaps we can have a word to that effect before the present Amendment is agreed to.
Mr. DENNISS: I understand that it is agreed that the Clause will be withdrawn from the Bill.
Mr. LOUGH: What will be the effect of that?
Mr. DENNISS: That will be for the lawyers to determine, I think.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean): The effect of the withdrawal of the Clause is that the Clause will no longer remain in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read a third time.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Guildford Gas, Melton Mowbray Gas, Swanage Gas, and Holylake and West Kirby Gas and Water." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Cheadle Gas, Heathfield and Waldron Gas, Liverpool Gas, Mid Kent Gas Light and Coke, Rothwell Gas, and Fisherton Anger and Bemerton Water Works." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
Worksop and Bawtry Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Lurgan Urban District Council Bill.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords,
Consolidation Bills.—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely. That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Copy presented of Third Report by the Scottish Land Court for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Amendment of the Superannuation Scheme for Teachers, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of December, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Seventy - Seventh Annual Report of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PAWNBROKERS' RETURN (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year 1913 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 12) Warrant, 1915, dated 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LABOUR EXCHANGES ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Supplementary Regulation, dated 29th April, 1915, made by the Board of Trade pursuant to Section 2 of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ALLEGED GERMAN OUTRAGES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC SERVICES IN INDIA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Public Services of India, Minutes of Evidence relating to certain Departments taken at Delhi, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, and London (Volumes XIII., XIV., XVI., XVII., XVIII., and XX.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Borough of Wallasey;
City of York;
Urban districts of Willesden and Gellygaer
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5441 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 31st March, 1915, made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 2 of the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1914, entitled the County Borough of Wakefield (Insurance Committee) Order, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 3rd May, 1915, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Societies' Accounts and Administration Expenses) Amendment Regulations, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 221.]

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1915–16).
Copy ordered, "of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—[Mr. Acland.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]

THAMES CONSERVANCY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—General Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1914 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 223.]
CROWN COLONIES, &c. (DEATH SENTENCES).
Address for Return "showing the number of Death Sentences and Executions in British Crown and other Colonies and Protectorates during the year 1914, with the Population of such Colonies and Protectorates, respectively (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 334, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. George Greenwood.]

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
James Cosgrave, esquire, for County of Galway (East Galway Division).
Samuel Galbraith, esquire, for County of Durham (Mid-Durham Division).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    NEUTRAL POWERS (RIGHTS AND DUTIES).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that at the Peace Conference held at The Hague in 1907, at the instance of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, Article 7, of Convention 5, defining the rights and duties of neutral Powers and persons in war on land was signed without reservation by all the Powers, including Germany and the United States, that Article 7 provides that a neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit for either belligerent of arms, munitions of war, or in general of any-thing' which could be of use to an army or fleet, he will say whether at any time during the proceedings of the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers at The Hague, Germany raised any protest against this article; and whether the German Government, in order to promote German trade, have in recent years, when themselves neutrals, permitted German manufacturers to export munitions of war to belligerents and also to Great Britain during the South African war?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): There is no mention in the official record of proceedings of The Hague Convention in 1907, of any protest by the German delegates against the article referred to. The Fifth Convention was signed by all the Great Powers without reservation, except of Articles 16, 17 and 18 by Great Britain; these articles do not affect the present question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that, at the Peace Conference held at The Hague in 1907, Articles 6 and 7 of Convention 13, relating to the rights and duties of neutral Powers in maritime war, was assented to without reservation by the Plenipotentiaries of the United States and Germany, that Article 6 forbids the supply (la remise) of war material of any kind by a neutral Power to a belligerent, that Article 7 provides that a neutral
    948
    Power is not bound to prevent the export of munitions of war for either belligerent, he will say whether the Government of the United States have at any time during the present War supplied war materials of any kind to His Majesty's Government, or whether all munitions acquired on account of His Majesty's Government in the United States have been purchased from manufacturers and others as distinct from the United States Government in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of The Hague Convention?
    Sir E. GREY: The United States Government have not at any time during the present War supplied any war material of any kind to His Majesty's Government, and I do not suppose that they have supplied any of the belligerents. It has always been a recognised legitimate practice—and wholly consistent with international law—for manufacturers in a neutral country to sell munitions of war to belligerents. They were supplied in this way from Germany to Russia during the Russo-Japanese War, and from Germany to Great Britain during the Boer war, and are, no doubt, being supplied in the same way from manufacturers in neutral countries to belligerents now.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Has not the rule always been, before The Hague Conference at all, that subjects of neutral nations are allowed to supply war munitions at their own risk? Was not that arrangement recognised so far back as 1793.
    Sir E. GREY: I cannot give the date, but it is wholly consistent with international law that that practice should go forward. If there were any question of departure from neutrality at all, I think it would be, not in permitting the practice, but in interfering with it.

    GERMANS TRADING IN CHINA.
    Mr. STEWARTasked whether Germans trading in China are treated as neutrals in view of the fact that they enjoy the privilege of extra territoriality?
    Sir E. GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the announcement issued by the Board of Trade on the 23rd of December last, according to which transactions between British traders in the United Kingdom, and in China, and German, Austro-Hungarian or Turkish subjects and firms commerically domiciled in China are not expressly prohibited. But in the

    949
    opinion of His Majesty's Government such transactions are undesirable at the present time. The question of adopting a more drastic policy is, however, under under consideration.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    MEDICAL PERSONNEL.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if any agreement has yet been arrived at between the belligerent Powers in reference to the mutual release of medical personnel detained with prisoners of war in the respective countries?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative; negotiations on the subject are still proceeding with the German Government through the United States Embassies in London and Berlin.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that these negotiations will be brought shortly to a conclusion—they have been proceeding a very long time?
    Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put down a question for next week, when I hope to be able to tell him what further progress has been made.

    STEAMSHIP "URANIUM."
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether prisoners of war or interned civilians are now detained on the steamship "Uranium"; if so, what is the tonnage of the "Uranium"; and how many prisoners and others are quartered on this ship; whether he is aware that complaints of overcrowding and unhealthy conditions have been made; and whether it is intended that the arrangements now existing are to continue for the duration of the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Only interned civilians, of whom there are 992, are detained on the "Uranium." The gross tonnage is 5,189. In addition to the prisoners there are 154 persons, comprising the staff and guard. There have been complaints about overcrowding on this ship, but orders have been given which will remove this temporary inconvenience.
    Mr. KING: Is it intended to keep the prisoners still on board ship? Cannot they be transferred to some camp on land?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is under consideration.

  REPARATION (PROPOSED JOINT DECLARATION).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the Governments of France and Russia that a joint declaration should be made as to the reparation that will be exacted from all who are proved to be responsible for acts of cruelty towards prisoners of war?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot add to what the Prime Minister said in the House on 27th April on this point.

  BRITISH CONSULS-GENERAL.
  Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether, after the outbreak of war, British Consuls-General in Germany and Austria ceased to hold office; whether an exception was made in the case of Lucien Bachmann, a German subject; whether the said Lucien Bachmann's name remains on the list of Consular servants; and whether he has been transferred to a consulate-general in Switzerland?
  Sir E. GREY: British Consuls-General in Germany and Austria-Hungary ceased to hold office in those countries on the outbreak of war, and some of those of them who were British subjects are now being employed at home or abroad. Of these Mr. Bachmann is one. He is not a German subject, but a naturalised British subject of French origin. He is at present assisting His Majesty's Minister at Berne.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is he not at Dunkirk?
  Sir E. GREY: Not that I am aware of.

  ASPHYXIATING GASES (USE BY GERMANS).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken or proposes to take any steps, through the courtesy of the United States Ambassador, to call the attention of the German Government to their breach of The Hague Convention, of which Germany is a signatory, by the use of asphyxiating gases against the troops of the Allies; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to adopt any

  951
  special course of action in the event of no adequate explanation by the German Government?
  Sir E. GREY: This breach of the rules of warfare and of international engagement has clearly been committed by the enemy with deliberate purpose and after careful preparation. The German authorities are evidently quite aware of what they are doing, and it is unnecessary to call their attention to it. Time will be more usefully spent in taking steps to counteract this practice.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the official Eye-Witness with the British Army at the front on 6th April to the effect that it had been learnt from German prisoners that the enemy were preparing to asphyxiate our men by means of poisonous gas stored under pressure in steel cylinders; whether this form of attack was, in fact, adopted by the Germans on 22nd April; whether any, and what, steps had been taken in the interval to protect our men against the effects of poisonous gas; and whether it is intended to allow the enemy to pursue this mode of warfare without employing similar expedients against him, after due notice, by way of retaliation?
  Mr. TENNANT: I regret to have to inform the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding their engagements under The Hague Convention, the Germans have on more than one occasion used poisonous gases in the manner described, and have caused the deaths of numbers of our men by poisoning. In spite of rumours to the contrary, it was not believed that any Power which had signed The Hague Convention could be guilty of so heinous a breach of its solemn undertaking as the violation of the fundamental principles of that agreement by the introduction into modern warfare of such a method as this, which may have far-reaching results. The latter part of the question is under consideration.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman kindly to answer that part of the question which inquires whether we were not warned of this intended procedure a fortnight before the occurrence, and whether any notice was taken of that warning?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am really not acquainted with the warning to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: It is in the question.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that there was any such warning.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that in the dispatch of "Eye Witness" on 6th April the announcement was made that prisoners had disclosed the intention of the enemy to use poisonous gas?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; I did not.

  WAR OFFICE AGENTS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a firm named Perfect and Company, of 2, Bank Buildings, St. John Street, West Smithfield, and of Royal Liver Buildings, Liverpool, have been contractors to the War Office in any shape or form, or have been employed on War Office work, or have held contracts for meat or food supply to Territorial or other military camps?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Messrs. Perfect and Company are the War Office agents for supervising the discharge, storage, inspection and distribution of frozen meat for the troops. They are not contractors in any sense, and I am informed by them that they neither hold nor have held any contract for the supply of meat, food, or any other article to Territorial or other military camps, or, indeed, to any other person.

  ARMY OFFICERS (RATES OF PAY).
  Lord Charles BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House why officers in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry and the Gloucester Regiment serving at the front in the 27th Division are only drawing English rate of pay while other officers in the division are drawing Indian rate of pay?
  Mr. BAKER: Neither battalion of these regiments was in India on the outbreak of War, and none of the officers are therefore entitled to draw Indian rates while serving with the Expeditionary Force.

  MUNITIONS (SMALL ENGINEERING FIRMS).
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that smaller engineers throughout the country, and especially in the West of Scotland, are suffering from unemployment in the face of the outcry for greater output of munitions of war; whether he is aware that this arises from the fact that his Department refuse to put these firms on their war list, notwithstanding that they have frequently done work by sub-contract for his Department and are known so to have done, and further from the fact that the War Office dislikes doing business with small firms; and whether he will take any action to remedy this?
  Mr. BAKER: In so far as there has been any reluctance to give direct contracts to the smaller firms, it has been due to considerations of efficiency and economy. Special measures are now being taken to organise more completely the whole manufacturing capacity of the country, and if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any firm capable and willing to do work for this Department, I shall be glad to see that they receive full consideration.

  UNTRAINED RECRUITS (RIFLES).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering the danger of putting loaded rifles in the hands of young and untrained recruits, he will consider the question of prohibiting untrained men from being posted on guard duties with loaded rifles, and arrange that in future, when trained and experienced soldiers are not locally available, National Reservists shall be called in for such duties?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is, of course, necessary, as the hon. and gallant Member will realise, that guards should be armed. It is not customary to employ untrained men on such duties, and National Reservists are now employed to the fullest extent that the number available permits.
  Colonel YATE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that it often happens when drafts have been sent out from Reserve regiments that there are not trained troops left; does he consider the danger there is in taking up untrained men and putting loaded rifles in their hands, with probable consequent casualties?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is, of course, realised that that would be a great danger, but it is avoided, I think, in nearly every case.
  Colonel YATE: Not in the cases I have heard of.
  Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me specific details of any cases that he has in his mind.

  ARMY SUPPLIES (INSPECTION).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the present moment there are persons employed in and around the dock and riverside refrigerators in the inspection of supplies for His Majesty's troops who are neither certificated meat inspectors nor have they had any training as practical butchers; and whether, in view of what occurred at the White City, he will have the matter inquired into and remedied?
  Mr. BAKER: I am informed that all persons employed in the inspection of meat for His Majesty's troops are practical men with lifelong experience of the meat trade, and the results obtained show that the inspection is efficiently performed in all respects.

  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES (NEW SOUTH WALES MUTTON).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has seen that an extended drought has prevailed in New South Wales, especially in the Riverina district; and, as poor and perished sheep have recently arrived in London from Australia, will he say what steps the Government propose to take to prevent meat works in New South Wales delivering to them poor class sheep, short of flesh, and charging for them the scheduled price for good quality mutton?
  Mr. BAKER: I accept my hon. Friend's intimation as to the occurrence of a drought in New South Wales, and can assure him that there is every reason to believe that the present system of inspection will effectually prevent the acceptance of meat of poor quality for War Department requirements.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that 4½d. per lb. is to be paid by the Imperial

  955
  Government for wethers and 4d. for ewes in New Zealand, and 4⅛L and 3⅞d., respectively, for wethers and ewes in New South Wales; whether he is aware that ordinarily at Smithfield there is about 6d. to 8d. per stone difference between the sheep of these two Colonies; whether the figure for New South Wales mutton is in any way connected with the recent combine formed between the firms of Borthwick and Sons, John Cooke and Company, and the Angliss Proprietary. Limited, referred to in the Australian Meat Commission Report; and whether it was upon the advice of Mr. Gordon Campbell or Lord Whitburgh that the above prices were settled?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The prices of meat purchased in New Zealand and in New South Wales on behalf of His Majesty's Government were fixed by the Governments of New Zealand and New South Wales respectively. The second part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, disposed of by the fact that the New South Wales Government were invested with full powers under an Act of the New South Wales Parliament to take control of the meat supplies of the State, and to fix prices. So far as I am aware, no advice of any kind was asked of either of the two gentlemen mentioned in the third part of the question.

  SOLDIERS MENTALLY INCAPACITATED.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War on what principle the War Office acts in deciding what pension or compensation soldiers shall receive, who are discharged from the Army as the result of mental injury sustained whilst serving with the Colours; whether consideration is given to their inability to support themselves, their inability to support their family, the extra expense of their maintenance by their friends, and the stigma attaching to them in seeking employment if they are fortunate enough to recover; and whether he will make a full statement on this matter before the Mental Treatment Bill is proceeded with?
  Mr. BAKER: The amount of pension depends on the degree of disability, and no doubt these cases will generally come into the class of the totally incapacitated. The rates of pension are shown in para-
  956
  graphs 15–18 of the First Report of the Select Committee. There is power to apply the pension for the benefit of a soldier who cannot manage his own affairs.

  FUSE MANUFACTURE (KRUPP'S BRITISH PATENT).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether, on every fuse manufactured in this country, a royalty of 1s. is paid by the Government under a German patent for the benefit of Messrs. Krupp, of Essen; if so, whether this money is paid to the Public Trustee by the British armament firms for the account of Messrs. Krupp; and whether he can state the amount of money due to Messrs. Krupp after the expenditure of ammunition at Neuve Chapelle and Ypres?
  Mr. BAKER: The Government agreement regarding the payment of royalty at 1s. 3d. in respect of Krupp's British patent expired on 16th July, 1914, and no royalty has been paid by the Government on any fuses passed into the Service subsequent to that date.

  LONDON IRISH RIFLES.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the London Irish Rifles were raised in the year 1859; and whether, in the event of casualties occurring, the battalion will in future be referred to as the London Irish Regiment and not as the London Regiment?
  Mr. TENNANT: I regret—I might say I greatly regret—that, in answering a supplementary question put to me on the 28th April, I should have misstated the position of the London Irish Rifles. The Noble Lord is quite right. The London Irish Rifles have a long period of gallant service and there is now a battalion at the front. I can assure him that, in the event of casualties, the words "London Irish Rifles" will appear in the Press announcements. Indeed, I am informed that, in the case of those casualties which have already occurred, the announcement has not been limited to the words "18th Battalion London Regiment."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the other day, when it was officially mentioned that an Irish

  957
  Regiment was in a gallant charge, the name of the regiment was not given?
  Mr. TENNANT: It has not been the custom when an announcement is made to name every regiment. When all behave so gallantly it has not always been considered desirable to single out any individual.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is the light hon. Gentleman also aware that the first Volunteer who won the Victoria Cross in the South African War was a rifleman of the London Irish?
  Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that fact, but if it is as the hon. Gentleman says, it is only in accordance with what one would expect.

  SLATIN PASHA.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked if Slatin Pasha has joined the Austrian Army; if so, whether he is still on the Soudan Army List and has received leave of absence; and whether he is drawing any emoluments for his office in the Soudan?
  Mr. TENNANT: According to the information in the possession of the War Office, Slatin Pasha is not serving in or with the Austrian Army. I cannot say what his technical status as regards the Soudan Army may be at the moment, but he is not, so far as I am aware, drawing any emoluments from Soudanese Funds.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. EDGAR HORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private B. T. Clay, serving in the 1/4th Battalion Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, Territorial Force, in India, has been refused proficiency pay, on the ground that his previous service was in the Royal Navy, while, had this service been in the Regular Army, Royal Marines, or Territorial Force, Private Clay would have been in all respects eligible for such pay; whether the same decision has been given in the case of Private G. Mace, serving in the supernumerary companies attached to the 2/5th Queen's, for the same reason; and whether he will take steps to rectify this state of affairs, arising under the wording of Army Order 96 of 1915?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on
  958
  this subject last Wednesday to the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Portsmouth, a copy of which I will send to him.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers in the Territorial Force are excluded from obtaining increments of pay similar to those given to officers in the Regular Army; that a major in the Royal Army Medical Corps, Territorial Force, although having ten years' service in the ranks, receives 23s. 6d. a day, and must render three years' embodied service before being entitled to draw 26s.; and will he consider the advisability of removing what is regarded to be an injustice throughout the Territorial Force, and grant increments of pay to alt ranks in respect of combined service rendered before and after embodiment?
  Mr. BAKER: As I have already explained in answer to previous questions on this subject, service in the Territorial Force before embodiment cannot be regarded as equivalent to continuous service in the Regulars, but the position of Territoral Force Royal Army Medical Corps officers with regard to pay and promotion is now receiving consideration.
  Sir. C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when me shall know the result of that consideration?
  Mr. BAKER: Very soon, I hope.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what precisely is the practice of the War Office in continuing payments to the dependants of soldiers who have been killed; and what is done in cases where the twenty-six weeks expire before the new body to be set up to deal with pensions is approved?
  Mr. BAKER: The normal practice is to continue the allowance for twenty-six weeks from the date upon which the casualty is notified to the dependant. Pending the formation of the new body, a further continuance of the allowance, within the limits of widow's pension, is being granted.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what will happen in the matter of difference between the pension and the allowance, and will they have the difference?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now in a position to state what new

  959
  arrangements are to obtain with regard to fuel and light allowances, etc., in the case of soldiers who are billeted?
  Mr. BAKER: I hope to be able to make a statement on this very soon.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how soon? He said that when last he was asked, some considerable time before.
  Mr. BAKER: I said "soon" before.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if it is intended to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Pensions and Grants with reference to the reconstitution of the Royal Patriotic Corporation and the assignment to a statutory committee of that corporation of certain duties in regard to military and naval pensions and allowances; and when the House will have an opportunity of considering this matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): A Bill will be introduced, but, as has already been promised, before its introduction an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee. I am unable yet to name a day.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will reconsider the decision to refuse a dependant's allowance to a woman whose husband has died since the War, and who now becomes dependent upon a son who did not support her before but who would be able to do so if he had not enlisted, and who now makes an allotment in her favour?
  Mr. BAKER: These cases are excluded by the decision of the Select Committee, which I cannot undertake to alter, but they might properly be relieved from voluntary sources, or through the new statutory body.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that in a case like this if the man had shirked his duty he would have been living at home and supporting his mother, and because he has done his duty, and in spite of his giving the full allotment out of his pay, his mother is practically being left in destitution?
  Mr. BAKER: I think that may be so, but there are agencies which might deal with such cases.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prince of Wales' Relief Fund refuses to assist cases of this kind?
  Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of that, but I am afraid that in any case I cannot undertake to go beyond the recommendation of the Select Committee.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the policy of the Government to take advantage of that man's patriotism?

  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (SPECIAL RESERVE OF OFFICERS).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the Royal Field Artillery special reserve of officers, there is rank senior to captain; and will he state what promotions have been made in the above of captains, first and second lieutenants, since August last?
  Mr. TENNANT: Under a recent decision promotion can be made to the rank of major, and this will give a considerable amount of additional promotion in the lower ranks. I am informed that three second lieutenants have been promoted to be lieutenants and three lieutenants to be captains in the period mentioned.

  UNIVERSITIES AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS BRIGADE (COMMISSIONS).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a general feeling prevails in the Universities and Public Schools Brigade that men are being stopped applying for commissions on the ground of short service in the brigade; and can he say, if satisfactory evidence can be produced of previous service in another regiment, whether that service will overcome the difficulty, provided the usual references are satisfactory?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think there can be any feeling such as the hon. Member mentions, as the instructions recently issued regarding the qualifications of candidates for appointment to temporary commissions contained no reference to length of service. The General Officer Commanding the 118th Brigade is empowered to recommend all candidates serving under his command whom he considers in every way suitable for promotion to commissioned rank.

  COMPULSORY SERVICE.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to statements made at Hull by Major-General Bowles, C.B., War Office Inspector of Recruiting, to the effect that in going about the country he has heard suggestions as to compulsory service; that he had reported these suggestions to the War Office and been told not to make any further refer-once to compulsion; will he say whether the statements are made with the knowledge and consent of the Secretary of State for War; and, if not, on whose authority?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that Major-General Bowles, C.B., stated that, though he had heard suggestions as to compulsory service when going about the country, it would save the time of the meeting if the attention of those present were confined to the question of obtaining recruits under existing conditions. He added that the War Office was not then considering the question of compulsion, and that reference, therefore, need not be made to the subject during the discussion. Major-General Bowles' duties are to assist in raising recruits, and he has no concern with questions of recruiting policy.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements about which I have put this question have appeared in almost every paper throughout the country; and can he say whether all those reports are wrong?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think what I have stated is the accurate version of what did happen.
  Sir RICHARD COOPER: Is it not a fact that instructions have been given to the authorities in the borough of Walsall to create classes for girls in order to take the places of men who will soon be wanted?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether tenders were issued for the contract now held by Messrs. Dickeson for the supply of groceries, etc., to certain
  962
  Yeomanry regiments in this country in respect of the daily 4d. allowance; (2) how many Yeomanry regiments in this country are now being exclusively supplied with groceries, etc., by Messrs. Dickeson in respect of the daily 4d. allowance; and (3) what is the length of contract between Messrs. Dickeson and each of the Yeomanry regiments now being supplied by them in this country in respect of the daily 4d. allowance?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that it is impossible to furnish this information without calling for reports from the commanding officers of all the Yeomanry regiments in the country, and in view of the great pressure on the Department I hope that the hon. Member will not press his request. Under the rules for the management of regimental institutes, the commanding officer is responsible for making canteen contracts and for watching over the interests of his men in this respect.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Messrs. Dickeson allow any reduction in their prices for bulk in their contracts with various Yeomanry regiments in this country in respect of the daily 4d. allow ance?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, contractors have to allow 10 per cent. rebate in respect of all purchases through the regimental institutes.
  Mr. PERKINSasked whether, under their contracts with various Yeomanry regiments in this country Messrs. Dickeson are obliged to supply green stuffs; and whether they have done so from the commencement of those contracts?
  Mr. BAKER: Under the King's Regulations the commanding officer arranges for the supply of vegetables and green stuffs through the regimental institute.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that complaints have been made of the butter and potatoes supplied by Messrs. Dickeson to various Yeomanry regiments in this country in respect of the daily 4d. allowance; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BAKER: Complaints have been received from one Yeomanry regiment as to the price of certain articles supplied by Messrs. Dickeson, and the matter is now receiving attention.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention was called on 19th March to the following cases of wages paid by Messrs. Vickers, of Erith, to women employed on making belts for the Government, namely: rate of wage 9s. per week, worked 83½ hours, Sunday counting double time, and received 15s.; worked 69 hours and received 13s. 3½d.; worked 69 hours and received 11s. 1¼d.; whether further detailed information was supplied to the Director of Army Contracts on 13th April; and, if so, whether he can state what action has been taken in the matter, and when the answer of the Department will be made?
  Mr. BAKER: Inquiry has been made, but the firm are unable to trace the cases cited by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will be good enough to communicate with me further on the subject.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the War Office have decided to pay the firm of Borthwick and Sons a slight advance in price on their contract (1st July to 30th September) to supply beef to the troops; whether, in ordinary markets, there is a difference of 2d. per pound or more between home-killed beef and the frozen imported article; and whether he will explain how the average prices of home-killed beef during August and September justified such an advance being paid?
  Mr. BAKER: As I have already stated in reply to a previous question, the advance in price allowed to Messrs. Borthwick and Sons was in respect of the quantities supplied in excess of their contract liability. The advance was based on the market prices of frozen beef in the two months referred to, and had no relation to the price of home-killed beef.

  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early opportunity for the discussion of the Motion with reference to the legitimation of children by the subsequent marriage of their parents, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is a part of a larger question into which the Government are making inquiries, but I cannot at present undertake to give a day for its discussion.

  RECRUITING POSTER (GLASGOW).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister who is responsible for the recruiting poster exhibited in the recruiting office, Gallowgate, Glasgow, which refers to England?
  Mr. TENNANT: Inquiries have been made, but no trace can be found of any poster referring to England, except the well-known poster "Remember Scarborough!"
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it has been taken away?

  INTERNED GERMAN VESSELS.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister why the Government do not condemn and take over, under the provisions of the Prize Court, the merchant vessels at present interned belonging to Germany?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The merchant vessels referred to have already been dealt with in the Prize Court They have not been condemned as prize, but ordered to be detained under the provisions of The Hague Convention No. VI. of 1907. There would be no advantage in a change in the status of these vessels, as all of them capable of being utilised are now in use.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is there not a shortage in carrying power on the water of merchandise which has run up the freight rates and the price of provisions, and may I ask whether these ships could not be utilised?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise out of this question. I say that all ships capable of being utilised are now in use.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Are the Germans to have the benefit of The Hague Convention whenever it suits their purpose, and are they to be allowed to disregard it when they choose?

  FOOD AND COAL PRICES.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Home-produced beef has advanced 33 per cent., Home-produced mutton 27 per cent., pork 18 per cent., chilled hinds of beef 59 per cent., chilled fores 81 per cent., frozen hinds 50 per cent., frozen fores 75 per cent., frozen mutton 50 per cent., etc.; and whether he will appoint a small Committee to inquire into the cause of the increased price of meat, and place upon that Committee a retail butcher and a working-class representative connected with the meat trade?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that, in general, the figures stated represent approximately the changes in the wholesale prices of meat in London, as compared with those quoted twelve months ago. I am not disposed to think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of the Committee suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Prime Minister on what date were Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company appointed by the Government their sole agents in the United States For Admiralty and War Office requirements: on whose recommendation was this appointment made; whether Messrs. Morgan are paid by commission and, if so, at what rate; and if he can state how much commission has been paid or is due to Messrs. Morgan up to date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The appointment was made by the Government, after full consideration, on 15th January, 1015. I must refer the hon. Member for the rest of the question to the written answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office to the hon. Member for South Devon, which is given in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th March.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that that answer does not disclose what rate of commission is paid to Messrs. Morgan; will he also state whether the Government at the present time are reconsidering the terms of their appointment, and, if so, will he see that in future Messrs. Morgan are not allowed to buy at one price and sell at another?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether this country is
  966
  not under many and unspeakable obligations to this firm?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no reason to doubt the value of the services which Messrs. Morgan have rendered.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an Advisory Committee consisting of the High Commissioner of New Zealand, the Agent-General for Queensland, and certain capitalist meat importers has been appointed to assist the Government in the disposal of the surplus meat imports from Australia and New Zealand; whether, in view of the ruin and disaster caused to hundreds of small frozen meat butchers by the artificially high prices of frozen meat prevailing since August last, he will appoint to this Committee a practical retail frozen meat butcher; and, as the working classes consume practically the whole of this meat, will he also appoint a working class meat trade representative so that the consumers' interests may be studied in the deliberations of the Committee?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have requisitioned the whole of the meat supplies from Australia and New Zealand, and it is proposed to put upon the market for the use of the civilian population those parts of the supplies which are not needed for the use of the armies. With a view to preventing any undue increase in the price of meat such as might arise from the shortage of supplies, the High Commissioner of New Zealand, the Agent-General for Queensland, and Sir Montague Nelson have been asked to consult together and to report as to the manner in which the surplus meat should be put upon the market, and as to the conditions, if any, which should be attached to its sale. These three gentlemen have already made their report, and their recommendations are at present under consideration. The expert, knowledge which they have been good enough to place at the service of my Department has been of much advantage to the national interests. I can assure my hon. Friend that I fully share his anxiety in the interests of consumers and their needs have throughout had my close attention.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the report be published?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it will be necessary to publish it. I hope that administrative action will follow.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If the national interests have been served by New Zealand taking this step, why do not the Government do something here instead of doing nothing?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Nothing could be more inaccurate than for my hon. Friend to say that the Government have done nothing. We have been acting throughout with the New Zealand and Australian Governments.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I mean with regard to regulating prices in this country'?
  Mr. PRATTasked the President of the Hoard of Trade whether he has entered, or proposes to enter, into communication with the corporations of Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large cities, as to the accumulation of stocks of coal in these cities, as he has done in the case of the London County Council?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendation of the Retail Coal Prices Committee as to the accumulation by local authorities of stocks of coal related only to London, and I have not communicated with the local authorities of the cities mentioned by my hon. Friend. Those places are situated much nearer the coalfields than London is, and their difficulties as regards coal supply for domestic purposes would appear to be less acute.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the price of coal went up as high in Edinburgh as it did in London, although the coalfields were only three miles distant?
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Coal Owners' Association for the Midland counties' of England have decided to recommend to the coal owners of the district that the price of coal for home consumption should be restricted, while the Scottish coal owners are demanding from home consumers the top price that they can obtain for shipment; and whether, in the event of the Scottish coal owners not agreeing to restrict their prices, he will take steps at once to regulate the price of coal in
  968
  Scotland in order to relieve the severe burden laid upon the poorer classes of consumers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a resolution passed by the gas coal producers of the Midland area which is no doubt that to which my hon. Friend refers. The whole question of the coal supply and coal prices is receiving the most careful consideration, but I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to the questions asked by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on Wednesday last.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps will be taken at an early moment to prevent the exploitation of the poorer classes of the consumer by the coal merchants of this country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Action will not be unduly delayed.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Has not the Government been considering this question for three months, and has it not by the appointment of the Committee baulked the question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Already on two or three recommendations of the Committee the Government have taken action.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: They have done nothing.

  SIGNALLING BY LIGHTS (EAST COAST).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are in possession of evidence that signalling by lights is still going on from the East Coast; and, if so, whether more stringent measures will be carried out against those who may be suspected of sympathising with our enemies both in regard to places of residence and entry into this country?
  Mr. TENNANT: Reports of supposed cases of signalling continue to come in, and to receive, the attention of the responsible authorities. It is not advisable to publish details regarding either the evidence in possession of the Government or the steps being taken in the matter. The necessary measures will continue to be taken under the Defence of the Realm I Regulations as regards suspects.

  DARDANELLES.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether the attack on the Dardanelles has developed a new and serious situation; whether the ships, munitions of war, and officers and men of both Services have been diverted to the Dardanelles; and whether, seeing that the Government have informed the public that every man, gun, and munition that can possibly be provided are required for the campaign in Flanders, and in order to allay anxiety with regard to the strain upon our resources for the new campaign in the Dardanelles, he will make a statement on the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord will agree that it is not advisable to deal with this matter by question and answer. A general statement at the present, time would be premature.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked whether Lord Fisher was consulted with regard to the March attack on the Dardanelles by the Fleet; and whether he expressed the opinion that the attack ought not to be, made in the circumstances in which it was made?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, statements of the kind to which the question calls attention have been widely made in the Press of this country, and that they have been copied in the Press, of Germany and equally commented upon, and, as their only effect could be to encourage the enemy of this country, are there no means by which the authors of them can be brought to book?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that we ought to attach too much importance to these statements, but if there is any question of that kind it should not be addressed to the Admiralty, but to the Home Office.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not himself who is struck at in these charges, but that they are really directed at Lord Fisher, and ought not a great public servant of that kind to be protected?

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER (ABSENCE ON WAR SERVICE).
  Mr. DENNISSasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of making provision for preventing the exclusion from the forthcoming Parliamentary register of voters the names of those householders who, owing to absence on war service or through circumstances arising out of the War, are in arrear with their rates?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion in being carefully considered.

  GERMAN ALIENS.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, at the Licensing Court held at Lochgilphead on 20th April, a renewal of the licence for the Crinan Hotel was granted to Adolf Grunewald, a German alien who is not allowed to reside in the proscribed district in which the hotel is situated, and who can therefore take no personal part in the management?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am informed that this licence holder is not an alien, having been naturalised in 1907; that a renewal was granted in the absence of any complaint as to the conduct of the business; and that the actual management is conducted by the licence-holder's wife, who is a Scotswoman with long experience in such matters.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me why this man is not allowed, being a naturalised British subject, to reside inside the proscribed area?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the naval authorities.

  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES.

    STUDENTS WITH MILITARY FORCES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the position of the students of Scottish universities who are now serving in His Majesty's forces, and with regard to whom the universities have no power to modify their curricula; and whether he has received representations from any of the university courts with regard to this question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have recently received a representation from the Glasgow University Court on this subject, which is receiving consideration.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from any of the other universities?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe not.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (LABOURERS' WAGES).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if a petition was received two months ago from the labourers of the lighting and cleaning department of the Houses of Parliament asking for an advance of wages; and if, in view of the fact that no increase of wages has been given to these men since 1896 and of the increase in the cost of living and the general practice of other employers in giving war bonuses and wages advances owing to the cost of living, the Office of Works will make immediate and substantial additions to the wages of the men in question?
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): The petition referred to was received. It is from men who are employed through contractors and not direct by the Office of Works, and the rate of wages paid accordingly depends on the rate ordinarily paid in the trade in the district. As at present advised the First Commissioner is not aware of any recent outside increase which would bring the case under the Fair-Wages Resolution. The grading of this class of labour has presented difficulties in the past and is now being considered by a Committee which it is understood may recommend certain increases although not on grounds connected with the War.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS (SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS).
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Home Secretary whether he can now consider the petition the subordinate officials of the Metropolitan Police Courts have had before him since February, 1914, for an increase in salary to cope with the increase in prices of food, such petition being strongly supported by the Metropolitan magistrates; whether anything has yet been done in the matter, more parti-
  972
  cularly as the Metropolitan Police as a whole have had their pay increased on two occasions during the same period; whether he will consider the desirability of increasing the commencing salary of 26s. 10d. per week for these permanent officials under the Home, Office in London, who may have a wife and family to provide for and a home to keep up, especially in view of the fact that several of these men are serving, their King and Country, having been called to the Colours for the War; and whether, seeing that these officials were informed that the consideration of their petition was postponed until the coming into operation of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act, 1914, which, after being postponed for some months, came into full operation on the 1st April, 1915, he is now prepared to take any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The petition is now under consideration, and I hope to come to a decision very shortly.

  LICENSING LAW.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent decision in the King's Bench Divisional Court that, as licensed premises cease to be licensed after closing hours, a lodger cannot be charged with an offence if found intoxicated on the premises after the time of closing; whether his attention has also been called to a judgment given the other day to the effect-that, it is an offence for a landlord to serve a friend with drink on licensed premises after closing hours, notwithstanding that the friend had come to pay an ordinary visit; and will he take steps to have the-Licensing Law amended so as to deal with such cases?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a report of the first case mentioned, but I find that the Court, far from holding that licensed premises ceased to be licensed premises after closing hours, definitely stated that that view was wrong. I have not been able to find the second case, but it does not appear to be necessarily in conflict with the first. The Court in the first case indicated its view that the law should be strengthened, and that the enactment as to drunkenness on licensed premises, should apply to a lodger. I have noted this, but I fear that the present is not an opportune time for legislation on the point.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a firm named Perfect and Company, of 2, Bank Buildings, St. John Street, West Smith-field, and of Royal Liver Buildings, Liverpool, have been contractors to the Admiralty in any shape or form, or have held contracts for meat or food supply for the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as can be traced the firm in question have not held any contracts for meat or food supplies from the Admiralty. I understand that the firm act as War Office agents for supervising the discharge, storage, inspection, and distribution of frozen meat for the troops, and they may therefore have performed somewhat similar services for the Admiralty, in view of the arrangements to which I alluded in my reply to my hon. Friend on Thursday last, under which the requirements of frozen meat for the Army and Navy are provided for jointly.
  Mr. BRADYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether samples of the goods wanted by his Department are systematically sent to Irish centres to facilitate Irish manufacturers tendering for contracts; and to what places in Ireland such samples are sent?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In addition to sending small samples to each firm invited to tender, larger samples of certain goods are systematically sent to the Belfast Chamber of Commerce to facilitate other Irish manufacturers tendering for the contracts. The samples are sent annually, and sometimes oftener, but are not always sent when purchases recur at short intervals. The goods referred to are as follows: Coal bag and sack cloth, threads, twines, scene painting canvas, damask table linen, linen duck cloth, and linen goods. The following articles were also exhibited at Londonderry and Dublin last autumn in connection with purchases of warm clothing for the Fleet: Socks, stockings, jerseys, comforters, woollen drawers, and gloves. In addition to the foregoing the principal orders placed with Irish firms are for ships and boats, electric fans, paints, clothing, fresh meat, bread and vegetables, flour, pork, timber, and cordage, but in none of these cases is it necessary to send patterns for exhibition.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these lists, both for Ireland and Scotland, are up to date, or whether they refer to the past century?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure my hon. Friend that all the Admiralty lists are up-to-date.

  APPOINTMENT OF ADMIRAL BACON.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Rear-Admiral Bacon has been recently appointed to an important naval post on the South Coast of England; whether this officer has now been some years on the retired list; whether he left the Service for a position of profit as a director of the Coventry Ordnance Works; whether he has succeeded a distinguished officer on the active list; what is the reason for his selection in preference to other available officers of equal rank on the active list; and whether his appointment involves the hoisting of his flag?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth parts of the question is "Yes "; and to the fifth, "because of his distinguished abilities and the requirements of the Service."
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the-supersession of Admiral Hood is causing great dissatisfaction in the Navy?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the feeling in the Navy in regard to the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I think that I am fully acquainted with all the circumstances connected with the appointment of Admiral Bacon.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that Admiral Bacon gave up a very large salary with Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co. to take up this appointment at a very much reduced salary, and are we not indebted to him for the 15-inch field gun?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

  GERMAN SUBMARINE CREWS.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked in what respects the treatment of German submarine prisoners taken since 18th February differs from the treatment of other prisoners of war?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the full statement made to the House on the 27th April on this subject.

  GERMAN SUBMARINE BLOCKADE (BRITISH VESSELS SUNK).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many British vessels were sunk by German submarines in waters other than the North Sea during each week of April?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of British vessels sunk by German submarines in waters other than the North Sea, during April, was:—

  During week ended 3rd April

  …

  2

  During week ended 10th April

  …

  4

  During week ended 17th April

  …

  0

  During week ended 24th April

  …

  0

  During week ended 30th April

  …

  3

  From the 1st to the 3rd of May two other British vessels have been sunk by submarines off the Scilly Islands.

  LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "AGUILA."
  Colonel WHITEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has considered the advisability of granting rewards to the officers and crew of the steamship "Aguila," sunk by Submarine U28 in the St. George's Channel on 27th March, in view of the exceptional coolness and gallantry displayed by them, and of the fact that rewards have been granted in similar cases where no such heavy casualties had been incurred?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been decided to award a gold watch and a letter on vellum expressing the appreciation of the Board of Admiralty to the captain, and a gold watch to the first officer of the "Aguila." The chief engineer, unfortunately, lost his life. I do not know whether he left a widow, but if so she will be allowed to receive the gold watch which would have been awarded to him.

  LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS (WAGES).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a petition from the lighthouse keepers asking for a rise in wages to cover the increased cost of living; and what steps he is proposing to take in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Representations have been made to the Board of Trade by the General Lighthouse authorities in this matter, and are receiving careful consideration.

  BLEACHING, FINISHING, AND DYEING INDUSTRIES (ULSTER).
  Mr. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that in certain districts of Ulster where bleaching, finishing, and dyeing industries are established the firms concerned are faced with the prospect of closing down, thereby causing unemployment and distress among; the workers owing to the decision of the English railway companies or those controlling them to only carry small parcels of cotton goods from Manchester on two; days in each week; and if he will take action to secure that facilities will be granted to ensure carriage from Man-Chester of so much stuffs as will keep the works in employment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am forwarding to the hon. and learned Member a copy of a letter from the Railway Executive Committee, in which they explain that owing to the exceptional quantity of Government; traffic passing to Belfast it is necessary to restrict other traffic from time to time. The importance of the cotton traffic is fully recognised, and it is slated that the best; possible service under the circumstances is being given to it.
  Mr. MOORE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering that the livelihood of so many workers depend upon this, to see that additional facilities are given so that the works are not closed down?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The widest facilities will be given, consistent, of course, with the services which must be rendered by the railway companies to the Admiralty and the War Office.
  Mr. MOORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise what a serious thing it is to have the whole of an industrial population thrust into unemployment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We fully recognise it.
  Mr. MOORE: Then why will you not do something?

  STEAM COAL (EXPORTS).
  Mr. JAMES MASONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what were the total exports of steam coal from this country to neutral countries in Europe in the months of January, February, and March, this year?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total exports of steam coal to neutral countries in Europe were: in January, 1,129,000 tons; in February, 1,287,000 tons; and in March, 1,559,000 tons.
  Mr. J. MASON: Have the Government taken any steps to husband the coal resources of this country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement at the present time, but it is a question of more than industrial importance that we should not cut short the supply of coal.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (SCOTLAND) WOUNDED SOLDIERS' BENEFITS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has considered the effect of the Registrar for Scotland's decision insisting upon friendly societies paying sickness benefit to wounded members on such societies; whether he has considered the effect on the non-approved sections of friendly societies of this decision in regard to members who are wounded and ill but who are still members of the Army; whether the Emergency Act applies to non-approved sections of friendly societies; and, if so, in what particulars?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I regret that I cannot trace the decision to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will be good enough to furnish me with the name of the society or branch to which it related, I will make inquiries and send him a full reply.

  POSTAL EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Postmaster-General if he is in a position to name the arbitrators to whom the question of paying a war bonus to postal workers is to be submitted; and what classes of postal servants will be affected by these proceedings?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): I hope to be able to make an announcement one day next week.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: What class of postal servants will be affected by these proceedings?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The request of the postal associations was made to me by letter and that letter will be submitted to the arbitrator, whoever he may be. I take it his decision will be limited to the classes named in that letter.

  POSTMEN ON SERVICE (CIVIL PAY).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General if he will explain why the payment from the Post Office in the following circumstances has been reduced, namely, W. R. Alderson, postman, Cross-hills S.O., enlisted in the West Riding National Reserve, the allowance paid by the Post Office up to 1st March being 6s. 5d. a week, which, with the Army allowance, made up the amount of the postman's wages; on 1st March the separation allowance was increased by 3s. 6d. a week under the new scheme, when the Post Office reduced their payment by that amount, namely, to 2s. 11d.; seeing that, this soldier's wife gains no benefit from the increased allowance, which has gone to relieve the Post Office, will he say if this is in accordance with regulations; and if it was intended that the increased allowance should be used to subsidise the Post Office; and will he give instructions for the previous payment from the Post Office of 6s. 5d. a week to be continued, with arrears from 1st March?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The regulations governing the pay of Civil servants serving with the Colours in the ranks or as noncommissioned officers provide that where civil pay exceeds 7s. a week (representing Army pay), plus the amount of any separation allowance granted, the excess shall be paid to the soldier's nominee. When

  979
  the separation allowance is increased the amount of such excess and the balance of civil pay is correspondingly reduced. The regulations referred to apply to the Civil Service generally and the Post Office has no power to depart from them.

  RAW COTTON (EXPORTS).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the exportation of raw cotton from this country has been prohibited, except to the Allied Powers and to Spain and Portugal, it is the intention of the Government to continue to allow British merchant ships to convey raw cotton and other materials from countries abroad to neutral ports whence the goods can be easily transported to Germany?
  Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): British merchant vessels coming from foreign ports are dealt with in accordance with the notice published in the supplement of the "London Gazette" of 12th March last; and every effort is being made to prevent seaborne commodities of all kinds from reaching Germany through neutral ports.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Do the Government propose to make cotton absolute contraband?
  Mr. REA: The hon. Member had better put the question down.

  ENTERIC FEVER (INOCULATION).
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: If he can give the latest figures dealing with enteric fever among soldiers of the Expeditionary Force and the comparative number of cases amongst those who have been inoculated and those who have not?
  Mr. TENNANT: The latest information with regard to the incidence of enteric fever amongst the British troops in the Expeditionary Force is as follows: Up to date 963 cases have occurred. Of these 780 have been analysed. One hundred and forty-two cases have occurred in men inoculated fully with two doses of vaccine. Among these ten deaths have occurred, giving a case mortality of 7 per cent. One hundred and fifty-seven cases have occurred
  980
  in men partially protected by inoculation, i.e., who have had only one dose of vaccine. Among these there have been ten deaths, giving a case mortality of 6.36 per cent. Four hundred and eighty-one cases have occurred in uninoculated men. Among these there have been 100 deaths, giving a case mortality of 20.79 per cent. To appreciate the full value of these figures if must be brought to notice that 90 per cent. of the troops forming the Expeditionary Force have been inoculated voluntarily. Therefore, amongst 90 per cent. of the Force (i.e., inoculated men) there have been 299 cases and twenty deaths. In the other 10 per cent. (uninoculated men) there have been 481 cases and 100 daths.

  BEER DUTIES.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether the Government will postpone the imposition of the new Beer Duty until the question has been definitely settled, in order to prevent any unnecessary disorganisation of the industry?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Representations have been made to me in the course of the last few days that a considerable quantity of beer was in course of brewing when I submitted my proposals to the House, and that it is impossible to alter its gravity. Under these conditions, and as there is no question of forestalment with regard to beer—the same difficulty does not apply to beer as to spirits—I propose, when the Resolution comes before the House, to move an Amendment—a modification which will make the Beer Duty apply as from next Tuesday week.

  China and Japan.
  Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the interests of Lancashire trade which is prejudicially affected by the uncertainty, he can yet make any statement regarding the progress of the Chino-Japanese negotiations on the subject of the demands presented by Japan to China?
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has any official information showing that Japan has sent an ultimatum to China in connection with the

  981
  revised statement of her demands, or that force may be used to ensure the acceptance of those demands; whether the time has now arrived that friendly British diplomacy may be usefully employed; and (2) whether, in view of the official publication at Tokio of the text of the original Japanese demands, he can now state whether the request for exclusive spheres of commercial influence is compatible with the preamble of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty?
  Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the text of the revised Japanese demands to China; and whether, seeing that the original text has now been officially issued in Japan, he can lay both upon the Table of the House, so that Members may judge if any of the demands conflict with British interests?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received from the Japanese Government a communication conveying full particulars of the new and revised demands which Japan has made upon China; if he is aware that Japan has brought the menace of military force to support its demands; if the demands as set forth in the latest form are consonant with the terms of the treaty obligations to which this country is bound; if these demands propose conditions which would take away the independence of China and also threaten British interests; and if he proposes to take no action but to allow Japan to enforce these demands on China if she is able to do so?
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the new terms alleged to be demanded by Japan from China; whether some of them are of an exclusive character; and whether, if a time limit of a week, as is alleged, has been imposed for a reply, he will make friendly representations to Japan in favour of the withdrawal of so drastic a time limit?
  Sir E. GREY: I must refer the hon. Members in whose names these questions appear to-day in regard to the negotiations now proceeding at Peking to the collective answer which I gave to several similar questions on 20th April, to the effect that so long as the negotiations are not concluded His Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a statement. I may again
  982
  remind the House that the communications made to me by the Japanese Government on the subject are of a confidential nature, and that I am therefore not at liberty to discuss their terms, and I am not aware that any official or accurate version of the demands has yet been published.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do nothing until Japan by military force, having already 60,000 troops in China, has imposed her authority upon China? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are bound by treaty obligations to maintain the integrity of China? Is he prepared to regard that simply as "a scrap of paper" and do nothing at all?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think that there is anything in my answer to give rise to that issue. The position I am placed in is this: The Japanese Government have given information confidentially to us and, I think, also to some other Governments, as to their actual demands upon China. They have given that information confidentially. I am, therefore, in the position either of having to say, when a Government offers me information confidentially, that I will not receive it and will not know; or, if I do receive it, of being unable to disclose it. I have throughout regarded this matter as one of the greatest importance, and, although I am not in a position to make a disclosure in regard to it, we have been in communication with the Japanese Government, both on the question of the objects of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in general and as to British commercial interests in particular which might be affected by the Japanese demands.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state to the House whether His Majesty's Government are working in harmony with the United States in this matter?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A question of that character ought to be put on the Paper.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform Parliament if any communications have passed between the United States Government and the British Government in connection with the demands made upon the Chinese Government by the Japanese Government; and, if so, whether I he will lay them before Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: Beyond a brief informal conversation with the United States Ambassador in February, no communications have passed between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government on the subject of these demands.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state the number of Japanese troops at Hankow; whether contingents are likewise retained there by other Powers interested in China; and, if so, of what strength they are?
  Sir E. GREY: According to our latest information, the number of Japanese troops at Hankow is stated to be 39 officers, 633 men, with 30 machine guns. We are not aware that any other Power retains a contingent there.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received official information of any Note sent by the United States Government to China regarding the Japanese demands; and whether he will consider the advisability, if such a Note, has been sent, of the British Government putting on record its view regarding certain of the demands, which will, it is believed, materially affect British trade?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the nature of the railway concessions in South-Eastern China granted to British firms which now form part of the Japanese demands put forward to China; whether these concessions are still regarded as valid by the British Government; and whether the British Government has made any representations at Tokyo on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Maldon on the 22nd ultimo in regard to British railway concessions in this district. His Majesty's Government unquestionably regard them as valid, but I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by giving details in regard to them to the House. As I stated on 22nd April, the Japanese Government have been informed of them. I must point out that it is not a question of concessions actually given to British
  984
  subjects being cancelled and granted to Japanese as would appear from the terms of the question on the Paper, but of new concessions being demanded from China which might or would unfairly compete with existing British concessions.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Japanese Government, in addition to the confidential communication, are keeping him informed of important operations, or reported operations, in China?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not quite know to what the hon. Member refers. If he means that the Japanese Government are keeping us, or any other Government, informed of everything they are doing in China, of course no such practice exists.
  Mr. LYNCH: The question was not directed to small operations, but to operations really of a strategic character.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member had better put down a definite question on the Paper.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether official support of a demand by one of its own nationals for a commercial concession in China is regarded as requiring prior official sanction of any subsequent sort for disposal of such concession to a national or to nationals of another country; and, if so, whether such a view will be insisted upon in the present discussions affecting commercial interests in China?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not sure that I quite grasp the exact meaning of the hon. Member's question. But, if I understand it correctly, no concession granted by the Chinese Government to the subject of any foreign Power could be transferred to any other person, whether a countryman of the original concessionaire or not, without previously obtaining the consent of the Chinese Government, and similarly no concession obtained by the subject of any Power, and registered in the ordinary course at the Legation of that Power in China, could be disposed of to the subject of another Power without the previous consent of the Government of the original concessionaire. This view will certainly prevail if there appears to be any likelihood of the principle stated above being infringed in the course of the present discussions.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received from the Government of Hong Kong any expression of opinion regarding the possible effect on the trade and railway of that Colony of the Japanese demands affecting South-Eastern China; and, if not, will he obtain one in order either to allay the anxiety in the Colony or to protect its interests?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 20th of April. It is not possible for me to add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend.

  China (Railway Development).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will indicate the policy of the British Government in respect to railway development in China so far as it affects equal opportunities in point of freight charges; and whether he will state what is the actual practice in this respect of lines now in existence in China built or run by nationals of other Powers?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have a right to claim and endeavour as far as possible to secure that the freight rates on all lines in China shall not be so framed as to discriminate for or against the goods of any country. As far as they are aware no discriminatory rates are in force on any line in China, with the possible exception of certain through rates on the South Manchurian Railway, the exact effect of which at present forms the subject of discussion between them and the Japanese Government, and with regard to which I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester on 10th March.

  United States and China.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has information of a treaty having been concluded between the United States and China in the autumn of last year; and, if so, can he say what are the main provisions of such a treaty?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information of the conclusion of a treaty between the United States and China at any time last year, or indeed since 1908.

  Board of Agriculture (Report).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland when he expects to issue the new Report of the Board of Agriculture?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope that it will be possible to issue it next week.

  Small Holdings (Scotland)
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of applications for small holdings, enlargements, etc., from the passing of the Small Landholders Act, and how many cases have been dealt with?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Up to 31st March last there were 3,572 applications for new holdings, and 3,903 for enlargements. At that date 451 applicants for new holdings and 243 for enlargements had obtained entry. Several hundreds more are in process of being dealt with. Full particulars will be found in the Report of the board now in print and about to be published.
  Mr. HOGGE: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will provide more assistance, more machinery and more money, because there are a great number who would like to be put on the land?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a very argumentative point which I cannot enter into in answer to a question.
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the average cost per holding of all the new small holdings established under the Small Holdings (Scotland) Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question is a difficult one to answer. New holdings and enlargements are so often combined in the same scheme that it is difficult to separate them, and the cost in various parts of the country and under various circumstances differ so greatly that a statement of an arithmetical average would convey no real information.

  Morphia (Exports).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total amounts and values of morphia manufactured in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914; what were the

  987
  amounts and values exported to China, Japan, and Hong Kong, respectively; and whether any provisions are in operation to secure the limitation of its use to medical or other legitimate purposes?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are no available statistics of the production of morphia in the United Kingdom, but I will circulate with the Votes a statement showing the exports of morphia to China, Japan, and Hong Kong. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has reported that the Chinese Government have announced their intention of putting the International Opium Convention into force as from the 11th February last, but His Majesty's Government have no information as to the intentions of the Japanese Government in this respect, or as to any regulations in force in either country as to the use of morphia. As regards Hong Kong, I understand that the Pharmacy Ordinance of 1910 imposes certain restrictions on the importation and sale of morphine.—[See Written, Answers this date.]
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Has there not been a very large increase in the export of British morphia to Japan and China recently?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer that without notice.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is not the use of morphia proved by figures to have largely increased since the suppression of the opium traffic?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have no available statistics.

  United Provinces (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State will, before again raising the question of providing an Executive Council for the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces, inquire into the attitude in regard to this question of the official and commercial classes in India; and whether he has received any expressions of opinion from these classes?
  Mr. SWIFT McNEILL: Is it not the fact that both the Indian Government and the India Office have definitely promised to establish this Executive Council at the earliest possible moment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The views of the official and commercial classes in the United Provinces on the question were carefully ascertained by the Lieutenant-Governor, and reported by him in his letter, recommending the early establishment of an Executive Council. The Secretary of State sees no necessity for further inquiry. Memorials in support of the measure have been received from all parts of India, but none against it from the classes mentioned by the hon. Member. In answer to the supplementary question I have to say I think the statement made by the hon. Member is approximately correct.
  Sir J. D. REES: Why does the Secretary of State allow to representations of local officials in this matter a weight which he entirely denies to them with regard to enticement of labour?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.
  Mr. KING: If any more inquiries are to be made on this subject may they be addressed to our Indian fellow-soldiers fighting in France?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL.
    "To enable the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to be extended to protected states." Presented by Mr. HARCOURT; supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
    MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BILL.
    "To facilitate marriages between British subjects resident in the United Kingdom and British subjects resident in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions or in British Protectorates." Presented by Mr. HARCOURT; supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
    ARMY ACT AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
    "To amend Section eighty-three of the Army Act with respect to transfers during the present War." Presented by Mr. TENNANT; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be next Thursday?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday we shall take the Second Reading of the Defence of the Realm Bill, and, if time permit, the Army Act Amendment Bill and other small Bills on the Paper.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer a question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday, as to when he proposes to introduce the Welsh Church Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not answer that at this moment.
Ordered, "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In many respects this is a very inconvenient moment for reviewing the financial needs and prospects of the year and the best methods for meeting them. So much depends on the developments of the next two or three months from the military point of view, that the task of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who attempts now to reckon the sacrifices that it will be his duty to invite the country to make in order to meet the expenses of the War is almost an impossible one. All experts will give you very varied estimates as to the probable duration of the War, but with all respect to their experience and powers of prevision, the best of them cannot possibly tell at the present moment. The operations of the coming summer alone will enable us to form a dependable opinion—not as to the ultimate issue of the War, because that is not in doubt—but as to its duration, and that is the question which concerns a Finance Minister when he is framing proposals for submission to the House of Commons with a view to meeting the expenditure of the year. This is, therefore, not a suitable moment to attempt a forecast of the probable expenditure upon the War or to submit proposals for that purpose. Proposals which might be appropriate to a short campaign would be inadequate for a prolonged war, or vice versa, and I frankly admit I should not have chosen this opportunity for reviewing the finance of the year and making proposals to Parliament had it not been for the compulsory obligations of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. However, even now, a review of the finances of the year may serve one incidental purpose. It may help the people of this country more fully to understand the dimensions of the task we have undertaken.

COST OF WAR, 1914–15.
4.0 P.M.
I have already circulated with the Votes figures giving a summary of the finance of the War up to 31st March last, therefore it will not be necessary for me to dwell at

1001
any considerable length upon those. There are, however, two or three features in the figures of 1914–15 upon which I should like to dwell for a moment. First of all I should like to call attention to the cost of the War up to the end of the financial year. For the first eight months the War cost in round figures £360,000,000. This includes, however, advances to the Dominions and to our Allies amounting to £52,370,000, making the net cost of the War £307,416,000 up to the end of the financial year. This includes a certain sum of money which was expended in the purchase of wheat, meat, sugar, and other commodities. That money we hope to have returned to us. The cost is a progressive one. For the first four months the War cost £102,000,000. This includes the cost of mobilisation. For the second four months it cost £177,000,000. I have eliminated out of both figures the sum of money which has been invested in the purchase of wheat and other commodities, which will have to be resold. Our forces in the field have increased rapidly. Enormous orders for equipment and munition are maturing for payment, and therefore the cost is an increasing one.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX, 1914–15.
The second feature in the figures of last year to which I should like to invite the attention of the House is the wonderful buoyancy of the Income Tax and Super-tax. The yield of the Income Tax attributable to the first Budget of 1914 may now be put at £46,000,000. The forecast made in November of the yield of the Income Tax, as increased by the rate levied by the House in that Budget, was £53,000,000. The actual yield was £59,279,000. The yield of the Super-tax attributable to the first Budget was £8,135,000. Although the rates were increased in November, I did not anticipate that I should receive more than £8,460,000 last year. As a matter of fact, the actual yield proved to be £10,120,000. The total excess of the actual yield of Income Tax and Super-tax over the estimate of November was nearly £8,000,000. This is almost entirely due to the case with which these two taxes were collected. This is notably the case with regard to Super-tax. The progress of the collection was very remarkable. The tax was
1002
due on 1st January, and in the week ending the 9th of that month nearly £2,500,000 was paid. £820,000 were received in a single day, and, what is still more unusual, the remittances were very often accompanied by letters testifying to the readiness with which people enclosed their cheques. It was an advantage from the point of view of the finances of last year, but to that extent I have lost the money from the finances of the present year. The Committee would like to know what the number of Super-tax payers is now. They now reach 26,000. The number added by the first Finance Act of last year has proved up to date to be 12,000. Additional returns continue to come in and the total of the new Super-tax payers will probably reach 15,000.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE, 1914–15.
I should like to say a word about the revenue from Customs and Excise. The November estimate was £73,900,000. The revenue actually received came to £80,975,000. That is an increase of £7,000,000 on the estimate. Of that £7,000,000—it has been analysed very carefully by my advisers who have had considerable experience in the matter—£3,000,000 in their judgment comes from forestalments, notably in spirits, tea, and tobacco. Of the remainder, £2,182,000 is due to an increase, in their judgment, in the consumption of spirits, £530,000 to the consumption of beer over and above the November estimate, and £950,000 from the increase of tobacco which we did not anticipate. That is very largely attributed by those who advise me on the subject to the smoking in camps, and to the great gifts of tobacco which have been distributed among the troops. The £2,182,000 increase in the consumption of spirits over the estimate represents a consumption during that period of 2,900,000 gallons more spirits than anticipated, and about 17,000,000 gallons more beer than was anticipated. The Committee would like to know what was the effect of the Beer Duty on consumption in comparison with last year. In December the decrease in the production of beer, owing to the duty, was 38 per cent., in January it was 22 per cent., in February 22 per cent., and in March 17 per cent. On the other hand, the net increase in the consumption of spirits, after making a liberal allowance for forestalments, was

1003
in December 3 per cent., in January 6 per cent., in February 15 per cent., and in March 26 per cent.

STAMP AND DEATH DUTIES, 1914–15.
The next item of revenue, about which I should like to say a word is the Stamp Duty, and I am only going to call attention to that as an example of very accurate estimating. I think the officials are entitled to that reference. Their estimate was that by the end of the year £7,575,000 would be received. As a matter of fact, the amount paid into the Exchequer was £7,577,000. That is within £2,000 of their estimate in November—a very remarkable estimate. The other item of revenue which I should like to call attention to is the Death Duties. On the whole we have realised more than our anticipations in November, and there is a melancholy interest in noting the number of cases relieved or exempted under the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act. They number 512, and the duty allowed amounted to £102,426.
NATIONAL DEBT.
The last item I shall refer to in the accounts of last year is the National Debt. As a net result of the operations of last year, the sum of £458,148,000 has been added to the total indebtedness of the country. This now stands at the prodigious figure of £1,165,802,000. The total reduction in our pre-War liability for which the present Government is responsible up to and including last year was £107,000,000. This is wiped away by two months of war.

FORECAST FOR 1915–16.
I now come to the forecast for this year. It is quite impossible for any Minister to present a true estimate to Parliament at the present moment. I can, at best, only submit two alternative estimates: one based on the continuation of war for six mouths, and the other based on the assumption that the War will continue till the end of the financial year. It is not for me to express an opinion upon which of those two estimates is likely to be realised, and I doubt whether at the present moment anybody can pledge his reputation to a military forecast of the duration of the War during the present year, but it is obvious that the character of the Budget
1004
for the year must depend on the view taken by the Government of the probabilities. That is why we have come to the conclusion that this is not the time upon which to base a financial policy for the whole of the year. All I can do now is just to give the Committee our forecast of the Revenue and expenditure upon these two alternative bases.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE, 1915–16.
I will first take the Revenue. A part altogether from the new duties, owing to the heavy forestalments in February and March, it was anticipated that there would have been a considerable falling off in the revenue from spirits. The new duties—having regard to the fact that they are only imposed from the beginning of May, there is practically a loss of a whole month—are accompanied by a proposal which will involve dilution to it considerable extent—to what extent it is very difficult to say. Up to the present the minimum standard of dilution permitted by the Government has always been accepted as the standard. Having regard, therefore, to that fact and to the fall in consumption owing to the increased duty, we can only put the total revenue from spirits at £23,400,000. Beer is put at £32,000,000, which will be an increase of £16,120,000 upon the revenue received last year, wine £2,350,000, which is an increase of £1,346,000, and tea £9,000,000, which is an increase of £372,000. The Committee will recollect that there were very considerable forestalments in anticipation of a probable increase in the tea duty. These forestalments amounted to £1,000,000, and but for that, the increase this year would have been £2,372,000. Cocoa, coffee, and chicory are down by £21,000. Sugar is down by £315,000. There are several other items, but I will only call attention to our estimate respecting tobacco, because we anticipate from that a loss of £1,169,000 in revenue this year as compared with last year. The total from Customs and Excise this year will be, according to our estimate, £95,200,000, an increase of £13,697,000 upon the actual receipts and an increase of £14,225,000 upon the Exchequer receipts of last year.

INLAND REVENUE, 1915–16.
Now I come to the Inland Revenue. The Exchequer receipts last year from Death

1005
Duties were £28,382,000. This year we anticipate that the Exchequer will receive £28,000,000, a decrease of £382,000. For Stamps last year the Exchequer receipts were £7,577,000; this year we expect to receive £6,500,000 only. That means that the receipts will be down by £1,077,000. A good many businesses which contributed very largely to the revenue in stamps are practically paralysed by the war. Last year it only affected them for eight months; this year it will be for the whole year. Land Taxes amount to £660,000, an increase of £30,000; House Duty £1,900,000, an increase of £60,000; Property and Income Tax, including Super-tax, £103,000,000, an increase of £33,601,000; and Land Value Duties, £350,000. [Laughter.] Very useful. I think you could build three submarines out of that.
HON. MEMBERS: At what cost?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This total is down by £62,000. The total revenue from the Inland Revenue Department is £140,500,000, an increase of £32,170,000. The total tax revenue, Customs, Excise, and Inland Revenue, is £235,700,000, an increase of £16,395,000 over last year.

NON-TAX REVENUE, 1915–16.
I now come to non-tax revenue. Post Office: £30,400,000, as against £29,650,000 last year, an increase of £750,000. That is due to an increase in the number of letters which are posted in consequence of the War. Crown lands: Revenue £530,000, a decrease of £15,000; receipts from Suez Canal shares and from odds and ends, £2,002,000, an increase of £725,000. That is not from Suez Canal shares, but from certain sums of money which are coming in, I think, from the Colonies. That is an increase of £725,000. Miscellaneous revenue represents £1,700,000, against £5,917,000. There is a considerable drop there. The increase last year was very largely due to the great demand for silver coinage. This year there is a drop of £4,217,000. The total non-tax revenue is £34,632,000, and the total revenue £270,332,000, an increase of £43,638,000 upon last year.

INCOME TAX AND INSURANCE COMPANIES.
I would like to say a word about Income Tax before I pass from revenue. The only alteration we propose to make, and which we propose to submit to the House, are
1006
alterations in the Income Tax, and they are of a slight character. They are slight alterations in respect of which we gave a pledge last year to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and hon. Members on both sides of the House in reference to insurance companies. The present method of computation of liability is unfair to the British life assurance companies against the outside companies, and it is unfair to the life assurance companies as against the composite companies. A pledge was given last year, after very considerable debate in this House, that in this Budget an attempt would be made to redress that grievance. We propose to carry out that pledge. It will involve a slight charge on the composite companies, but it will be a considerable relief to the life insurance companies, and it is perfectly fair and rendered all the more necessary owing to the very heavy percentage of the Income Tax. We also propose another alteration. There are indications that efforts are being made to circumvent the Income Tax, and especially the Super-Tax, by means of the development of the endowment policy. A really bonâ-fide endowment policy is a very valuable contribution to the life of this country, but when you have a scheme for an endowment policy for Ave years, with enormous premiums, that is not really insurance, especially when it is accompanied by circulars pointing out that when you throw in the Income Tax it is really an investment which gives you your money back with 4½ per cent. and that the ingredient which enables you to do that is the very heavy Income Tax and the Super-tax. I think we must put an end to that, and it is very much better it should be done before the thing develops further. We propose, therefore, that there should be an alteration which will discriminate between the bonâ-fide insurance, including endowment, and the mere obvious attempt to evade the Income Tax and the Super-tax. These are the only alterations.
Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do anything in regard to officers' pay?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that will be a very difficult matter to deal with, and I do not want to enter upon it now. We can, however, discuss that when we get into Committee.

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE FOR 1915–16.
I now come to the expenditure for the year. The National Debt services inside the fixed debt, charges come to £24,500,000. That includes certain sums for Sinking Fund, which I shall deduct later on, because it is quite obvious that you cannot continue the Sinking Fund when you are levying huge sums for war. For the first time we have a heavy debt charge in respect of borrowing for war, and the figures which I shall give will show what difference the War will make in the fixed debt charges of this country. I wish right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen would always bear that in mind when they press for increased expenditure in one direction and another. There is an expenditure which is going to remain after this War. It is a very heavy expenditure, and for the first time I have got to budget for it in my annual statement. The annual fixed debt charge is £24,500,000. For a full year the National Debt Services outside the Fixed Debt charge, including interest on money borrowed, will come to £30,726,000, so there will be £55,226,000 payable, or if you deduct the whole of the Sinking Fund, then there is something not far short of £50,000,000 in interest on loans, in respect of money borrowed for the present War and debt charges in the past. I can only budget, as far as expenditure is concerned, upon two alternatives. Although it does not make any difference to proposals I am going to make, the House ought to know what the War will cost, on the assumption that it is a six-months' War, and what it will cost on the assumption that it is a twelve-months' War from the beginning of the financial year, whether it is 31st March or whether it is the 30th September. A War which lasts six months does not mean that the expenditure comes to an end at the end of the six months, for there will be some very heavy expenditure for months after the War whilst affairs are being wound up, which will be almost as heavy as the expenditure of the War. There will be armies in occupation, and there will be other expenses; and there will be bills in respect of contracts executed during the War. Probably the three or four months after the War may very well be more expensive to the Exchequer than the three or four months before the end of the War.
I would take first of all the assumption that it is a six-months' War. The National Debt Services inside the Fixed Debt charge in that case will be £24,500,000, and outside. £24,750,000, Road Improvement Fund £1,431,000, payments to the Local Taxation Account, £9,406,000, other Consolidated Fund Services, £1,697,000; total, £61,784,000 for Consolidated Fund Services. On ordinary Supply Services, we have only the token Votes for the Army and Navy, because we found it impossible to distinguish what was ordinary peace expenditure and expenditure upon the War. Therefore, we propose that the whole expenditure of the Army and Navy shall practically be covered by Votes of Credit. You cannot burden the officials of the Army and Navy with a system of bookkeeping at the present time which would force them to keep two separate accounts. Therefore, we are only putting what are practically token Votes for the Army and Navy, £15,000 for the Army, and £17,000 for the Navy. For Civil Services, £59,018,000; Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, £4,788,000; Post Office Services, £26,836,000; total, £90,674,000. Now I come to Votes of Credit. That is where the real difference will come in between accounts like Estimate A and Estimate B. Estimate A, for six months, will be, Army £400,000,000, Navy £120,000,000; railways, compensation for bombardment, air raids, and miscellaneous civil expenditure. £11,000,000; compensation, provision of canteens, etc., under Defence of the Realm Acts, £7,000,000; advances to Allies and Dominions £100,000,000. The Votes of Credit will thus come to £638,000,000. That will give a total of £790,458,000. The suspension of the New Sinking Fund will be £3,780,000, and the balance will be £786,678,000. That is on the assumption that the War will come to an end by September.
Take the other estimate, the estimate that the War will continue throughout the financial year. The National Debt Services inside the Fixed Debt charge will of course be the same, £24,500,000. The National Debt Services outside the Fixed Debt charge will be £30,726,000. Road Improvement Fund will be the same as before; payments to the Local Taxation Account will be the same, and the other Consolidated Fund Services

1009
will be the same. The total of the Consolidated Fund Services will be £67,760,000. The ordinary Supply Services will be the same, £90,674,000. I come to Votes of Credit. The Army in that case would be £600,000,000 and the Navy would be £146,000,000. Air raids, compensation, etc., would be double the former estimate of £11,000,000, that is £22,000,000. Compensation and the provision of canteens proposed in the Defence of the Realm Acts would be £10,000,000. Advances to Allies and Dominions would be £200,000,000, and the total would be £1,136,434,000. Deduct the suspension of the New Sinking Fund, £3,780,000, and the net total would be £1,132,654,000. The cost of the War on an average throughout the year, apart from our advances to our Dominions and our Allies, would be something like £2,100,000 a day. It is a little less than £2,000,000 now, and it gradually will be increased to £2,200,000. But the average throughout the year, it is estimated, would be £2,100,000 a day.

FINAL BALANCE SHEET.
I will give the final balance sheet upon these two assumptions. On the assumption that it is a six months' War, the expenditure will be £790,458,000. The Revenue on the existing basis of taxation would be £267,232,000, and the gross deficiency would be £523,226,000. The suspension of the New Sinking Fund will provide £3,780,000. The additional taxation which I have already indicated to the House will give £3,100,000—that is a total of £6,880,000—and the deficit which has got to be met by some process or other will be £516,346,000. That is on the assumption that the War lasts six months. What are the figures on the assumption that the War lasts a year? The total expenditure will be £1,136,134,000. Deduct revenue on the existing basis of taxation and the two items which I have already given of suspension of Sinking Fund and additional taxation, and the deficit to be met is a deficit of £862,322,000. That is the sum of money which this country will have to raise this year in addition to the revenue for which provision has already been made.

DIFFICULTIES TO BE OVERCOME.
There are a few observations which I would like to make at this stage. The financing of such a gigantic sum is a grave operation, even for such a rich country as ours, and especially if we ever
1010
have to look forward to a war earned on into the next financial year. A reference to our accumulated wealth does not overcome that. We are an enormously rich country, certainly the richest country in Europe. I am not sure that we are not the richest country in the world in proportion to population. We have £4,000,000,000 invested in foreign and Colonial securities of the best. In addition to that we have a vast accumulated wealth of our own at home. But every business man realises how difficult it is at a time of general stress for firms possessing the most valuable assets, unmortgaged assets, to liquify them for immediate use. That is the difficulty with which anyone who has, as we have, the responsibility of raising this money, is confronted, and I think it well that the House of Commons and the country should know,—it is very much better that we should understand—what our difficulties are. I am not stating them to terrify or to intimidate, but with the full conviction that they ought to be submitted and that, whatever the price is, it is worth paying for that for which we have entered into this War; and it is also with the full conviction that we can overcome these difficulties if we put our backs together into the work.
See what our difficulties are! It is very much better that we should look at them. We have enormous wealth invested at home and abroad. The difficulty is, that practically the only countries, with one exception, where we can realise that wealth, are at war at the present moment—belligerents. All the markets where securities can be realised, with the exception of the United States of America, are the markets of belligerent countries. The United States of America is a restricted market. It was never as good a market as our own, except for their own securities, not because the United States of America is not an enormously rich country—probably it is the richest country in the world, taking its resources into account—but it is a country which ha3 used its resources in the main for developing itself. They have enormous natural resources in that country. They have millions of square miles, with every kind of mineral and agricultural possibility upon which to draw, and it will take a generation or more before that country develops, its

1011
resources to anything approaching the extent which has been realised in this country, and therefore it absorbs all its spare capital for that purpose. Before the War a great deal of its surplus wealth was expended upon the purchase, at a very low price, of German securities which were dumped upon the United States market. By German securities I mean securities which were held in Germany, not necessarily German securities. These were dumped upon the United States market, owing to the fact that people in Germany were in a hurry to realise their securities in order to get ready cash, and they did it very often at low figures, and that absorbed a certain amount of ready cash which was available in America.

BALANCE TO BE RAISED.
Let us look at the problem on the assumption that the War is a twelve months' War. If the War is a six months' war, the difficulties would be much more readily overcome; but if it is a twelve months' war, it will involve our raising £1,132,000,000 in this country in the course of this financial year one way or another, and that represents the really great difficulty with which anyone framing a Finance Bill would be confronted. £270,000,000 of that money would be raised by taxes, but these would be taxes raised out of the income of the people of this country, and there is still a balance of £862,000,000 to be provided for. Of that sum, I think about £200,000,000 would be money which we would be advancing to other countries. That does not lessen the difficulty in the least degree. The difficulty is, not the indebtedness, but to raise the money for the purpose of meeting liabilities. We are raising it not merely for ourselves, but for other countries which are not as fortunately placed as we are. That means that we have to raise £862,000,000; that is one part of the problem. Take another difficulty, and I think a greater one, for it is full of complications. Britain in time of peace has the greatest international trade in the world. I think that Germany comes second. In both countries the imports exceed the exports, and both countries pay for their imports in exactly the same way, though not to the same extent. Take the year 1913. Our imports exceeded our exports by £134,000,000.
1012
How was that paid for? As everyone knows, you do not pay in gold; you pay first of all by freights and other services which you render, because most of the shipping is done in our own ships and a very considerable part of the payment for this difference is in the freights which come in that way to our shippers, and payments for other services, such as insurance, banking, and commissions, and things of that kind. That would probably account, perhaps, for from £120,000,000 to £150,000,000. There are also other sources of payment to this country. We have interest on £4,000,000,000 which we have invested abroad. The two together come to £350,000,000. That is our side of the account, and that is as against an adverse balance of, say, £130,000,000. That means that there are £220,000,000 due to us and that represents our investments abroad for the year. You invest large sums of money, as everyone knows here, in foreign countries, but you do not send it over in cash. It is that difference which practically represents our investments abroad. That is the position during time of peace.
Now comes the period of war, and the Committee will realise the difficulty of financing gigantic operations of this kind. It affects the two rival countries differently. Our imports have increased. We are not merely buying for the purposes of war munitions. Four millions of our men, of our best men, have been taken away from industries. Two millions or more are engaged either in the Army or the Navy; they are at the front or training to go there. You have another two millions who are engaged in doing nothing but turn out munitions and the equipments of war. You have four millions of our best workmen, the whole of whose skill and energy are absorbed in the War. What is the result? We have not merely to provide munitions of war and the material of munitions of war abroad, and food, but our manufacturing energy being directed to something else, we have to buy goods which in the ordinary course we should have bought at home. We can only get them from abroad.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
What does that mean? Our imports have increased enormously, and our exports have gone down very, very considerably. That is inevitable, and that is how it affects us. How does it affect Germany?

1013
In Germany, practically both her imports and her exports have been cut off by the Navy—substantially—and there is no doubt at all that its grip is tightening and tightening every day. Although they are boasting that they have got certain exports, and still got certain imports, I have not the faintest doubt that both of them are gradually getting less. What does that mean? We have both to maintain ourselves and feed our population and our manufactures, but that has to be done either out of the produce of our own country or out of accumulated reserves of materials or by means of imports from abroad. Germany cannot import from abroad. She has to depend entirely upon what she can produce at home or on accumulated reserves of material—copper, iron, and everything.
Let the Committee observe the difference, between the two problems. From the point of view of a War Minister Britain is better off. From the point of view of a Finance Minister our difficulties are greater for the time being. In a protracted war the British War Minister has great and increasing advantages over his German rival; but the German Finance Minister has not the same difficulty in financing purchases from abroad." [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because there are no purchases from abroad. Do not let us underestimate the difficulties. I am now putting the financial proposition which is in front of us. Let us see what it is. I will give the actual figures. The margin of imports over exports in an ordinary year is £130,000,000. The margin of imports over exports this year—I am only looking at what has happened during the last two or three months—may be £448,000,000. That does not include the Government purchases abroad or the purchases of the Allies abroad. We have to finance the whole.
We have to finance the difference between our imports and our exports. We have to finance the. Government purchases, which are not included in our ordinary trade imports. We have practically to finance the purchases of most of our Allies from abroad. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] We are all acting together. Each has to put its best in. This is the way we can help, and, if we can help, we are bound to do it. Let us see what the problem means. It means that instead of haying to finance the difference of £130,000,000, we have to
1014
finance the difference of between £700,000,000 and £800,000,000. That is practically what we have to do. How are we to do that? That is the problem. The interest on investments is the same. The freightage will be the same; because, although the number of ships engaged in the transport of goods has been considerably diminished, owing to the fact that the Admiralty have absorbed transport, still freights have gone up, and I think the Committee may take it that the £350,000,000 still represents the sum which that interest and services represents. We have still between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000, that this country will have to find in order to finance purchases from abroad. These are the two problems with which we are confronted. I should like to say that this, shows, first of all, the importance of our taking no avoidable steps which will have the effect of diminishing the value of our exports abroad.

GREAT BRITAIN'S PART IN THE WAR.
I think the Allied countries ought to determine the part they wish Britain to play in the combination, and the best service she can render. What service can Britain render to this great combination? She can keep command of the seas for the Allies. She has done so, and she will maintain complete control to the end. That is the invaluable service which she is rendering to the Allies. It is essential to the ultimate success of their arms, especially in a prolonged war, because the longer the war the more the command of the sea counts. Supplies come from overseas, there is the freedom to choose the point of attack, and there are various other points which I need not labour. What is the second service which Britain could render? She could, of course, maintain a great Army, putting the whole of her population into it, exactly as the Continental Powers have done. What is the third service? The third service which she can render is the service which she rendered in the Napoleonic war, of bearing the main burden of financing the Allied countries in their necessary purchases for carrying on the War—purchases outside their own country more especially; and also to help the Allies with the manufacture of munitions and equipments of war. Britain can do the first, she can do the third, but she can only do the second within limits, if she is to do the first and the last, and I think that is important.
We have raised enormous numbers of men in this country, but I say, speaking now purely from the point of view of finance, that the time has come when there should be discrimination, so that recruiting should not interfere with the output of munitions of war, and that it should interfere as little as possible with the output of those commodities which we export abroad, and which enable us to purchase munitions for ourselves and our Allies. Within these limits there is still great room for adding to the number of recruits in this country. I feel it my duty, as Finance Minister, to take that view, and it is the view taken by those who have much greater responsibility for recruiting than I have. But even if we maintain our exports at our present figure, there is still a gigantic problem left. We have to raise in this country £1,100,000,000 for financing the operations of the War here and abroad. We have to find between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 for purchases abroad. The problems are full of difficulties and perplexities, but they are not insuperable if the nation has the temper and the necessary unity to face them.
5.0 P.M.
What are the possible means of bridging this great deficiency? There is first of all the paper bridge—what is known as the dilution of the currency. Diagnose it, disguise it as they will, there are many girders in the German financial bridge which are made of paper, and no amount of paint and varnish will disguise that fact. It is a very easy method, a very tempting method. You appear to get over your difficulties in the simplest way, and it is very difficult for anyone to point out where you are going wrong for the moment, or for some time. But, looking at it most carefully, it is simply an indirect method of levying taxes upon the income of the people. You water the currency and prices go up. A country which has no foreign trade, which is the case in Germany now, can do it. A country which has still a great international trade cannot do it. Gold would vanish, and there would be an advance in prices which would be of a most serious character. Therefore, that is a course which I should say would be a fatal one for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue in order to get over his difficulties in meeting a great deficiency.
What is the second method? The second method is a method which is already pursued by Germany, and I am not at all sure that she is not pursuing it now in the United States of America, and that is the sale of her existing securities, or the creation of new securities by borrowing abroad, both of them perfectly legitimate but only helpful within limits, and the difficulty is to ascertain those limits. The market is a very limited one, and if more securities were placed on a foreign market, that it could readily digest, the losses would be enormous. What would happen? It would leave us much poorer at the end of the War. It would have the effect of putting up the rate of interest against us and therefore adding to our permanent burdens. It would also in the end put up the prices of food and raw material. Therefore, that is a course which we should only pursue carefully and guardedly, and within limits which we must carefully find out, and which the markets must carefully find out for themselves.
What is the third, and, in my judgment, the only straightforward and reliable course which would help us through the War, and what is still as important, see that we are not damaged after the War. There is always a great temptation in times of stress for men to take a course which will enable them to get through that particular stress without, thinking of what the results will be. What is that third course? Depend more largely upon the income of the country.

NATIONAL INCOME AND SAVINGS.
What is the income of this country? The income, of this country in time of peace is two thousand four hundred millions, and now it is probably more. Why? We are spending hundreds of millions of borrowed money here. Most of it is spent in this country. Men are working time and overtime; their wages are higher and the profits in certain trades are certainly considerably higher. The result is that, the income of this country at the present moment is probably higher than it is in time of peace. Some are making probably huge profits, and others have raised their income far beyond their ordinary standard. I have no doubt, that it would be perfectly just when we come to consider, if we ever have to do it, what taxes you have to raise or what contributions you have to levy in order to enable you to get through a war lasting two or three years; then it

1017
would be perfectly legitimate to resort to those who make exceptional incomes out of the War. But even that will not carry us through successfully. The numbers are too limited. The community as a whole will have to assist.
The State, in carrying through a great War like this, must primarily depend on the savings of the community. What are the ordinary savings of this country? In time of peace the ordinary savings are about from three hundred to four hundred millions per annum. The income is higher, and I do not think it is too much to say that in every country in Europe the standard of living is considerably lower—I am not sure to what extent that is true of this country—and the savings of this country during the period of the War when the income is higher ought to be doubled. What does that mean? If the standard of living is lowered, then, undoubtedly, that increases the national income and the savings ought to be considerably increased. What does that mean, apart altogether from any question of taxation, and the question of taxation is one which I do not raise at this moment. The extent to which you should tax is a question we shall have to be confronted with later on, certainly if the War proceeds. In the Napoleonic Wars our ancestors had to face it, and they faced it like men. They began the war with taxes which were equivalent to one-seventh of the national income. They proceeded to one-sixth as the war went on, and they went on to one-fifth, and as the war continued they taxed themselves to the extent of one-fourth, and they ended by taxing themselves to the extent of two-sevenths of their income. That is what our ancestors did to meet the great Continental war in which we were engaged.
What I want to point out now is this: I am not on the problem of taxation, but I am on this problem, that if the savings of the nation have increased there is a fund available either to release existing securities or to invest in any national loan. It is practially the same thing. You may have one man who would say, I am not going to invest in that loan, but I will buy some other security." That releases the money which the other man has invested in that security. Thus it is vital—and this is really what I want to impress upon the Committee from the point of view of the successful conduct of the War—if we are
1018
to take our part not merely in financing our own share but in helping our Allies to finance theirs, that the national savings should be increased. I should not be doing my duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer if I did not call attention to this problem at this stage. At the present moment I shall confine myself, as far as the problem to-day is concerned, merely to inviting the House of Commons to renew the Income Tax upon its present scale, with a modification which I shall make. I have already indicated certain other alterations in the taxes and in the duties to which I propose to invite the House of Commons to assent. But for the moment, I simply ask the Committee to pass the Resolution renewing the Income Tax at its old scale, and simply give this warning to the House, that if the War is prolonged it will be the duty, in my judgment, of the House of Commons to consider what fur the contribution, and in what other form, the community should make, to enable us to conduct through a war—a war the success of which is vital to the very existence of this Empire.

INCOME TAX.
Motion made and Question proposed, That

(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, at the rate of two shillings and sixpence in the pound; and Super-tax shall be charged for that year at double the rates mentioned in Section three of the Finance Act, 1914; and

(b) The like provision shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax so charged, including Super-tax, and the annual value of property as had effect under Section two of the Finance Act, 1914, with respect to the Income Tax thereby charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and the value of property during that year; and

(c) It is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech on the same note on which he began, and it was the right note. He began and finished his

1019
speech by drawing our attention to the magnitude of the task which is incumbent upon us, and to our power to fulfil it. I think I may say gratefully of the right hon. Gentleman that from the beginning of this struggle he, at any rate, has never spoken smooth optimism to the people, but has constantly tried to keep before them the necessity for putting forth every exertion of which they are capable. It is our desire on this side of the House to strengthen his hands in that matter and to give him all the assistance that we can, and that he will allow us to give, and to reinforce the lesson which he preaches with all the powers at our command. The right hon. Gentleman devoted an interesting portion of his speech to an examination of the special financial difficulties of a British Minister as compared with a German Minister under the present war circumstances of their respective countries. I do not want to say for a moment the British Chancellor of the Exchequer has not difficulties enough to face, and it may be that in some special fields or some special portion of the field his difficulties are not only different from but greater than those of the German. But do not let anybody suppose from what the Chancellor has said that even as Finance Minister he would care for a moment to change places with what I may call his opposite number in the German ranks. Great as are the problems which he has to face, the difficulties of the German Minister of Finance are much more real. They go much deeper, and the capacity of his country to overcome them is much less.
The right hon. Gentleman said in this connection that he thought it was time that our Allies made up their minds what part they wish this country to play in the great struggle in which we are all engaged. I hope, though, that we have not waited until now to exchange ideas so frankly and so freely with those Allies that their respective Governments are already well aware of the part which each must play in order that success may be most quickly accomplished. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you cannot make indefinite demands on this country: first for fighting men; secondly, for industrial assistance in the provision of supplies and munitions of all kinds, and lastly, for financial assistance for the Allies, as well as for the bearing of our own separate burdens. You cannot ask for unlimited exertions or unlimited contributions from this country in all three
1020
particulars. That is beyond the power of any nation to give; and at any given point it must be for the Allied Governments, and particularly our own, after full and free discussion with the Allies, to decide in what channels our efforts can best be directed, and by what use of those resources—and I do not grudge any resources we possess for the purpose—we can best help forward the common end. If I have a criticism to make against the Government in this connection, it is not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should now draw our attention to the fact that to a certain extent these different demands war one with another, and that their complete fulfilment in every case is not possible, but that the Government themselves have been too slow to perceive that their right hand was working against their left, and that in their recruiting campaign they exercised no discretion as to the men whom they were taking, and took no steps to see that they were not disorganising most important industries—or, I will not say that they took no steps; that would be wrong; but they took insufficient steps, and, I think, took them too late. Certainly, they took steps too late, and they took insufficient steps to see that their demands in one direction did not clash with even more important demands in another.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with these matters, dwelt on the various financial obligations which we have to fulfil to ourselves and to our Allies, and on the means we have for fulfilling them. I am not going to follow him through the very interesting economic arguments which he addressed to the Committee. With part of them I agree, some part of them I am inclined to dispute. But I make one general statement, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept as fully as any Member of the House. We are not going to win the War by economic arguments, however sound. We are going to win the War by hard fighting, and by nothing else. No diversion of our manufacturing energies, or of our energies in manufacturing for export in order to lessen or assist the financial burdens, will counterbalance any failure to put forward our greatest possible effort in the real theatre of war. In other words, no strengthening of our financial position will counterbalance weakness in the field.
Before I leave these large general questions and turn to some of the more detailed observations of the Chancellor, I

1021
think I am entitled to remind the Committee, though I do not want to provoke old controversies, that not once or twice, but year after year for the last five or six years, I have warned this House of the gigantic burdens that a great war would throw upon us, and have lamented the whittling down or the using up of the resources which ought to be available to enable us to meet those burdens. I do not make that statement now in order to revive old controversies, nor to pose as a prophet who finds some happy prophecy in course of being fulfilled. I do it because I hope that it may add weight to my testimony when I support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that this is a time when the House of Commons—and not the House of Commons only, but every public authority and private individual—must exercise the most rigorous economy in their expenditure. I confess I am disappointed that the Government have not found it possible to make larger reductions in our domestic expenditure and to produce smaller Civil Service Estimates. I confess, I think, that they ought to have been able, even at some temporary cost of things which all different sections of the House hold dear, to restrict that expenditure in this great strain of war. I hope that even now they, as a whole and departmentally, will use every effort to keep their expenditure below their Estimates, and to save to the nation what money they can. I urge particularly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury that it is their duty to watch the other Departments in this matter. If my information is correct, some of the other Departments, which are concerned with our ordinary domestic reforms, are inclined to forget that the War is our master, and that for the time of the War everything must give way to its successful prosecution; and even if they are restricting the expenditure of the Government, they are not endeavouring to restrict the expenditure of local authorities, but are even in particular cases trying to force local authorities into immediate expenditure on purposes, which I do not say are not desirable, but which can be very well postponed without injury to the country for twelve months, or for such time as the pressure of the War exists. I hope that the Treasury will be a vigilant watchdog in this matter, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will instruct his officials to keep him informed of what is being done, and that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet will support them to the
1022
utmost of their ability in any reduction of expenditure or postponement for which they press.
I am going to deal very shortly with the references to taxation which the Chancellor has made to-day. The right hon. Gentleman singled out for special attention the buoyancy of the Income Tax and Super-tax, and the general readiness with which it has been paid. I was glad to hear him say that. I think it is a good omen for us, and also that it contains a lesson which the Chancellor and the Committee may perhaps be willing to lay to heart. No man likes to pay taxes; with no man are taxes popular; but for a great purpose recognised as national, where every man is contributing his share according to his ability, the Chancellor must see that he has the good will of the great mass of the tax-payers in every walk of life, and that they are as anxious to assist him in this struggle as he can be to receive their assistance. It is a great thing that that lesson should be borne in mind—to carry with you the good will of those who are taxed in the sacrifices which you have to ask them to make. I will not discuss the slight changes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadows. Of course, everything depends on the exact application of them; but, speaking in general terms, I think that all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested was wise.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said nothing about the endowment question, as I did not know exactly what the Chancellor of the. Exchequer intended. I think that that is perfectly right, subject to an examination of the exact form of the proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then passed to the Death Duties, and to the rather tragic tale of the number of estates which had passed inopportunely, owing to the death of their holders in the War. I renew the appeal which I made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than once last Autumn, that he should just a little extend the concession that he made in regard to the passing of such estates. He has done nothing for collaterals. It is quite possible to do something. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regards a collateral out of the direct line of succession who comes into an estate by the death of a brother or a cousin at the front as a lucky man who has had a windfall, and who can well afford

1023
to pay the utmost farthing. That is one way in which you can look at the question, but it is not the whole position. You really must look at it also—if I may press this on the Chancellor, and I think it will appeal to him—from the point of view of the estate and from the point of view of family feeling. There are cases in which holder after holder of an estate has made sacrifices year in and year out to maintain the estate as it was handed down to him to do his duty by the people who live there, and to let the estate pass with the name, whether to his children or to his collaterals, in the same condition in which he inherited it. I do not think that it is too much to ask that under the circumstances of the present War, and in view of the ready and great sacrifices that the class for which I am appealing are making in this War—in view of the way they are paying by their lives—that they should not be asked to pay this exhorbitant toll in their estates as well. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can be generous. When he is fighting he can be hard. I hope, in this matter, he will be generous. I am sure that the generosity he has already shown in this matter has been widely appreciated and universally approved by public opinion. I do not believe he would have a harsh critic anywhere if he consented to carry the matter a little further, and deal with these comparatively few cases in which the estate passes to collaterals.
This Budget is, like everything else, as he says, abnormal. It is not merely wholly abnormal in its figures, but in its procedure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed no new taxes to-day, but the other day he proposed large additions to certain of our taxes. Under normal circumstances, any such proposals would have formed part of the Budget Statement, and there are considerable inconveniences in having them dealt with apart from the Budget Statement, or introduced in anticipation of the Budget Statement. But that special treatment of them, at any rate, marks one fact that we have to bear in mind. They are not proposed for revenue. The Chancellor has proposed them as War measures—what I may, I think, call police measures for the purpose of the War—and not as revenue measures at all. So far as the revenue is concerned, there is little, revenue which the Chancellor expects to get from his proposals. Broadly speaking, the revenue which he meant to get from
1024
the trades concerned, or the consumers of the articles concerned, he took last November. The figures which he gave to-day, as to the decrease in the consumption of beer and the increase in the consumption of spirits, may cause him and all of us to doubt whether the enormous increase which he then made in the taxes on beer was a very wise change. That change, I quite believe the Chancellor, was done for the purpose partly of obtaining revenue, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did what he thought was sufficient, what he intended to be sufficient, to guarantee the traders concerned against loss by the change. Though the taxes were imposed partly for revenue, whether they were socially advantageous and, in the long run, wise, I think there is some reason to doubt after the figures which have been given to-day. Beer has gone down and spirits have risen sensibly, and I think everybody will say who knows anything about it that spirits have risen because they are being drunk in substitution for beer.
Mr. HOGGE: Much better!
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Social reformers do not, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not, congratulate themselves on any such change.
Mr. LOUGH: There was the forestalment.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington had listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the same attention that I had the pleasure of bestowing upon his speech he would know.
Mr. LOUGH: I tried all I could in my humble way.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that he made allowance for forestalments, and he eliminated that in the calculation to which I am referring. I want to say a few words—I must say a few words—on the new taxes on alcohol which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed on Thursday last. They were proposed, not for revenue, but as a war measure of police, or a police measure of war. I cannot correlate or co-ordinate them with the other proposals which were sketched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same day. In this matter of expediting or increasing the supply of munitions of

1025
war, and the taking away of every hindrance that stands in the path, I do not believe there is a dissentient voice in this House.
Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? [HON. MEMBEKS: "Order, order."] I am sorry to interrupt, but it is a point of Order I wish to raise. Are we going to take a general discussion on the Spirit and Beer Duties which were proposed on Thursday last, or are we to wait for the Report stage of the Resolution?
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The practice in the Committee is to take a general discussion on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I see no reason at all why that practice should be departed from.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot, as I said, co-ordinate the two parts of the programme which the right hon. Gentleman took on Thursday last. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would find a very general consensus of opinion as to the restrictions which the Government may find it necessary to apply in districts where there has been an abuse of the present supply of liquor. I confess, however, that I think that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and perhaps of some of his advisers, has been too exclusively centred on the effect of alcohol, and that they have given too little thought to other factors in a situation which we all deplore. For my part, I say now, publicly—I think I have said it sufficiently often in private—that I think it is a mistake to ask men to work continuously seven days a week. The Government ought long ago to have stopped Sunday labour in the munition factories. Their problems would have been less difficult at the present time if they had done so. It is no answer to that to say that particular men are irregular, or that they have worked short hours, as the Chancellor told us all the other day. Remember, you have recruited masses, hundreds and thousands of your best workmen throughout the country, and that you are drawing upon men who are less efficient than those who have gone away. You have got to take many factors into account. Still, after all is said and done, I am not here to say that there is no evil, and that one of the factors in the evil is not the abuse of drink. If I have a bad toothache, and I go to the dentist to have the tooth taken out, he does not blister me all over the body, from the sole of my foot
1026
to the crown of my head; but that is what, it seems to me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to do.
He says the evil is confined to small sections of the workmen and to certain localities, and in order to remedy it he seeks, not only for powers to deal with the liquor traffic in the areas concerned as he thinks best, but he seeks to impose absolutely penal and crushing taxes on the makers or vendors of those alcoholic drinks, and on the consumers of them in every other part of the country, on other classes and sections of the population which are innocent of the sort of thing of which he complains. There is no proportion between the evil as described by the right hon. Gentleman and the remedy as propounded in these taxes. I cannot help feeling that the taxes themselves are an excrescence on the scheme, that they are a sort of postscript written in hastily at the last moment, and that they would never have been presented to the House of Commons in the form they have if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had time to really understand what he was doing, or to consider the bearing of his proposals. Suppose, for instance, these matters had been thought out before. We had the ordinary Resolution which was put from the Chair on Thursday imposing this gigantic new Surtax on all the urgently needed medical drugs into which alcohol enters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not defend that. The moment it was mentioned he said exceptions would have to be made. Does not that show to the House the lack of thought with which these proposals were brought forward: that the Resolution should even have been made in that form? I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time he made his proposals had any real knowledge of their effect upon the trade?
He spoke vaguely about light and heavy beers. Does he know the proportion of the Trade which falls within the limits which he has assigned? We talk largely about lager beer as a light beer. Is it a light beer within the meaning of the taxes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Lager beers are heavy beers, or a great proportion of them are, as judged by these taxes. I have got figures from three of the biggest firms in the United Kingdom as to how their industry and their output will be affected by the Chancellor's scale of taxes. What I may describe as the standard article manufactured by Guinness's would fall under the highest rate of Sur-tax, and I believe what is true of Guinness's is

1027
true of nearly all brewing done in Ireland. If I turn to Burton, I have the figures from two great firms there. Their names I will give to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants them. There would be perhaps no harm in mentioning them, only I have not received permission to do so. As to one of them, 95 per cent. of their total output would be subjected to a heavier Sur-tax. Over four-ninths would be subject to the heavier Sur-tax of 36s.; three-ninths would be subject to the Sur-tax of 24s.; two-ninths to a Sur-tax of 12s., and only one-ninth would be slight enough to pass at the light rate.
HON. MEMBERS: That is ten-ninths!
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made a mistake, perhaps, in copying my figures; but this I can say, only one-ninth would pass at the old rate and four-ninths would come under the heaviest scale of Sur-tax. That is as regards beer. This is not taxation; this is annihilation. It is not adjusting the taxes to deal with a small section of the population who are abusing their opportunities; it is crushing for everyone concerned, whether a man has abused his opportunities or whether he is as innocent of that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Then look at wine. No one pretends that the munitions of war have been interfered with by the sale of wine in this country. In order to provide us with a platform argument when we go to our constituencies; in order that we can say we are not taxing their drink when we are not taxing our own, on wine a perfectly crippling duty is to be imposed. I really think that that line of argument verges dangerously close to cant. I really think we are not honest with ourselves when we provide ourselves with a political argument of that kind for platform use, when really there is nothing in the substance or fact of the case made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that justifies his proposal. Just look at it. I am informed that a hogshead of claret hitherto charged £3 would now have to pay £12; that a hogshead of Australian wine hitherto charged £3 would now have to pay £12.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How about champagne?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will say a word about champagne if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes me. A kind of port, hitherto charged £17 5s., will now be
1028
charged £67. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks me about champagne. I have not the figures for champagne, but I am informed by those whose business it is to know the trade, who have studied the trade, that any of us who think you can raise the price of champagne by something over 3s. a bottle—
Sir G. YOUNGER: Thirty shillings a dozen.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: By 30s. a dozen, without enormously reducing consumption, makes a great mistake. Mind, these taxes are not proposed for revenue; they are proposed in order to expedite the manufacture of munitions of war. The taxes are devised on that ground. At whose expense? At the expense of the drinkers in the country. I am one of them. I am not going to complain on that ground if the measure is otherwise wise; but that it is at the expense of our Allies, the French, at a time when a great part of their ordinary market is necessarily closed, and when they have a chance of increasing their market here, which is at this moment more valuable to them than it has ever been since 1870, and at the expense of our own Dominions, two of whom have built up some trade in light wines, that may altogether be crushed out by such duties as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago that he thought there was some impatience that the Government had not moved earlier in the matter of excessive drinking, but that it was of the utmost importance in this matter that the Government should not go in advance or beyond public opinion, but should carry general assent with it. That is a wise saying, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself must see that he has gone in these taxes far in advance of public opinion, that he has made suggestions which his argumentative case does not enable him to support, and that he will have to revise profoundly the taxing proposals which he has made.
If I may venture to offer a word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would say to him, "Take the trade into your counsel. They are human like the rest of us. They are Britons like the rest of us. They are not insensible to the appeal of patriotism. They are making their sacrifices already, and they are ready to make more, if, on their further sacrifices, the successful prosecution of the War depends." I do not

1029
believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find them in an unreasonable mood, but I cannot see how it is possible for them to sit down under proposals such as he has made; and I cannot see for myself how it is possible for us in this House, with every desire to aid and not to embarrass these proposals, to do otherwise than actively oppose them, if he continues to press them upon the House. I am quite sure that in every part of the House, and in every part of the country, there is a profound anxiety as to the supply of munitions of war. The warnings uttered by Lord Kitchener and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself ring in our ears, and the soothing syrup administered by the Prime Minister in an unhappy moment at Newcastle does not reassure us. I believe it to be true that in the past we have been very short of necessary munitions of war. I believe it must be so again in the future unless we increase the supply, and my Friends and I have every desire to co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it be possible to secure those ends. We hope he will meet us and the interests concerned in the same reasonable spirit, and that he may put before us proposals which he can carry with general assent and work with the good-will of everyone.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take the course of getting up immediately and not waiting for the Debate to develop, because I feel that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman are words that I must make an observation or two upon at this stage. I was not aware that he intended to raise a debate upon this subject at the present stage, and I think it has obvious inconveniences at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that I should meet the trade and discuss the whole question frankly with them, but he knows perfectly well that I have been very anxious to come to an arrangement with the trade. I have had opportunities of meeting some of the leading men, both of the brewing trade and the distilling trade, during the last fortnight or three weeks. I did think I should have been able to effect some arrangement that would have given us such a control of the liquor trade during the War as would enable us to avoid evils such as those of which we have good reason to complain in some districts. However, for the time being we were unable to effect any arrangement; but I must say this, and I am bound to say it, that I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman said about the spirit and temper of the trade.
1030
There is no man in this House who has fought them harder than I have; but I am bound to say that they met the appeals which I made to them in a patriotic spirit, in an attitude of mind which could leave nothing to be desired from the point of view of anybody who is trying to help this country along. I feel bound to say that as an old political opponent of theirs. I say more than that. If there is a failure, I do not think the blame rests upon them. I am bound to say so, and I think it is due to them. I look forward to the pleasure of meeting them to-morrow. They have asked me to a deputation. I think there is a deputation from the brewers, and I think one has been asked for from the distillers as well. I met them once before, and I hope to meet them again. If I may be allowed to say so, I do not think it would be very helpful if we entered into a prolonged argument upon the merits if I have to meet them, and that is why I am getting up at the present moment.
6.0 P.M.
Of course, I recognise fully that what is possible under ordinary conditions for a Government to do, you cannot do now. Every section of the House must accept responsibility for the action of the Government in this War, and the last thing you can possibly do is to embark upon an embittered controversy which arouses all sorts of passions and suspicions, and throws us back upon a condition of things which could do no harm, perhaps, in time of peace, but which would be infinitely mischievous when national unity is so essential. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right: I have never underestimated the gravity of this War. I would not call myself a pessimist, but I do not think I have ever indulged in foolish hopes. I feel in every fibre of my being what a serious task we have before us. I feel how terrible the results would be if it were conceivable that for some reason or other this country should fail to accomplish its great purpose. It has entered into this War in the spirit of chivalry, to defend every righteous motive that can impel a nation on. If it failed, there is a prospect for Europe and a prospect for mankind which is a sad one indeed, and I should grieve beyond measure if anything I did should, in the slightest degree, give an encouragement to the enemy which he ought not to get—that it should in any way give any hope or joy to the enemies of our country. The House of Commons may depend upon it that no personal pride

1031
will stand for one moment between the accomplishment of unity and the purpose which we have in view. But I do also ask that the Opposition have their responsibility, and it is a very serious one. These proposals may be the right proposals or they may be the wrong proposals. I have not concealed from the House that I should have wished to have obtained complete unity to approach this matter from another point of view: naturally this is the second best. I must say that in every approach made to them the Opposition have shown the utmost disposition to assist, and I have certainly talked the matter over with the leaders of the Labour party as well. I should very much like the House to realise that it has a responsibility of its own. It is not a question of whether the evil has been exaggerated, but the question is whether it is an evil. I should like to appeal to all sections on this matter. I am not wedded to any proposals of my own, and if anybody has any that would do the thing much better I should be very happy to adopt them. I do hope, however, that each Member will realise that he has got a responsibility to the country as a whole. Controversy on a large scale I certainly would not face, because it would injure the country. It would create new evils. I do not ask for a response at the present moment, but may I make this appeal to all sections that they will assist the Government in doing something, and something substantial, to curb this great evil? Whether the increase in the consumption of spirits is due to the beer tax or not, it is a fact. I want the House to remember that. As far as I understand there is practically unanimity about giving us control in the munition areas. The first thing I want to ask the House is this—if I may be permitted to do so by consent—I should like the House of Commons, if there are negotiations to take place about taxation, at least to give the Government power at once in the munition areas, because that involves the setting up of a Committee to investigate the conditions on the spot. This Committee, I hope, will get the assistance of all sections, and especially the representatives of labour, to examine the problem in these particular areas, and recommend to the Government the best method of dealing with it. I should like, if, the House of Commons will consent to allow us, to get that Bill at the earliest possible moment. I cannot set up the
1032
Committee for the purpose of investigating the problem in those areas until that is done. I hope there will not be much discussion on the matter to-day. On the other hand, I do hope that the House will not only give us complete powers with regard to munition areas, but that they will enable us to cope with the difficulty we have undoubtedly experienced with regard to alcoholic liquors. That is the only appeal which I make at the present moment, and that is why I go out of my way to get up immediately after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say what I have said in order to prevent anything being said on one side or the other which might make a settlement almost impossible.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I apologise to the House for the fact that another Member of the Front Bench has risen so suddenly, but I feel after what the right hon. Gentle man has said that it is right that I should say a word or two as to the spirit in which we approach this subject. I wish, first of all, to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that my right hon. Friend did not make the reference he has made to this subject with any desire to start the controversy to-day. The House will remember that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke last Thursday I did not feel able to follow him, or to express in any way the views of the Opposition, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend to-day we came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary now that we should give some indication to the House and the country as to what our views are. That was the sole object, and it was in no spirit of controversy, that my right hon. Friend rose to-day. I can only say with absolute knowledge, and I speak for the whole of my Friends, that we approached this subject in precisely the same spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer approached it. I was convinced from the beginning that what he said on Thursday was true, and that he had in view one thing only, which was the successful prosecution of the War. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am controversial in saying that he has his own methods. He carries things through by energy and by sometimes creating an atmosphere, and an atmosphere had been created in this case which had its inevitable effect. I knew that was his sole object, but, of course, it is possible, in a matter of this kind, to say anyone else may be mistaken, and it was a certain and quite

1033
evident fact that he had failed, I will not say to convince the House, but to inspire them with his own enthusiasm as to the paramount importance of the question and therefore it was necessary for us to regard it with a certain amount of caution.
I say to-day, and I think it is the only essential thing we want to say, that I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the tendency to omit other considerations in regard to short time. I agree with that. I am sure there is an evil, and that to some extent—how great I do not know—that evil is aggravated by the system under which drink is obtained in those areas. That is an evil which we are bound to do our best to remedy, but the remedy must not be out of proportion to the evil. I am absolutely convinced that if those taxes are proceeded with on anything like the present basis you will have throughout the length and breadth of England an agitation precisely of the same kind as we had in regard to the Licensing Bill of 1908. I have every evidence of it now, for since I have been sitting here I do not know how many telegrams I have received, and I have been inundated with deputations. Whether it is right or wrong, the very fact that this whole industry—and it is a big industry—itself is going to be roused to a perfect passion of excitement and resentment against these proposals is in itself a reason for saying that it will be doubtful whether the good you get by your remedies would not be more than surpassed by the harm you do in creating a feeling of dissension and aggravation. That is one aspect of the question, but there is another. I hope my hon. Friend will not think me quixotic if I say that I do not sympathise with the attack that has been made upon the Chancelor of the Exchequer about calumniating our workmen. The right hon. Gentleman is a very old political hand, and he knew as well as anybody knows to-day that that kind of thing cannot be said without it being used against him, though myself I think it is very natural that in the enthusiasm with which he proposed his case workmen should see signs of an exaggeration of that case, and to some extent dislike it. But, while I think that is perfectly natural, I am certain he has not said a word on that subject which was not influenced by the belief that this was a great evil, and that it was his duty to remedy it. I give him that credit.
But is there not a lesson to be derived from all that. I am not going to refer to
1034
the speech of the Prime Minister as a matter of controversy at all, but he went to Newcastle for the express purpose of stimulating munitions of war. He spoke in the very district where every factor that was important should be brought to the notice of those who are directly concerned. He did not refer to drink at all, and I think I know the reason. I think he was probably warned by those who knew the feelings of the workmen that to refer to it would do more harm than good, and create a feeling of resentment. Is that not a warning to us all? Are we not bound to see that in whatever proposals we put forth, or whatever restrictions we, suggest, they are not of a kind which will seem to the great mass of sober, industrious work men as going beyond the necessities of the case, and as being unreasonable in the restrictions they impose. I think I have said enough to show that we on the Opposition side start out with the desire not to hamper the Government if we can help it. That is our desire. I can sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about permission to set up these Committees. I do not know whether it will be possible for him—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he is rather trenching on the Debate which—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Agreed, agreed!"]
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure, Mr. Maclean, you will understand that it was only in consequence of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman that I referred to this matter. I can quite sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's desire to get these Committees to work at once, and I should like to help him to do it, but I think it will be impossible to get that part of the scheme which directly bears on the problem discussed in an atmosphere of unity and with a desire to agree until there is some certainty that the other part of the proposals are not going to be prosecuted. I think that is the danger, and though I quite admit that it is impossible to get the other matters settled by Thursday, he must keep it in view, and if my hon. Friends would agree I should myself be willing to let him get the first stage of setting up the Committees on the distinct understanding that the House of Commons parts in no way with its complete control over the whole proposals, and that our assent to whatever we do agree to is subject to agreement on the other matters as

1035
well. That is the view I take about it. I would like to say, in conclusion, that, after all, the easiest way to do this is to carry with you the co-operation of the trade. I said to the deputations which saw me yesterday, "Do not come to me; go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make terms with him." And I say to him now that the way to get this thing done, without friction and without injury, is to do it by co-operation, so far as it is possible, with those who are directly affected by the proposals he is making.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I do not intend to raise or to take part in what the right hon. Gentleman has characterised as the bitter controversy in this matter, but in view of what has occurred this afternoon, in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is going to reconsider this matter, to see the trade, and so forth, I think it is essential for his own purpose that he should have a clear and a full statement of the views of large sections of Members in this House on all the material points. I am in agreement to a large extent with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. So far as the Bill dealing with areas is concerned, I said on Thursday, and I repeat, that I cordially approve of it, and, if the right hon. Gentleman could withdraw his proposal as to the two taxes, I for my part would willingly see the Areas Bill passed into law to-morrow. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman, however, has suggested. If he does suggest that, and he will come down to the House and withdraw these two taxes, then, so far as I am concerned, he is quite welcome to get the Bill dealing with the areas passed at once, and I sincerely hope that it will be effective.
I feel bound to avail myself of this opportunity to explain to the House the views which are held by large bodies of Members with regard to these taxes. I have conversed on the matter of these taxes with very many Members of all political parties from different portions of the country, and I have not come across one friend of the proposal. Why is that? It certainly is not that Members are unwilling to make any sacrifice that may be necessary in order to remove whatever obstacle there may be in the way of getting ample and rapid munitions of war. On the contrary, my own opinion is that on a proved case, and with what seems likely to be an effective remedy, much more drastic proposals
1036
than those of the right hon. Gentleman would probably receive far more favour than his present proposals. It certainly is not because the Government has made no case, because it is clear to me that in some places—probably they are very few—and amongst some workmen—I am sure that they are very few—there is a slackness, and that slackness is due in some degree to the excessive use of drink. But we cannot accept the case, the full case at any rate, which was put before the House by the right hon. Gentleman without the most careful inquiry.
We cannot accept the case which is set out in the White Paper, and for my part I must be allowed to say that I think the issue of that White Paper was a lamentable mistake. The issue of that White Paper has done a very serious injury to this country. Such drinking as does exist could have been largely dealt with, and I think should have been dealt with long ago, under the drastic powers the Government possess under the Defence of the Realm Act even as it stands, and, if he desires now to pass his Bill obtaining still more drastic powers to deal with the question under the Defence of the Realm Act, then, as I said before, I am quite willing that he should have them. He could have got that, and he could have got it, I believe, without any controversy, probably without any debate; I am almost sure that he could have got it unanimously without parading before the world what the nations of the world, who do not go into these matters and do not understand the disclaimers of the workman, will undoubtedly regard as the shameful story disclosed by the White Paper.
If the new taxes have no friends, it is not therefore because people are unwilling to do what is necessary to stop an evil that has been proved, although the case put forward has been possibly grossly exaggerated. No, it is because nobody believes—I, at any rate, have met nobody who believes—that this proposal as to the taxes is in itself a remedy for the evil. The increasing of the price of whisky will not prevent the drunken workman, whose picture was so luridly drawn the other night by the right hon. Gentleman, from earning, as we are told, larger wages than he ever got in his life before, and it will not prevent him from getting what he wants. You require much more drastic measures to deal with a workman of that kind. You will not increase your output

1037
of armaments by inflicting a blow upon the trade of your Ally, France. You will not be increasing your armaments or putting down this liquor evil, such as it is, by giving a severe blow to the trade of Australia, whose gallant sons are fighting for you to-day upon the battlefield.
No, my belief is that your only safe course is to stick to the plan of dealing with this question by areas. Take the most drastic powers you like, and then, when you find an area where you are satisfied the necessity arises, put those powers into operation in the most drastic way. Seize the public-houses, close the public-houses, prohibit the sale of drink altogether, do anything that is necessary in those areas, but do not propose a remedy of the kind suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, instead of meeting the evil, simply penalises everybody in every part of the country and penalises especially those workmen who are working over hours and who are not indulging in excessive drinking.
I therefore oppose these taxes root and branch on the broad ground that they are no remedy for this evil. But perhaps the House will bear with me if I put the case from the point of view of Ireland. I have spoken generally. Let me put the case of Ireland. Apart from the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of this remedy, we say that so far as Ireland is concerned it is absolutely unnecessary for any war purpose, and, if it is unnecessary, it must therefore be unjust and oppressive. On Thursday last, when I spoke upon this question, I had not then had the opportunity of consulting my colleagues. I have had that opportunity now. We have given this matter the fullest consideration, and to-day we came to a conclusion which I think I ought to read to the House. Here is the resolution we arrived at to-day:—
"That, while we declare the perfect readiness of the Irish people to bear their fair share equally with the people of Great. Britain of any burdens shown to be necessary to bring the War to a speedy and victorious termination, we strongly protest, against the proposed taxation of spirits and beer, because (1) it differentiates against Ireland, by inflicting on some of her chief industries, without compensation, a burden greater than is entailed upon Great Britain; and (2) that, whatever case necessitating restrictions may have been made out against, a small section of workmen in certain districts in Great Britain—and upon that we express no opinion—no case whatever has been made out, or has even been alleged, against any section of the workmen of Ireland, amongst whom we rejoice to know that there is no excessive drinking or slackness; that no case has been made out for the necessity of the proposed taxes, or to prove that they would be effective as a remedy for the evil alleged to exist; and, as they are grossly unjust and oppressive to Ireland, we resolve to oppose them by every means in our power."
1038
Let me shortly deal with the two propositions contained in the Resolution. We say that this is a proposal which, if put into operation, would differentiate against Ireland and would inflict upon Ireland a hardship greater than it would inflict upon Great Britain. How do I prove that? This doubling of the tax on spirits would undoubtedly destroy the distilling industry of Ireland. I have met the great distillers of Ireland and have discussed this matter fully with them. They have assured me that if these taxes were passed they could do no distilling at all next year, and, doing no distilling and with the loss of sales, they are of opinion that scarcely one of their firms could possibly survive. The distilling trade means far more for Ireland in proportion than the distilling trade means for England. Our industries, the House ought to remember, have been ruined in the past. One by one they have disappeared, and this distilling industry is one of the few remaining.
I listened with great interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke about the increased income of this country during the War—when he spoke of the hundreds of millions of borrowed money that have been spent here in this country during the War. Yes, but they are not being spent in Ireland. This money is being spent here. The money that is spent in Ireland is not a drop of water in the ocean compared with what is spent here. You are doing some shipbuilding in Belfast, you are making a few explosives at Arklow, and you are buying some woollen goods from some of the small manufacturers in Ireland; but, apart from that, the bulk of the hundreds of millions of borrowed money you are spending on the War is being spent here, and is increasing the income of the people of this country. Therefore, even if your War proposals did seriously injure one particular small industry in England, it would not be half as serious an injury in proportion as destroying in Ireland one of our only remaining industries, namely, the distillation of whisky.
Consider also what this stopping of the distilling in Ireland means. We are an agricultural country. The destruction of the whisky trade would mean a very serious injury to agriculture in that country. I have here a document—I will not trouble the House with it, but I will allude to one or two facts in it—supplied to me on behalf of the Irish distillers. They

1039
point out that they spend on salaries and wages in Ireland about £400,000 a year, on freights and so forth about £150,000 a year, and on the purchase of cereals in Ireland £1,000,000 a year. Think for a moment what the stoppage of all that means! They have sent me also a long list of all the different trades, the bottling trade and all the other trades, that will be affected. One of the strangest things in the document is that among the people in Ireland who are protesting strongly against this are the dairymen, especially in Dublin, who say that if you stop distillation they will be deprived of the grain from the distilleries, which is the food for their cattle during the winter, and that it would entail very great losses upon them. In a hundred different ways, if this trade were destroyed, you would injure countless thousands of men who would be driven out of employment.
If you take the question of beer, this proposal would differentiate against Ireland quite as much. Let the Committee consider for a moment this point. The manufacture of beer in Ireland is a very large business. It employs many thousands of men in many trades in the country. The last figures I have seen show that 3,417,000 barrels of beer was the output; that is largely all export trade to this country. If this proposal is carried, no one who is acquainted with the trade will deny that Dublin stout and porter will be entirely put out of the market in this country. It only holds the market to-day because of its pure quality. It is made entirely of barley and hops, and none of those substitutes which are used in the making of lighter beers are used in stout or porter. Irish barley, such as this stout is largely made of, is unsuitable altogether for the manufacture of the light kind of beer which the right hon. Gentleman desires to be manufactured. If Ireland is to attempt to compete with the light beers in existence in England at this moment, she must brew it not from barley at all, but from those other substitutes used in the manufacture of light beer, and the beer so manufactured will lose all the characteristics of Dublin stout and porter. They will be embarking on a new trade and manufacturing a new article, and in so doing they will have to compete with men who have been long established in that trade. I am told this morning by a representative of these gentlemen that it is impossible for them to manufacture light beers which would have any of the characteristics of Irish
1040
stout. It would not froth like stout, or be like Irish stout at all; therefore, so far as the brewing trade in Ireland is concerned, your proposal would practically put an end to it. Guinness's lightest porter—single X—at this moment has a gravity of 10.57; therefore the full 36s. Super-tax would fall on every single barrel of beer brewed by this firm. In Ireland the Sur-tax therefore means the ruin of the brewing trade. In England the injury, no doubt would be great, but I do not believe it would be comparable to the injury that would be done in Ireland.
I tried to look up the effect of this proposal on shares. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will be able to tell the Committee how that stands. But the quotations I have seen show that there-has been an enormous drop in Guinness's shares. In some of the English brewery shares there has been no drop, in others there has been a drop that might, in ordinary circumstances, be deemed considerable. But it is nothing like the drop in Guinness's, showing, therefore, it is anticipated that the injury done to the brewing trade in this country is nothing like that which will be done in Ireland. Translated in £. s. d. the drop in Guinness's amounts already to nearly a million and a half of money. When people speak of Guinness's—the name may not be popular in politics in Ireland, for Guinness is something to hit and injure—they forget what Guinness means. Guinness stock—millions of it—is held by people all over Ireland: small people, widows and others, have their sole income in many cases derived from Guinness, and if you destroy the value of Guinness shares you are injuring innumerable perfectly innocent people.
The result of this tax would be, as far as Ireland is concerned, injury to the farmers. Their barley would be unsaleable. This year a larger crop of barley has been sown in Ireland than ever before. That crop, when it comes to be reaped, will be unsaleable if this proposal is carried. Thousands of men will be thrown out of employment, tillage will be stopped. Emigration—and this is something to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some weight—emigration, which last year for the first time since the Great Famine, showed a considerable drop, will necessarily increase if you drive all these people out of employment on the land. All this is to be done without any compensation. When listening to the right hon.

1041
Gentleman on Thursday I was greatly interested to hear him say, "We have come to the conclusion that where you are taking away a man's property, or his livelihood, you must give him fair compensation." Again, he said, "We must see the people are not damaged, and do not suffer in consequence of any action which is taken." That is all very fine, but that does not apply to the property which you are taking away from these people, if you pass these taxes. It does not apply to the livelihood you are taking away, or to the injury done them. It only applies apparently to the operation of his Bill in the particular areas to which he was alluding. In all that I am saying—although I have no right to speak for anyone except my own colleagues, representing the majority of the Irish Nationalists Members—I believe I am voicing the opinion of all political parties in Ireland.
I have carefully watched the newspapers and I notice that the "Irish Times," which represents the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland, goes exactly on the same grounds as I have gone, and is giving bitter opposition to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman. It says that by its proposals, if logically applied, the Government propose to kill the remaining industry in the one part of the United Kingdom which does not produce munitions of war. Mr. Lloyd George told an Irish deputation last week that he had not the slightest charge to make against Irish people in respect of war work, and yet Ireland is to be specially penalised for the sins of a section of English skilled artisans. And in a subsequent article which appeared in the same paper they argued on the same lines strongly against it, saying that all parties in Ireland would unite in protest against this method. I was interested in seeing that the Press in Belfast takes the same line. The "Northern Whig" has opposed this, and in much more controversial terms than I have used it has dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. The "Belfast News Letter" has done the same.
To me this is not a question of the trade or of trade interests. It is a question of the interests of Ireland as a whole. I have received communications, not merely from the licensed trade, from brewers and distillers, but also from every conceivable public body in Ireland, from county councils, district councils, chambers of commerce, and public bodies everywhere. Some of the strongest protests I have received
1042
have come from, teetotalers, and only to-day the Catholic Bishop of Killaloe (Dr. Fogarty), according to a speech reported in the Dublin papers, spoke of the dismay and bewilderment with which he read the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he added, that, jealous as he was for the total abstinence cause, that was not the way to make people sober, and he was afraid it was the old story of crushing Ireland's trade under the wheel of English interests. That is the kind of feeling this is arousing in Ireland amongst, all classes and kinds of men. As I have said, so far as the Bill is concerned we are willing to give the most complete powers even to-morrow, to the right hon. Gentleman, but so far as these taxes are concerned we say they are ineffective as a remedy—absolutely ineffective—and that they differentiate unjustly against Ireland. You have made out no case on war necessity for dealing with the question at all in Ireland.
That last observation brings me to my concluding argument. In Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have, very little of the manufacture of munitions at all. But he will be the first to admit, that the workmen in Belfast are doing their work well, that there is no excessive drinking there, and no necessity whatever to impose any penalty on them. The same thing applies, so far as the transport trade is concerned, to the city of Dublin and elsewhere. It also applies in Arklow, where they are manufacturing explosives. If you leave these places out—and admittedly there, is no case there—then there is no other spot in the whole of Ireland where they are making munitions of war at all, and to tell me that you can go to the Irish people down in Tipperary or Limerick, or anywhere else, where they are flocking to the recruiting sergeant and filling up your regiments, and can say to the people, "We admit you are doing your duty, we admit that you are temperate, we admit that there is no excessive drinking, and that you are not standing in the way of the output of the munitions of war, but there are a few men on the Clyde or elsewhere who are doing it, and, therefore, you must be punished"—to tell me that that is either a just, wise, reasonable, or patriotic thing to do, passes my comprehension. Ireland to-day, I repeat, and from the day war was declared, has done and is doing her duty—in sobriety, in hard work, in recruiting, and in gallantry on the field. Ireland to-day is willing to make

1043
any sacrifice that is proved to be necessary in order to enable you to get your full supply of munitions. But I do beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do beg the Government, not to let Ireland think that her reward for that is to be that this Parliament will inflict upon her, without the smallest war necessity, great injury to all classes of her people—an injury far greater than is inflicted on England—for a cause which, even if it exists in England at all, admittedly is non-existent in Ireland.
It is well, I think, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reconsider this whole matter he should have these views put clearly before him. I hope he will listen to them sympathetically. I tell him in advance it is no use proposing to us a compromise by taking the tax off beer and leaving it on whisky. That would intensify the trouble. [A laugh.] It is not a laughing matter to us. Whisky is the beverage of Ireland, and I put it to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, would it not be a still greater injustice to Ireland if beer, which is the commodity drunk in this country, were to be entirely relieved of the additional taxation, and whisky, which is consumed in Scotland and in Ireland, were to be taxed? I say, if that were offered to us as a compromise, we not only would not take it, but we would regard it as adding insult to injury. But, short of that, if the right hon. Gentleman will only stick to his reasonable proposals for dealing with the liquor traffic in any district where it can be proved that workmen are shirking their work, and shirking it through drink, I am prepared to give him omnipotence—to give him power to do all he wishes. But, I say, stick to that main principle and do not, in order to punish a few men—far fewer than people imagine—who are guilty of this misconduct, penalise the whole population of the country by inflicting hardship on them and in particular upon Ireland.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I have risen because I find that the silence of my hon. Friends on these benches has already been misinterpreted. I do not see why some of the statements that were made in the preceding Debate on this subject should have been made with regard to the silence of the Labour party. The policy that we adopted in the preceding Debate, and the policy we shall adopt in this Debate, is consistently the policy that we have
1044
pursued throughout the past nine months. Along with the Opposition, the majority of us on these Benches determined that we should do nothing calculated to prevent the Government from pursuing the War to a successful issue. It appears to us that we have reached this stage; that it is necessary for us to tell the Government, if there is to be a continuance of the policy we have pursued, that it will be essential for them to continue the policy which characterised them during the earlier stages of the War. It appears to us that there has been a very serious departure from that policy. One essential to the success of that policy that has been followed from the declaration of War is that there must be, as far as possible, an entire absence of the spirit of controversy. In the issue that has been raised in connection with the new taxes, and the other proposals contained in the Bill to amend the Defence of the Realm Act, an altogether unnecessary element of controversy has been introduced. That has been extended in connection with the publication of the White Paper. The statements of an ex parte character contained in that White Paper have been regarded by the workmen of this country as nothing short of a libel upon their position. We know that in the speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject he has always taken care to point out that any censure he might have expressed applied only to a minority of the workmen. We do not disguise that from our minds for a single moment. But no one can examine the White Paper, no one can analyse the statements that are made, especially the ex parte statements made by some of the officials of the several Departments which are printed there, without feeling that the libel affects much more than a small and insignificant minority of the workmen concerned. Some of the statements appear to go directly against the interests, not only of the Government, but of the country in a crisis of this character, and until some method is found whereby the other side of the case can be stated, it will be impossible for the Government to expect from us a continuance of that solid support which we have endeavoured to give during the whole period of the War.
Let me, for a moment, turn to the statement of the case against the workmen of the country. I do not mind saying that not only we on these Benches, and not only the leaders of the organised trade union movement in the country, but the

1045
overwhelming majority of the workers as well, are prepared to take the same stand in regard to this great liquor problem during the War crisis as they have taken towards the War and the policy of the Government during the whole period of the War. Their patriotism cannot be questioned, their loyalty has been the admiration of the entire population; they have worked, in many cases, even to the point of sacrifice, and if they could be convinced, and if we on these Benches could be convinced, as we must be convinced, that any proposal, whether it be by the amendment of the Defence of the Realm Act or by increased taxation, is an absolute necessity for the successful completion of the War, then we will go forward whole heartedly behind the Government in applying that policy. But what do we find when we turn to the case that some have attempted to make out against the workmen? We find that all the evidence adduced is the evidence of employers or of officials. The workmen's side of the case has never been stated and, what is more, it has never been asked for.
This question came up during the three long weary days we sat at a conference trying to solve the question of the relaxation of customs and trade conditions. I was associated with that conference which was held at the Treasury on 17th, 18th, and 19th March. We had there one of the largest and most representative gatherings of trade union officials that I have been associated with for some time. They were all inspired with one desire, namely, to carry the War through successfully so far as the Allies were concerned. The question of intemperance was brought before us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unanimously we agreed to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first of all, to prove his case. We were aware that it might be said, "Yes, but the harm is going on." One case was brought before us. We were solemnly told of an important ship that was required for service being held up. The society whose men were involved determined to have an inquiry at once. What was the result of that inquiry, over which the head manager of the yard concerned presided? The names of the men who were supposed to have been guilty of losing time were brought forward, and in the case of name after name the manager had to admit that it ought never to have appeared on that document. Why? Because the men
1046
whose names were there were legitimately ill and under the doctor, and he admitted that the names ought to have been immediately withdrawn and should no longer be part of the charge against this particular union. When in the only case that was brought to our notice at the three days' conference this sort of statement cannot be backed up, even by the manager of the yard from whom the first statement is issued, it cannot be expected that we should have reliance upon other figures produced from the same ex parte sources as those contained in the White Paper. It cannot and it ought not to be expected that the trade unions will lie down under these charges, which are bolstered up by these ex parte statements.
That is the position. I want to say here that we, as a party, are prepared to do everything we can to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get to know the real facts of the case. The Committee that was appointed by this three days' conference, and which has since been appointed by the Government as a Committee to assist in the acceleration of the output of munitions of war, met yesterday. We had the White Paper before us and we examined these statements, and the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that they ought to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as hon. Members will have seen in the resolution which appears in the Press to-day, that before proceeding with these remedies he should give the workmen of this country who feel that they have been maligned, an opportunity of stating their side of the case. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, because I had intended to press this question upon him.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland)made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Mr. HENDERSON: I quite understand that he must have refreshment as well as any other Member.
Mr. ACLAND: He has gone to tea.
Mr. HENDERSON: I said "refreshment" in all sincerity. I am sorry I did not say "tea" instead of "refreshment." I do not know why the Front Bench is so thin-skinned on this question. I am sorry it was necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave when I was going to press this point, because, after all, we know this question is a thorny one. I have

1047
been through it twice. I went through the attempt made by the previous Government, headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), to deal with the licensing question, and I took a very great interest in the Debates of 1908. We all know it is a very difficult question, but to tackle such a question in a war period the Government ought to have been certain that it could have kept to the spirit of the truce that is supposed to exist, and that it could have carried every party in the House with it. To start by getting up the backs of the men upon whom we depend for the supply of munitions is, in my judgment, one of the most unfortunate things they could have done. Therefore, I want to press this point, that it would be better to spend the next two or three weeks or even a month in getting to the bottom of this case. The suggestion which has been made in our resolution is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government should appoint a small Committee of Inquiry, allowing the workmen to have representation upon that Committee, because there is the necessity of putting questions to those who come to give evidence in order to get the fullest information. I feel convinced that if this policy could be adopted and a small Committee were sent down to the districts in which the shipyards and the works which supply the munitions are situated, to which reference is made in the White Paper, and the matter were thoroughly investigated, whatever policy the House was asked to adopt as a remedy, our case would be infinitely stronger from the fact that we should be able to carry the men with us as a result of their having had an opportunity of stating their case. I should also like to suggest, after the warning which has been given from the Front Opposition Bench and by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Redmond) in the name of the Nationalist party, that instead of going forward with remedies that satisfy nobody—the remedies, I believe, satisfy no party and no section of the community, and they are distinctly controversial—we should have an inquiry and get the evidence from the workmen. Then some form of Select Committee could be set up, upon which ail parties in the House would be proportionately represented, to try to get an agreed remedy and a remedy for the War period only. I believe that in that way lies a solution of the difficulty. I am quite certain that neither the proposals
1048
in the Defence of the Realm Bill, nor the taxing proposals, go in the direction of a final or satisfactory solution of the great difficulty that has been raised. I hope therefore, the Committee will assist Members on these Benches in trying to get this inquiry. We think we are entitled to it and I hope we shall hear, before the Debate closes, that the Government have determined to adopt some course similar to that which I have suggested.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. W. O'BRIEN: We are all ready to act in the spirit of the appeal of the Chancellor, and I am only sorry that he failed to make that appeal last Thursday night. At all events, human nature being what it is, I think some of us may be allowed to congratulate ourselves that after the last few days' outbreak in Ireland, and after the declarations which have been made to-night from the Front Opposition Bench, it looks as if our little minority of five the other night would be a majority before many nights have passed. At all events it is perfectly certain that it will be if the Leader of the party which sits behind me persists in determined opposition to these monstrous new penalties upon Ireland now that he is backed up by the two unequivocal declarations we heard to-night from the Front Opposition Bench. After all, it is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) who is in power in this House, or at least who ought to be. A determined word from him at the right time would have averted these proposals, as in the Budget of 1909. I do not desire to inquire too closely or in a critical spirit why that determined word was not spoken last Thursday, when these Sur-taxes were rushed into law at a few hours' notice and before any man in the House outside, the Treasury Bench had even read the Resolutions. There is one thing for which Ireland is perhaps indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is that he has at last found something upon which all of us in Ireland will be forced, whether we like it or not, to take united action. For my part I can promise that we will not quarrel about who deserves the merit if it should turn out in fact that the Chancellor is content with the practically unlimited control of the munitions areas, as to which I think we are all agreed, and if he will promptly and in their entirety drop the Sur-taxes, both as to whisky and beer, like the exceedingly

1049
sensible politician that he is. For the rest, I will not go back upon the ground which was traversed last Thursday. I am content to wait until we see what practical fruit will come of the hint—for I am sorry to say it was not very much more—thrown out by the Chancellor to-night, and we will be content in the meantime to wait and see and to keep our powder dry.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I think the Committee may congratulate itself inasmuch as we have, in this Government at all events, one man who, whether the subject is popular or not, never hesitates to take the course which he thinks best in the interests of the country. During the time I have been in this House I was never more struck than when last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against all his native prejudices and against all his life's work in this House, took action which was at all events distasteful to the people of Wales; and on this question that he brought before the House last week I feel certain that no man, except one with great courage like him, would have cast what is, after all, his political future into the frying pan only and solely because he thought it was in the interests of the country to do so. I think he has made a mistake. A man who makes no mistakes never makes anything, and he has been working, as we all know, at very great pressure for months past, and I am certain he has not been able to give that time to the consideration of these proposals that tie has brought before the House which he would have done in normal times. Let the Committee remember this: He was furnished with reports of a character which showed that something should be done. He is the only Member of the Government who ever gets out of the stereotyped position in which they always put themselves, because this Government is a Government of Committees. Whenever they get into a difficulty, whenever they want to deal with a problem, they appoint a Committee. My right hon. Friend finds that ammunition has not been coming forward and he takes what he thinks an heroic step. The steps he took are really, in my opinion, not in any way calculated to promote the production of munitions, because the man who wants to get drink, and the habitual drunkard will still get drunk tinder the proposals that he has brought forward.
The remedy seems to me to be a very simple one. The Government, under the
1050
Defence of the Realm Act, have power to take possession of all munition works, and in fact of all works which they think necessary in the interests of the State and of the nation. If the Government want to take charge of all these armament works they could then deal with the habitual drunkard and slacker. The men in Sheffield engaged in armament work have, during the past nine months, worked not at ordinary pressure, but at extreme high, pressure. Mr. Vickers, the head of the Sheffield firm, tells me that never at any time in his recollection have the men worked so magnificently as during the last nine months, and he feels actually ashamed to go through the works and see these men working, not only on Saturdays and Sundays, but continually long hours, to get forward the necessary ammunition. Mr. Charles Ellis, of John Brown's, has made the same statement publicly in the Press in Sheffield. At Cammell's works in Sheffield the same statement has been made by their managing director. Therefore, we have to face the fact that there are certain areas where there has been no drunkenness whatever. That being the case, we are brought up against the fact that there are only certain limited areas where drunkenness takes place, notably the Tyne and the Clyde, these being the two chief centres where the evil exists. All of us who have had any connection with business on the Tyne know perfectly well that even in normal times there is always an amount of drinking prevalent among the black squad in the shipyards. Men who do out-of-door work do not tend to regular hours. The best class of workmen, and a very large number of outside workers have gone to the War; therefore, the best class of men are not at present being employed on Government work. What is the remedy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He is going to say to all the surface men in my Constituency, and to all those who work in the mines when they come out of the pit or come from the furnace choked with coal dust, "you shall not have your pint of beer when you get home."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
Sir A. MARKHAM: My Constituents are not going to pay 5½d. for a pint of beer when they come home from work. They all have a pint of beer, and when they have their dinner they have another pint. Then they wash themselves after that, and many of them, a good many more than ought to, go to the public-house and have another

1051
pint. I have been brought up and have spent my life among working men. The ordinary working man drinks more than he can afford to do; but at the same time no man works for the pleasure of working, and the bulk of the working men when they have done their work choose to spend their earnings, as they are entitled to do, in a certain proportion of drink. Men working in London and men doing hard manual work are in two entirely different classes. Men engaged in furnace work or in mines want beer.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: No.
Sir A. MARKHAM: If the hon. Member went into a mine and got choked up with coal dust he would find a glass of beer would do him no harm, at all events when he came out.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has worked for years before a furnace without beer.
Sir A. MARKHAM: If the hon. Member has worked before a furnace for years, working long hours—
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Twelve hours a day.
Sir A. MARKHAM: Throwing all the necessary material into the furnace, and if he has been a hard manual labourer working on feeding a furnace and has had no beer he is one in five hundred. I happen to be associated with the manufacture of iron, and if my hon. Friend is one of those rare men who, in the height of summer, do not care to quench their thirst except with water, he is a rarity. At all events, we have to take workmen as they are. Working men feel that they are entitled to have this refreshment, and they have thought that my right hon. Friend cast a slur on them in the speech that he made last week. That is because they do not understand what he actually said. I think he has been unfairly treated by the Press, and more particularly by the liquor traffic, in the misrepresentation that has taken place by people saying, that there is a general attack on the sobriety of the working men of this country. My right hon. Friend never said anything of the kind. But be that as it may, I think, and I said so in this House, that last autumn he made a mistake and he would have done much better not to increase the price of beer, because the only result, as we pointed out, was that if the price of
1052
beer was put up to 3d. a pint men would take to spirits instead. A quart of beer does no man any harm so long as he drinks in moderation. I have known men who drank six gallons on Saturday night. To a man doing hard manual work it does not do the slightest harm whatever. Let us come to the practical point. I do not want to go into the question of the habits of the working man. The Leader of the Labour party goes about the country in my Constituency and elsewhere accusing me of attacking working men for their drinking habits. I am always being held up as a scourge for talking in such strong language as to the way they drink. It seems to me to-day that I am in the position, after having fought all my life for temperance measures, of being an advocate of drinking. That is not so at all.
But to come to the practical issue, I am not going to vote for any of these proposals. I shall vote against them. I do not want to see any compromise whatever. The price of beer to-day is 3½d. per pint. Does the Chancellor know the average specific gravity of beer consumed in the public-houses in the Midlands, where I come from, is 70 per cent.? I assure my right hon. Friend that a collier will not drink swipes. A collier or a mine worker is more particular about the quality of the beer he drinks than about anything else. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not understand the British working man. He may understand the Welshman, but the English working man is as particular about the quality of his beer as he is of anything in his ordinary vocation and life. I assure the right hon. Gentleman the collier will not, and the men who are doing manual work will not, tolerate the quality of their beer being interfered with. Some men choose to drink light beer. Light beers are much better for everyone than heavy beers. But if the Chancellor thinks he is going to prevent men who are earning high wages having the beer they like by putting on a tax, he is very much mistaken. That would be no remedy of the evil.
I think the Government should take charge of the districts where munitions are being manufactured. Where you get a certain proportion of the men who do not do a fair day's work you should put these workers under military law, and if these men do not attend to their work, then you must treat them as you would do if they were actually serving as soldiers.

1053
An ex-Member of this House made a proposal of that kind—I mean Mr. Bottomley—and it was a very sensible suggestion. He said the men who slack and become habitual drunkards and do not attend to their work ought to be tipped on the shoulder by the Government and told, "You are a soldier, a soldier to work, not to fight at the front, but to be under military law until such time as you behave yourself." That was an admirable suggestion, much more calculated to give the Government the munitions they require than are the proposals they have put before the House. It is no use blaming the working man for the Government not getting the ammunition. The Chancellor said in his speech that in the early part of this campaign he became convinced, "that it is more a war of munitions and material than men, and a very distinguished Frenchman said to me the weight of ammunition in this War will count more than the weight of men."
Let me tell the Chancellor this, there are works which I know myself, large engineering works, on the War Office and Admiralty list, capable of making munitions of war which up to December last never received even an inquiry from the War Office for the making of munitions, or even for any supplies whatever, and in fact I know of a letter in existence written last November by one of the Departments, saying, "The Government has plenty of shells and there is no necessity to take steps." Who is to blame for that? It is for the Government to find out. It is not the Chancellor's Department; the quarrel lies with the War Office. The War Office evidently were satisfied last November that ample shells were being made. It is absolutely untrue to say, as was said by the Prime Minister, that the operations in the field were not being delayed by want of material, because all of us who have friends coming back from the front hear them complain that they were limited in the amount of ammunition they were allowed to fire. Therefore the Government must press forward this thing. Let them take the practical step I have suggested, and I am sure they will get their munitions, but if they proceed to have any compromise on the matter I at all events, shall vote against them, although at this time we all want to work in harmony.
There is only one other matter I would like to say a word upon. I am one who eagerly desired to hear the Chancellor say
1054
he would put a tax upon the immense war profits that are being made from the necessaries of life, such as bread, coal, etc. I have been urging him all the time to tax coal profits, and I hope that the intimation that he gave in his speech—I think he said if the War went on for another six months the Government would have to reconsider their decision, and tax war profits—I hope this intimation that the Government may tax war profits will be given effect to. The neglect of the Government to tax war profits is an invitation to everybody to rob the public to the utmost. The Chancellor, in fact, by doing nothing in this direction, when prices are at the height they are to-day, is giving encouragement to every single manufacturer and dealer to obtain the most they can from the public, because they know the profit is going into their own pockets. If the Chancellor had stated definitely that he was going to tax all profits in excess of the average earnings over the last three years, that would at all events have given some satisfaction to the country, and would have been much better than to place such a tax as he proposes to do upon the liquor industry. I hope even at this late hour when we get into Committee that he will move a Resolution increasing the charge in the manner I have indicated. We are entirely in the hands of the Government. All I can urge is that the Government should not rest quietly and allow people who gamble in the necessaries of life to enrich themselves by war profits, of which the Government take no share, because they say it is a difficult matter to do so in detail. That is not what I thought of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope even now at this late hour when we have had his autumn Budget, we shall have a full and carefully prepared scheme in which the nation will take from these people what they have been swindling the country of by charging these high prices.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The first speech I ever made in this House in 1874 was in defence of the working man being able to get his beer. I am now a total abstainer. I have been so for some years and I entirely agree with the objects of the teetotalers. Their object is to get more sobriety, but I respectfully submit to them that they go the very way to work to defeat their object. As far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals go, I think there is no sense of proportion in them whatever. There

1055
is an evil existing and we all want to cure it. Take Portsmouth alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said some flattering things about Portsmouth. There is no drunkenness there. Why should Portsmouth suffer because of a few people on the Clyde and the Tyne? I believe the real solution of this difficulty will be to get hold of the areas where the munitions are made, and if those areas, through drink, do not turn out what is required to keep our men fighting at the front, they ought to be taken over, by the Government. The public-houses in them ought to be taken over, but do not try and stop the people's drink. Take over the public-houses in these areas and have good whisky and good beer and something to eat. What happens to these men is that they are overworked, and the more efficient they are the more they are overworked because of the slackers. These men want their beer, and they must have it, and they want their whisky. I sympathise with the object of the hon. Member who says he has worked opposite a furnace, but I do not sympathise with his method. Perhaps he may have spent the whole day swinging a seven-pound ball over his head. Lots of these men at the end of the day are dead-beat, and if they did not get something to drink they could not do it again next day. I have handled men in all sorts of circumstances, and I have often seen men after a gale of wind in the old sailing ship days, who, if you had not given them a tot of rum, would not have been all right next morning. Do you suppose men who are in the trenches for four days, frost-bitten, tired-out, beaten, would be alive now if you had not given them a tot of rum? I maintain they would not.
What the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to do is to get hold of the areas. There I am entirely in agreement with him, but do let us be reasonable. Let the teetotals and licensed victuallers and all the rest—we all want to get rid of this evil—let us do it properly. It is not what you do, it is the way you do it that matters. Let the Chancellor get hold of the areas, let him put a prohibitive tax on one-year-old and two-year-old whisky, let three-year-old whisky remain as it is, let him have good beer and good whisky for the men in these areas that he is going to take under his control. Let the men be fairly treated with regard to the liquor and the food they get. No man in the world dead-beat can get up in the morning with an
1056
empty stomach and go and drink the filthy stuff that is often sold without eventually having a greater craving for it than he would have if he was given good liquor. I am quite certain that this thing can be handled well.
Although the hon. Gentleman opposite does not agree with me, I am as earnest as he is. I am a teetotaler as he is. I would do anything to improve the sobriety of the nation, but do let us do it in a commonsense businesslike way. We must have some sort of compromise. For goodness sake do not let us have hot arguments in this House at a moment when we are at War, the gravity of which is not properly appreciated either in this House or the country. There is an evil. Let us all get together and put it right, and do not let any of us speak disparagingly of the working man. The working men are doing splendidly. They have joined the Army in their thousands, and in most places they are working overtime and all the time. They want this drink. Do not try and stop it altogether. Let them have a proper amount of drink, but let it be drink that, is good and wholesome.
There is nobody in this country can talk of prohibition. I remember when I argued on that point. It was on the part of my own country, Ireland, and I brought up the Forbes Mackenzie Act. That Act was a very well meaning one, but there was more drunkenness in Scotland after it came into operation than ever before, because they bought a bottle instead of getting a tot. Do not let us go into these controversies and make the question more bitter than it is. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will think over my suggestions—first, the areas; second, the heavy tax on one-year-old and two-year-old whisky; third, let the men have good beer and good whisky, and proper food at cheap prices. They should be able to go out from their work and get their glass of beer and their food at the same time.
Sir ALFRED MOND: The interesting discussion which we have had shows the intense difficulty which confronts the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else who comes to deal with the question of drink. In view of the fact that we are all anxious not to force controversies, there are many things which I might say on another occasion which I prefer not to say this evening. Speaking as a humble private Member, what I feel, and I think what a great many people outside this House

1057
feel, is not that we are so particular as to what remedy is applied, as that it is high time that something was done. It is now nearly two months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the country that drink was doing us more harm than German submarines. What would the country have said about the Admiralty if for two months they had taken no steps against submarines, but had simply gone on talking about what they were going to do? That is the position in which we are today. The White Paper which has been published fills me with absolute melancholy. The idea that the admiral of this great Fleet, who during the long winter has been in the North Sea warding off furious attacks on the heart of this country, should wire home to the First Lord of the Admiralty that the efficiency of the Fleet was being imperilled, and that responsible officials of the Admiralty, including the First Sea Lord, should have said on their own responsibility that the efficiency of our Fleet and the supply of munitions are being endangered by drink, and that we are still going on talking as if there was nothing the matter, as if we were discussing the old question of prohibition, or whether people should drink whisky or beer, fills me with despair. Are we to wait until the Fleet is at the bottom of the sea before we wake up to the urgency of this question, while we continue to talk about such things as the profits of breweries and distilleries?
I cannot conceive an admiral like Admiral Jellicoe sending a telegram of this kind; I cannot conceive responsible Admiralty officials, who are neither politicians nor temperance fanatics, sending in report after report, unless they are certain of their facts. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle made a very eloquent speech. But the upshot of it was, "let us have another Committee of Inquiry, which will waste another four or six weeks or two months, while we are to discuss whether or not it is 10 per cent., 5 per cent., or 3 per cent. of the men who get drunk. Why are the working men so sensitive about criticism on this subject? Everybody in the country knows that the great mass of the working classes are sober and industrious. Everybody who knows anything knows that there is a certain section which in these conditions perhaps more than in any others will take too much alcohol. What we are concerned with is to stop the minority doing this harm to themselves and to the country. What we
1058
are asking the majority to give up is not a necessity of life, but to give up something which is not necessary to them. We are asking millions of men to go and fight, and perhaps be shot, for their King and country, and yet when we say to people, "Do not have a glass of beer for a few months so as to help them," they say, "That is a sacrifice which we cannot make." It is inconceivable that the whole nation would not feel that if it could save the life of one man by not drinking a glass of beer or whisky for twelve months, they would sooner not touch it again than have it on their conscience that one man was killed who might have been saved.
It seems to me that this is the only aspect in which one can conceive this question. I am not concerned with discussing the question of taxation of areas. I am very much impressed by the fact that one of the most important officials talks of prohibition, and I am still more impressed by the fact that the head of every big shipbuilding firm in this country, not one of whom I imagine is a teetotaller, and not one of whom certainly has appeared on any temperance platform, men who employ thousands of working men, men who are doing work for the Government, responsible men whose names are known over the wide world, have come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for total prohibition. It is an enormous responsibility for us to take, in view of representations like these, to sit still and do nothing. It is an enormous responsibility for us to take, because we are afraid of constituents or of political consequences, to do nothing. Personally, I am prepared to vote for any measure, however extreme, and whatever the consequences may be if it is demanded, as it is demanded, by these people. We have heard of the example of Nero who fiddled while Rome was burning. He has been held up to us as an example of futility. It appears to me that we are like an orchestra of Neros, fiddling while the Empire is in danger. I hope that this orchestra will soon be brought into harmony, and will soon play but one tune. And I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a growing impatience amongst all people in the country who are sacrificing their husbands, brothers, and sons in this great campaign, if, as we read in these Government publications, munitions of war are being withheld because of drinking, and that no steps are being taken to put an end to such a state of affairs.

1059
I desire now to refer to another subject of a very different character. As the War has shown, one of the things in which we are deficient in this War—and a thing which is very important—is our scientific equipment. One of the difficulties in connection with our national dyeing scheme, which has been discussed at such length, and which everybody realises, is the want in our great universities and teaching institutions of endowment for research. We find the same thing to some extent—if not to the same extent—if we touch on the question of high explosives and other departments of scientific research. It may seem a curious moment to make a request on the subject when we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the War. But it is just because we are spending so much that it may be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the relatively small amount of money that is required in order to assist our universities and technical institutions to train and educate a larger number of English chemists. It is a perfect fallacy to assume that there is anything in the German intellect which gives the German any superiority over the Englishman in the scientific field. It is perfectly untrue that the German has got any kind of monopoly of intellectual fitness in this respect.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not see the relevancy of this portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir A. MOND: Perhaps I have wandered away from what I was going to say. But I was going to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, when arranging the expenditure of the year, he should, if possible, do something for the endowment of science.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has just given the Chancellor of the Exchequer the option of taxing Ireland, and I wish to liberate my soul on the question of alkaline. I cannot conceive of any more mischievous form of manufacture, or one more requiring control, than the manufacture of alkaline, and anything which the Government can do to take profits from that industry, especially so far as it is not of native growth, I shall cordially support. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have broken the truce suggester by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1060
himself. I do not intend to pursue a controversial tone regarding this matter, and I was very glad indeed to hear the hon. Baronet opposite suggest that there should be nothing in the nature of taunt or recrimination if these taxes were abandoned. For my part I intend to pursue that line. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he drops them, will not meet with a single taunt or a single reproach from any of those who have been opposing that taxation, because we all recognise the tremendous work which he has been doing during the past eight or nine months. Though occasionally there has been cause for protest in regard to selecting Ireland as a basis for operations, certainly as far as I am concerned, I shall never cease to feel grateful to him for the courage which he has displayed in connection with this War ever since it broke out. Nobody has admired more than I the splendid speeches that he has made to stir the pulse of the country. But what I would suggest is this: If the proposals which in his zeal he has made, and which we condemn, are withdrawn, so far as we are concerned there will be no more said about them.
However, I am not satisfied that he would have brought in these proposals but that he thought he had the support of the hon. Member for Waterford. He undoubtedly must have been misled in his interviews during the last three or four weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not desire to say a word to raise any controversy to-night, and if I am trencing upon any matter of this kind I will drop it. That being so, I desire to ask a question on procedure. There is down to-night, as I understand, the Report of the Ways and Means Resolution. Is this Report to be gone on with? I criticised very strongly this unfortunate Provisional Collection of Taxes Act of 1913. It is put on the necks of the Government every time this question of the Budget comes up. The last time, over the collection of the Income Tax, we showed the Government that it would have these effects. The Act provides that this Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if it is not agreed to, with or without modification, by the House within the next ten days after the Resolution is passed in Committee. If these Resolutions are not passed the public are being overcharged. It is, therefore, desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the earliest opportunity of jettisoning them if he intends to get rid of them. All over the country to-day the

1061
public are being charged for alcohol practically at the rates suggested on Thursday last. The public, if it takes anything out of bond, can recover from the Government, but the simple people up and down the country who are being charged extra for beer or spirit can never hope to recover from the person who is selling to them. Therefore, I think that the Government ought in this matter to make up its mind to get rid at once of this power of taxation.
There is, however, one remark which I would make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would see without any objection an extra tax put on spirits made in patent stills. Twenty-five years ago, when Mr. Goschen put 6d. on whisky, I contended strongly that different treatment should be meted out to the distillate in pot stills made from a mixture of malt and grain from that which was applied to the product of the patent still. It is immaterial to the patent still worker how soon he puts his whisky on the market. He can sell the whisky next day practically. He has the great advantage of being able to use in his wash all kinds of substances which the pot-still maker cannot use. I, for my part, think that the tax should be confined to patent still whisky. This Government is not responsible; the then Government was. I tried to extract from the Treasury again and again at that time what were the dishonest materials which brewers and distillers were using to sophisticate their production, and the Treasury, or the Excise Department, refused to give that information. I think that if distillers and brewers were compelled to give the materials and ingredients which they use, it would be a great deal better for honest men. Furthermore, there is a great deal of difference for the workman between bad whisky and bad beer, and good whisky and good beer. But this House, led away, I think, by what is called Free Trade conceptions: "Whatever the beer or whatever the whisky, it is all bad alike; it does not make the smallest difference how a man gets drunk, if he gets drunk." But as soon as the War breaks out you find out that there is a great deal of difference between good whisky and bad whisky, good beer and bad beer, when people are unfortunately led into misconduct.
As to the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, anything he does to penalise patent still spirit, which in my opinion is certainly not worthy the name of whisky, I should cheerfully vote
1062
for, because the patent still man can put his product on the market next morning, whereas pot still whisky has to be kept five, six, seven, or eight years. The Canadians leave patent still whisky in bond for two or three years, or until it is properly ripe. I think it would be a good thing for the people of this country if one result of the War was that the Excise compelled the brewers and distillers to tell us what ingredients they are using, and penalise those who employ decoctions, and so, to some extent, give advantage to those who are using honest articles, whether in breweries or distilleries. A Dublin magistrate, in 1867, on finding there were no "drunks," in closing his Court, said it was something serious if there are no "drunks in Dublin." That phrase fell from the lips of a paid resident magistrate of the British Government. When anyone says that the Irish always seem to be standing up for brewers and distillers; in fact, what they are standing up for, is the principle, that if you allow an industry in that country, if you promote it, if you legislate for it in that country, if you licence it in that country, you should not destroy that industry without proper and adequate compensation. That is the line we have taken. Do not destroy these men's industry without compensation, as I am sorry to say this Bill would have done. I do not want to conclude without thanking the Conservative Opposition for the stand they have taken in this matter. They have taken a sensible stand; it is due to them that this tax is to be withdrawn; it is due to the firm line they have taken that Ireland will owe that result; otherwise, I am sorry to say, we should have been left a very small minority in this House.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE(indistinctly heard): I arise to appeal to the Committee to be allowed to get the Resolution on the Income Tax, because that Resolution has nothing whatever to do with either the whisky or the beer duty. It is usual to allow a general discussion, but I would suggest that it would not be helpful at this stage to carry it on. The speeches which have been delivered express the views, I think, of the different quarters of the House, and will be very valuable to the Government from that point of view. I have nothing to complain of in the tone of the speeches I have heard. But my suggestion is that we should be allowed to have the Resolution on the Income Tax, and if a general discussion is required we could postpone the other Resolutions to a

1063
later date. The Income Tax Resolution we must get, because this is the last night upon which it can be moved. The others it is not necessary to get until, I think, some time in June; therefore, there would be no inconvenience to the public service in postponing them, for the purposes of a general discussion.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if the Income Tax Resolution is passed now there will be no further opportunity of discussing the taxation of spirits and beer?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, there will be two opportunities for that discussion, one on the Report stage of the Resolution, which will have to be moved within the next ten days as from last Thursday—ten Parliamentary days—and there will be the opportunity for a general discussion on the Tea Resolution. The usual rule is to allow a general Debate on all the proposals of the Budget to be taken upon a particular Resolution. The one I suggest is the Tea Resolution, on which everything can be discussed. But that is a matter for arrangement between the parties of the House. It does not matter to the Government on which Resolution the discussion is taken.
I should like to say one or two words on the discussion. I am not going into the controversial part of the speeches which have been delivered. My hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) as usual had a dig at everybody in every quarter of the House, but he did it in a very genial way, and he has mixed up a good deal of very shrewd common sense in what he has said. In regard to an alternative proposal, the hon. Gentleman's alternative to our proposal is martial law.
Sir A. MARKHAM: That is only for the wasters and drunkards.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Somebody would have to decide that matter, and it is a question whether the workpeople of this country would not be prepared to pay a little more for their whisky rather than come under martial law. However, that is a matter upon which I should be very much interested to hear the views of hon. Members at the proper moment. If anything has emerged from the discussion, it is that there is general agreement about powers being given, and I would point
1064
out that these powers, which it is proposed to give, are not merely powers to restrict, but they are powers to provide decent accommodation for the workmen in those areas where Government work is being done. My criticisms on the workmen have been quoted and referred to, but I pointed out on Thursday, and stated distinctly, that a good deal of trouble arises owing to men taking even a small quantity of alcohol on an empty stomach. I pointed out that there was no provision of decent food for them in those areas; and one of the things I want to take powers for is to provide decent food, refreshments, stimulants, and accommodation in those areas. My hon. Friends will notice that I have actually made provision in the Budget for the expenditure of a large sum of money for that particular purpose. It is almost impossible to satisfy everyone, and some of my temperance friends may disapprove of it. But we must do the best we can under the circumstances, and I agree with the Noble Lord opposite, and certainly approve of that part of his speech in which he said that the men wanted more food, and that those who took stimulants should get them of the very best, and get them within reason. We are not merely taking those powers, but we are making financial provisions for special accommodation of that kind, either within the works or outside of them, or close to the works. Inquiry shows that there is often very considerable difficulty in setting up accommodation of this kind inside of the works. The works are now so congested that we must make the best of local conditions in these cases; but it does involve closing houses, and also involves taking over some of those houses, in order to provide those refreshments ourselves. But we cannot do all this until we obtain the power to do it, and I want to make it perfectly clear that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the tax.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: In closing these houses will the right hon. Gentleman give compensation?
8.0 P.M.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes, certainly; I hope before the Bill leaves the House to give a general indication as to who will adjudicate upon it. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Exeter's Commission could take charge of that, with probably the addition of one or two Members who have experience in compensation and other matters. I appeal to the House and my right hon. Friend to allow

1065
us to proceed with this part of our scheme, because it is a matter which the workmen themselves want, apart from others. Our proposal is to get these powers, and then to set up local committees in those areas on which workmen will be represented, so that whatever steps will be taken will be taken on local advice, where the workmen will have the same opportunity as anyone else of expressing their feelings. I do hope, if it is possible, that the Government will get those powers speedily, because there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says, namely, that if this is an evil, we ought to proceed against it at once. It is generally agreed that there is no adequate accommodation for the men to get food and sustaining material when they are thoroughly exhausted, and that they should get it under conditions which would prevent those who are rather inclined that way from taking too much stimulant without any food, and thoroughly bad stimulants. I come to the other suggestion—that we should draw a distinction between patent still whiskies and whiskies which are distilled out of British produce. That is a suggestion which I considered in 1909, and I am still very favourably disposed towards it. When we came to debate it somehow or other it broke down. I do not remember why, but it is one of the things I shall certainly consider. It has been urged on me a good deal in the discussion of the last few weeks. I am told most of the harm is done by the fiery, raw, crude stuff, which has the additional disadvantage of being very cheap, so that, therefore, they can buy a very considerable quantity at considerably low prices. That is a thing which, of course, we shall consider. I would also say, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, that it is undoubtedly in the interests of this country to discourage the more alcoholic beers, but when he talked about beer of 70 gravity, I do not think anybody except my hon. Friend knows of it.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I said I had the percentage taken, and that it was 73 exactly.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to know in what part of the world that is.
Sir A. MARKHAM: That is in Yorkshire.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can assure my hon. Friend it is something the Excise
1066
never heard of. I wonder under what conditions that beer is brewed? The average of beer in this country is 48; I believe the strongest beer is drunk somewhere in the Midlands, and that lies between about 50 and 57.
Colonel HALL WALKER Colonel HALL WALKER made some observations which were inaudible.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think you will find it is a very exceptional brew. There may be a few men in Yorkshire who drink beer of that exceptional quality of 73, but they are very, very few. At the present moment there is a discrimination against beer of high gravity, so that a man is paying more now for heavier beer than lighter beer. It is purely a question of scale. If my hon. Friend thinks my scale is too steep, I am perfectly prepared to discuss it, but, at the same time, I think he agrees with me that it is desirable, as a matter of public policy, to so arrange your taxation that you discourage the more alcoholic beers in favour of the lighter beers, and that is the whole principle of my proposal.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather trenching on exceedingly controversial matters in proceeding to argue at this hour of the night a preference for light beers brewed in England, as against the heavier beer which forms five-sixths of the make in Ireland?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will accept the warning of the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not press any further that particular topic. There is one other thing I should like to say. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) said that in the White Paper there had been a general attack on the workmen. I do not think that is fair? It is a sort of thing that is very easily said and very difficult to disprove. I do not think it very fair. I am sure my right hon. Friend would like to be fair and reasonable to those responsible officials who are undertaking very responsible and anxious work. They may be right or wrong in their view, but let us take the charge or statement they make. Their statement is not a statement that the working classes of this country are guilty of alcoholic excess of drinking. Their charge is that there is a considerable amount of slacking in certain trades. The whole of the men employed in those yards only amount to about 130,000.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, as I have no desire to misrepresent the officials. Whoever has given him the statement that I said that the officials made a general charge against the workmen, is not correct. What I did say was that they have made a statement against the workmen that the workmen themselves thought was larger than the minority that was sometimes represented. I am in the recollection of the Committee.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will accept at once the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I am very glad, because his speech did convey the other impression. I think this is very important. There has been no charge against the working classes of the country at all. On the contrary, I stated, and it seems to be necessary to repeat it, in the very first statement I made on the drink question, that the vast majority—and I used the words "a vast majority"—of the workmen of this country were putting every ounce of strength into their work. That does not state that the position is not a very grave one, and one which will have to be dealt with. I do make a final appeal to the House to allow us to have the Resolution, and I should very much like if those responsible for the arrangements of the various parties could see their way to enable us to proceed at once to inquire into the best method of dealing with the munition areas, and as to the setting up of Committees for the purpose in order to get some sort of idea of the expenditure that will have to be incurred, and as to the employment of architects and professional men for the purpose of seeing what accommodation should be set up in order to do it better. I do hope we shall be allowed to proceed on Thursday.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question? In view of the statement that has been made in the White Paper, is he prepared to give some form of inquiry in order that the workmen may have the opportunity of stating their case?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend what kind of inquiry he suggests, and then I shall certainly consider it and place it before my colleagues.
In answer to a question by my hon. Friend behind, I may just say we have provided in this year's Estimates for the purpose of research and of increasing
1068
the steps which will enable us to deal with special manufactures on which we were dependent too much on foreign countries.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor finds himself in a difficult position, and he entered on a wide field of discussion. If he will excuse me, I do not propose to follow him at all on that line, except to say that I cannot prejudge what may happen next Thursday, but I commend the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, which I think will meet his requirements for that purpose. All I desire to do now is to support the appeal which he made to the Committee to give him the Income Tax Resolution to-night, it being understood—subject, Sir, to your permission, which we must have—that the Tea Duty Resolution will be reserved for another occasion when the general discussion on the whole Budget of the year may be renewed. I think that will give the House ample opportunity of discussing the questions which they would wish to raise. I cannot but think that there may be some advantage that everybody, and especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should have a little time to consider the representations which have come from all quarters of the House to-day before we carry the discussion further. I should be hopeful in that way that we might arrive at something like a general agreement as to the way to deal with this difficult question.
Mr. LOUGH: I also think we ought to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spirit of his earlier appeal this afternoon. I think he was a little controversial in his second speech; I think the House should accept the Resolution on the understanding that we are to have an early opportunity of resuming the Debate.
Mr. BOOTH: Why not to-night?
Mr. LOUGH: I am supporting the appeal to pass the Resolution on certain conditions. There is a point I want to raise, and that is as to light wines. The Chancellor appears in that case to forget, the principle he lays down in connection with beer. The Liberal party has an old tradition about that as to which I should like to remind the Committee on the later stage. To-night the Chancellor has asked us not to continue the Debate because he has to receive a deputation, and to get more information. I support that suggestion, it being understood that the whole

1069
subject will be resumed at an early date, and that nothing will be prejudged in the matter.
Mr PETO: Although over four hours have elapsed since the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham there has not been a word said in reference to the Income Tax proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now asks the Committee to agree to. There are two or three points about which I must say a word or two. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham referred to the War concession in regard to Death Duties, and we were told that it cost £101,000. My right hon. Friend appealed for more generous treatment in that particular matter. I would like to support that appeal, and to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the concession was made last autumn it had to be calculated on the 3 per cent. tables. The value of money is very different from that, so that he did not really give any adequate relief. But there is a much larger question, namely, that of Income Tax on officers' pay. I do not believe that there is a single member of the civil community who would wish that officers should be asked to pay double Income Tax on their small pay—a tax which is larger than any addition which has been made to their pay. Since the Income Tax was doubled, naval officers are, in every rank except one, in receipt of very much smaller pay in war time than they were before the War began. Therefore I am not satisfied with the Chancellor's statement that the matter has had sympathetic consideration, and that no concession could be made unless a similar concession was made to soldiers in the ranks. That does not follow, because, in regard to the articles with which they are concerned, private soldiers have been practically exempt from any increased contribution to the revenue at all. I mention the matter not because I wish the officer to be treated better than the private, but because you ought not to treat the officer in the matter of taxation very much worse than the private is actually being treated. This Income Tax question is all the more important now because the tax has been doubled, and the Chancellor has foreshadowed that a further demand may have to be made in the course of the year. When the Income Tax reaches such a figure that it contributes to the revenue £103,000 000, it is absolutely necessary that we should make sure that it is in fact a
1070
tax on profits. At present it is nothing of the sort, as it includes wasting assets and other elements which ought to be taken into consideration.
I have been asked to raise these matters by a great organisation, of which no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard—the Income Tax Reform Association. Although we are not pressing for any consideration in this matter now in time of war, we do ask that as soon as peace is restored the question of the Income Tax should be seriously taken into consideration, and that a suitable body should be appointed to revise the incidence from top to bottom. It would not be right for this Resolution to be passed as if the matter were one of no moment, knowing as we do that the present incidence of the Income Tax is not fair, just, or wise. I certainly could not allow it to be passed without entering a protest, and asking that some consideration should be given to the matter at the earliest possible moment. With regard to Income Tax on officers' pay, I hope to be able to move a new Clause, which I am sure will receive sympathetic consideration in every quarter of the House. I do not ask for anything for one class that is not freely given to another. I simply ask that those who give their services without any consideration of pay at all should not be penalised and made to pay a large part of their own pay themselves by deductions made therefrom beforehand. Rebates to which they may be entitled are really an impossibility in war time. We all know the trouble of filling up the necessary papers. How can men fighting in the field fill up these forms? The War Office ought to co-operate with the Treasury in this matter. It is only right to point out that so strong has been "the lure of drink" upon the Committee this afternoon that, whereas we have been supposed to be debating the Income Tax Resolution, as a matter of fact for four and a half hours not a single word has been said about it. Hon. Members who desired to discuss the drink question have had their opportunity, which has been pointedly denied to me until this late hour.
Mr. BOOTH: I am not sure that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peto) has such good ground for complaint as he thinks. The first Budget Resolution is always used for a general discussion on the Budget, and the fact that the particular topic has not attracted the attention of the Committee is not unusual, although it may be

1071
a matter of regret. But I am glad the hon. Member raised the point, because I totally object to these Front Bench arrangements. Because the two Front Benches want to go to dinner they calmly tell the rest of the House that the discussion has gone on long enough, and they may go home to bed.
Mr. W. THORNE: The proper place.
Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member will take a fair-sized bed himself.
Mr. W. THORNE: What about you?
Mr. BOOTH: And I hope the springs are strong. As far as we are concerned I do not think that any Member has left this Chamber to go to bed. I have risen largely to protest against this growing practice of the Front Benches making speech after speech—we have had six speeches in four hours from the two Front Benches this afternoon—and then calmly saying to the rest of the House, "You may say something injudicious; therefore we hope you will not speak." There is a considerable amount of cant about that, as well as disrespect to the House. I am not prepared to agree that the Liberal party, except for the Front Bench, should be perfectly silent. The teetotalers have not had the courage to speak. The general rank and file are entitled to say that we have nothing to do with this lying fabrication called the White Paper. I believe scarcely a single page of it. As for the figures of the employers—and I speak as a large employer of labour—I do not believe them at all. They do not mean the same things to the writers of them as the House will interpret them to mean. Unless they were cross-examined about their figures, I say that the country would be ill-advised to pay the slightest attention to them. I guarantee that when our Labour friends and the trade unionists have before them the men who furnished the figures and are able to cross-examine them, the whole fabric will fall down and every statement will be disposed of. I have had a lot to do with cooked statistics. I have been fighting them the whole of my life, and I could wish for nothing better than getting a position with substantial remuneration for fighting them. But I think I can leave this matter entirely safe in the hands of the trade union leaders. I have made a good many inquiries, nearly all from employers of labour, and I have found not the slightest support for this libel upon the
1072
working classes. It is no use for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it does not libel them generally. It does. Take the report, on page 10, of Captain Greatorex. He does not give the slightest hint that he is referring to a minority in the whole of that report—which he admits he has no right to make. It is a libel upon the whole of the working classes to which he is referring. There is not the slightest hint that he is only dealing with a section. Take one of his phrases alone. He uses' these words:—
"The present, deplorable indifference of the working men to their duty."
I say, when a man makes a statement like that about the Tyne, what is the use of him saying that he is referring to an insignificant minority, and that he is not libelling the whole group of workers? Those words cannot bear the interpretation that they deal with the minority. If any of us who are politicians were to go to any of these Army or Navy officials and begin to criticise their formations and their tactics they would rightly resent it. Yet these men, with no special training, with no knowledge of those who employ large bodies of men, and with no knowledge of the large bodies of men who work in the closest comradeship, go into problems which perplex the most careful inquirer and then give offhand their opinions to the wide world, so damaging our working classes. These problems require trained investigators, and not men who are merely Royal Naval captains or Anglo-Indian colonels. These problems require those who attempt to look at them in a calm and judicial way. For these men to say when the working classes shall take a glass of beer and when they shall not, and generally to judge them, is distinctly preposterous, and so far as I am concerned I utterly repudiate it.
Even granted that the case is as they say, and that they have found something which troubles them in one or two places, I object that they should come into my Constituency, which is far from the sea, with no munition works, and tell the working men of Pontefract what they are to drink and when they are to drink it. It is an interference which we will not stand. I am not at all hostile to any temperance propaganda, but I do say it is a confession of weakness that directly men find the least trouble in these matters they apply to the House of Commons for a remedy. They would not have done so in the old robust days. If a

1073
man was found drinking in a public-house when he should have been at work, either the manager or the foreman, or the manager of the public-house, would have been courageous enough to have told him his fault, and probably to have turned him out. The present method—and expensive for him—of trying to make him loyal and patriotic is wrong. The whole thing is absurd from beginning to end. Teetotalers do not want these taxes. The trade does not want the taxes. Certainly the moderate drinker does not want them. Who does? I have not found a single Liberal Member. I am an admirer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think at any rate I have shown some little measure of attachment to him from time to time, but I have not found one single Liberal Member of any degree, of any shape of thought, who supports these proposals. The simplest thing is for them to be withdrawn.
I do not quite agree with the Front Opposition Bench that it is simply an arrangement to be made with the trade. That was one suggestion from the Front Opposition Bench that I did not like today. I liked the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and a large part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that Members of Parliament were not the right people to deal with this, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself should deal with these vested interests, I do not agree. So far as I am concerned I hope I shall always have the courage to vote against any measure which is unjust against a lawfully conducted business. I have always felt that whatever my private views may be on any question, I have no right, because I happened temporarily to be a Member of Parliament, to injure the business of another man when it was lawfully conducted. I apply that dictum to the licensed and allied trades, as well as to others. With all deference to that point of view which calmly suggests that some bargain must be made to-morrow or the day following between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some interested people, I say it is not treating the House of Commons with that respect which it ought to have. After all, we have to consider the great public. I do not say that the licensing trade would not have the public in mind. I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have the public in mind, if they were to meet together as representing the different sections, or that
1074
there might not be general confidence in a joint meeting; but if they are to meet together simply as representing opposing interests, then I ask what about the great public of this country? Are they to be interfered with right and left because there is a little trouble on the Tyne or the Clyde?
I do not see that the case has been at all made out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted, in connection with a conference, at the beer trade, at the spirit trade, and at the distillers. I would remind the Government of another great body of tradesmen, those belonging to the allied trades. What about the maltsters? What about the numerous people who supply articles to the public-houses and to the trade generally? They are not licensed. It is not likely that they will get compensation. It would be a very unfortunate state of things if some arrangement were come to whereby the brewers or spirit dealers were silenced by large compensation and no interest at all was taken in those allied trades and the very large number of their employés! After all we, of late years, have made brewers and the licensed people improve their premises, and to provide better premises and better accommodation, and this is fining such people in providing those. Therefore I say, on behalf of the brewing and allied trades, that there should be no general settlement admitted which is supposed to take in and review these circumstances of the country, unless these allied trades, perfectly innocent and perfectly lawful trades, are properly considered. I know in pressing this forward just at this point I am somewhat at a disadvantage, but these have not been named in the course of to-day's Debate, and I want to say, quite candidly, that though I will willingly support the Government when it deserves it, I can be as awkward as any other of the 670 Members here if it does not. For anyone to come into my Constituency and kill one of its lawfully conducted businesses in connection with the allied trades—well, I object. I object, not because those concerned are supporters of mine, because probably most of them would try to keep me out. That, however, is no reason for injustice.
If the authorities are prepared to turn these trades topsy-turvy in the light-hearted fashion proposed, then I say they are only piling up trouble for themselves. Why are we to do this in the middle of a great War? The difficulties of the drink and of the temperance question are many.

1075
There are social circumstances. It wants calmness, courage, and a great deal of care before we legislate on this question. To attempt to do it in a hurry in the middle of the War in this haphazard way, on the ex parte statements of employers, who want to find an excuse for their own mismanagement, and upon the suggestions of Army colonels and Navy men in a hurry who do not understand the question, is to me abhorrent. I appeal to the Government to take time for reflection. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made one of the biggest mistakes of his life. I am a warm admirer of his, but I felt humiliated at the position in which he has to-day appeared before the House. It is not altogether his fault. He is working at very high pressure. I am perfectly certain he has been sincere in what he has done. But he has been misled. His facts are wrong. His heart has to some extent run away with his head. I hope the Government will allow themselves time for reflection, and that they will remember they have not only to consider the trade and the Front Opposition Bench, but the great British public which is prepared to make enormous sacrifices to carry on this War, but is not prepared to support ill-considered action which has no connection whatever, either with the conduct of the War or with the provision of munitions.
Mr. LYNCH: It is very difficult to rise at this hour to say a few words in a Debate which is reaching its termination, especially as I gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech foreshadowed that, before the House meets again to debate the matter, he will have entered into that previous discussion which he should have undertaken before he first introduced these measures. There is one point with which I thoroughly agree with the last speaker, and that is with his desire to assert, or reassert, the position of the private Member who has become more and more a Zero in this House, and whose opinion never seem even worth taking. It has been said that a speaker in this House pours forth in a stream the opinions of his own constituency. If I were to give to the House at the present moment what I have received from my Constituency, I would proceed not to pour forth a stream of talk, but a perfect torrent of denunciation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced this measure. Although my remarks on this occasion will be brief, yet if those proposals are introduced
1076
in the form in which they now stand, then I for one am determined to break all bounds and to oppose them with the utmost energy, not only as regards these proposals themselves, but to carry the war into the enemy's territory, and to ask, after all, is the working man alone responsible for the manner in which this War is dragging on a slow and somewhat unsatisfactory course, and how much of the weight of that responsibility rests on the incapacity of that Front Bench? I say if these proposals are presented again in the form so disastrous to Ireland we have heard to-night, I will, in the most ruthless and determined fashion, drive home that point. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in a conciliatory way, and I take it that is an adumbration of the desire to consult and obtain the opinion of the House so that he may present his projects as non-contentious. I hope sincerely he will arrive at that conclusion by considering, as he has not hitherto done, the great interests of Ireland.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: My only reason for detaining the House a few minutes is to say a few words of protest. To-day we have had presented to us a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he tells us that the cost of the War for a year will amount to over one thousand million pounds, and he makes a statement which must dash to the ground hopes which reformers have held for many years of improving the conditions of the people and laying an appalling burden on future generations. Yet the Debate which follows upon that great devastating statement runs on the line of whisky distillers and brewers of stout in Ireland. I do think that that statement was worthy of better consideration than that. To my mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercises a certain amount of courage in pointing to the financial difficulties ahead of us and the seriousness of the undertaking on which we have embarked from a financial point of view. I think he might have gone even further still and presented to the House the possibility of more than a future year of war, and asked us to take that also into consideration. It seems to me that the duration of this War, the cost to this country, and the sacrifices it will have to make are largely determined by the policy of the Government in relation to that war. It seems to me that if we go blindly on without stating the specific objects we wish to obtain, there

1077
is no limit whatever to the cost to this country. I desire, therefore, to express a hope that the Allies will, as soon as possible, state the specific object for which we are fighting, so that we shall have the possibility of creating in Germany itself a desire and a demand for peace, and that we shall not go blindly on fighting without a specific object in view, because, until we have a specific object in view, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to present to this House any estimate whatsoever of the cost that is likely to be inflicted.
As regards the proposal on which this Debate has centred, I rather fear the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first place, finding a difficulty created, I think, by our unpreparedness, due to the sudden twist in our foreign policy from a pacific basis to a foreign entanglement, threw the burden of that difficulty upon the workers of this country. I do not think there can lie found any justification whatever, or only a very limited justification, for the charges that have been levelled. At any rate, I know from information I have received from engineers on the Clyde, for instance, that it is largely overstrain, and the workers there have to fear this. They know their employers. They fear—and it is a natural fear—that if they speed themselves up, and work to the very utmost of human endurance, that is going to be taken by the employers as the standard demanded of them in the future. I do not think I have ever made a speech in favour of temperance reform; in fact, I got into difficulties with some of my supporters on one occasion for not having supported a measure of temperance reform. But any measure the Government likes to introduce, however drastic it may be, in order to create a condition of greater sobriety in this country, I shall support, not so much in the interests of war, but in the interests of peace. Such a grave and terrible decision as this should be in the hands of a sober population, and if the Government, with the object of increasing sobriety, takes the responsibility of making certain proposals, then I shall support these proposals. But I doubt the proposals made are the best, or whether, with that object in view, they are sufficiently drastic. But I would not support on the ground that any section of the workers are not doing their utmost to fulfil the duties imposed upon them.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I trust I shall be in order if I venture to remind the House that certain words which were spoken not long ago on another subject by the President of the Board of Trade are very apposite to this case. Turning to a Gentleman on the Labour Benches, the President of the Board of Trade said, "I implore you not to try to introduce the millennium in the midst of this great War." I venture to suggest that those words are very appropriate to the proposals which have been put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not the time, in my humble opinion—and I claim the support, of the President of the Board of Trade in his opinion—in which to take steps to introduce the millennium. To that extent I differ with the previous speakers. I am as anxious as other hon. Members to support temperance, but I suggest that this is not an appropriate time to bring forward any question except in so far as it is connected with the War. If the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not really calculated to assist us in carrying this War to a successful conclusion, then I do not think that they ought to be supported, no matter how excellent they may be in themselves. Representing as I do a very large labour and working-class constituency, I would like to support the views which have come from hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that before we believe all the statements which have been made in the White Taper, that the other side of the case should be heard. I think that is only fair. I acknowledge on behalf of my Constituents with gratitude the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was careful to explain that that horrible letter which he read in this House was the letter of a morbid dypsomaniac, and he was careful to explain that he did not regard the writer of the letter as a type. I think everybody representing a working-class constituency is entitled to ask if the writer of that letter was not a type, why was it read in this House? I presume if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here the answer would be that he specified that it was not a type, and that he was reading it out as an illustration of an exception. We all know there are such exceptional workmen, and no one disputes it, although we all deplore it, and we should be glad to stop those exceptional men from behaving in that exceptionally bad manner.
I ask the representatives of the Government to bring it before the consideration

1079
of the Government that it is an old-established rule, not only in this House and in this country, but in every legislative assembly in the world, that when you begin to legislate on the basis of exceptional cases, bad laws are always produced. That is the history of legislation in the world, as admitted by the greatest historians. Therefore, on the grounds of the words which I quoted which were uttered recently by the President of the Board of Trade, on the grounds of the verdict of history upon legislation passed in order to deal with exceptional cases, I urge most strongly on the Government that they should listen very carefully to the voice of the constituencies. I have nothing to do with the trade, and I am not talking of the trade, but the Government should listen to the voice of the working men of the constituencies on this subject, because I quite agree with what has been said this afternoon, that if you have the sympathy and the good will of the working men you will do far more to win this War quickly than if you alienate their sympathies and create in them a feeling of irritation against the Government.
Question put, and agreed to.

INCOME TAX.
Resolved—That

(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, at the rate of
1080
two shillings and sixpence in the pound; and Super-tax shall be charged for that year at double the rates mentioned in Section three of the Finance Act, 1914; and

(b) The like provision shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax so charged, including Super-tax, and the annual value of property as had effect under Section two of the Finance Act, 1914, with respect to the Income Tax thereby charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and the value of property during that year; and

(c) It is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

Resolution reported: to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).
The remaining Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes before Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  ARMY MEDICAL PROMOTIONS
  ARMY MEDICAL PROMOTIONS
  TERRITORIAL FORCES (FURLOUGH).
  TERRITORIAL FORCES (FURLOUGH).
  NATIONAL RESERVIST BOUNTY.
  NATIONAL RESERVIST BOUNTY.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT DRIVERS.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT DRIVERS.
  PROFICIENCY PAY.
  PROFICIENCY PAY.
  STEAMSHIPS REQUISITIONED.
  STEAMSHIPS REQUISITIONED.
  MORPHIA (EXPORTS).
  MORPHIA (EXPORTS).
  Local Taxation Duties.
  Local Taxation Duties.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Longford Estate.
  Longford Estate.
  Bere Island (Works Contract).
  Bere Island (Works Contract).
  Conviction of Mrs. Morse.
  Conviction of Mrs. Morse.
  China (Iron and Coal Deposits).
  China (Iron and Coal Deposits).
  British Consuls (Emoluments).
  British Consuls (Emoluments).
  London Telephone Service.
  London Telephone Service.
  Nuneaton Labour Exchange.
  Nuneaton Labour Exchange.
  Richmond Park.
  Richmond Park.

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
(Redeemable Stock.)
Petition of the Company under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to enable the London and North Western Railway Company to issue redeemable shares and stock, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
Petition of the Port of London Authority under their Common Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Port of London Act, 1908, in reference to the election of elected members of the Port of London Authority, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
GODWIN-AUSTEN ESTATE.
Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.

EASTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) JOINT SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ammanford Urban District Council.

Great Eastern Railway.

Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation Transfer).

Skegness Urban District Gas.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.

BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SUTTON DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTHWICH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
ALTRINCHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: An Amendment made: Bills passed, and sent to the Commons.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

STREATLEY AND GORING BRIDGE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move to resolve—
"That in the opinion of this House new means of communication should be in the hands of local authorities and available for the free use of the public, and that it is undesirable to proceed with a Bill giving fresh powers for the levying of tolls by a private corporation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put down an Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill for the purpose of raising one or two questions of principle in connection with the giving of fresh Parliamentary powers for toll bridges. Possibly my Amendment, as it appears on the Paper, may be a little deceptive, because it refers to "new" means of communication, when in fact what is proposed in this Bill is the construction of a new bridge in place of an old one. Nevertheless it is the giving of fresh powers and a fresh lease of life to Commissioners who have power to demand tolls. The principle in the present case is in many ways free from the worst objections that could be taken to this sort of thing, because I think I am right in saying that none of the money derived from the tolls levied in connection with this bridge can be applied to private advantage in any way. The Bridge Commissioners cannot put any part of it into their own pockets, and there is no body of shareholders interested in the yield of the toll.
This bridge is one which is pretty well known to most of those acquainted with
888
the Thames. It is proposed in this Bill to renew the old powers of levying tolls, and, in addition, to give a new power—which is very much resented—to impose tolls on bicycles and tricycles. That provision is contained in Clause 22, and it is a new toll which was not authorised by the old Act. I venture to submit that as a matter of general principle all methods of communication should be free and open to the public at large without payment of toll. That is a principle which has been very largely accepted, although lately it has rather been departed from, particularly by this Government, who have imposed tolls upon certain classes of road users thereby sacrificing the principle that locomotion as far as possible should be free and unrestricted.
It is to be regretted that the county councils concerned in this case were not able to take their courage in both hands and to build a new bridge out of county funds and throw it open to the public freely. I understand that even in these somewhat backward districts there is a feeling that bridges ought to be free. I have myself received communications on the subject, one gentleman in particular stating that he had been urging this for some time. This Bill goes rather far, because in Clause 33 it gives power to the two county councils to contribute to the expense of the new bridge. The Berkshire County Council and the Oxfordshire County Council are empowered to pay to the Commissioners any sum which they may think fit—that is to say, public money may be contributed to the building of a bridge which is nevertheless to remain a toll bridge, and the people whose money may be used towards the construction of the bridge are to be mulcted in tolls when they use the bridge. I submit that this is very undesirable, and I hope that the Committee upstairs will seriously consider this clause when the Bill reaches them. Then there is a provision in Clause 34 that the bridge may be transferred to the county councils of these two counties, and that thereupon it shall be a joint county bridge; but that clause also provides that for fifteen years after the date of such transfer the county councils shall be able to take the tolls fixed in this Bill.
I have not very much hope of being successful with my Amendment. Questions of abstract principle of this sort are not very much regarded when the parties

889
immediately concerned have come to terms, and I understand that the public authorities in this case—the county councils of the counties of Oxford and Berks—and the Bridge Commissioners have come to an agreement on this matter. But it has been suggested to me that, even if this Bill goes through, there is a way out of the difficulty by which this might in a very short time become a free bridge, and I hope that my remarks on that head may commend themselves to the authorities concerned. I may say that I am representing to some extent to-day the views of the Roads Improvement Association, which takes a great interest in these matters. The view held is that if a sum of something like £5,000 were contributed by the Road Board to the rebuilding of this bridge and if that were supplemented by £1,000 from each of the two county councils concerned, it would suffice, with a fund which the Commissioners have in hand, to build a new bridge which could be thrown open to the public free of toll. That could well be done after this Bill had passed, if the Road Board thought fit to devote a portion of their funds to a settlement of the question. It is true that this cannot be said to be a main thoroughfare. The main lines of communication go on each side of the Thames, and this bridge joins them up. But still there is an amount of traffic on this bridge which would justify a contribution of this sort by the Road Board. I do think it is regrettable that these old toll powers should be revived in any way by fresh legislation, and that local authorities should in that way be encouraged to get out of their natural obligation to establish proper means of communication. Therefore I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and insert the following Resolution: ("That in the opinion of this House new means of communication should be in the hands of local authorities and available for the free use of the public, and that it is undesirable to proceed with a Bill giving fresh powers for the levying of tolls by a private corporation").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, as the mover of the Second Reading of this Bill I desire to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl. My noble friend is somewhat misinformed when he infers that these Bridge Commissioners are a private corporation. They are a public body appointed by Act of Parliament, and
890
they perform their duties with assiduity and without any remuneration whatever. They have power, I believe, to charge for a room, but they are given a room free; and they do not get even a luncheon out of the proceeds of the toll. I would point out to the noble Earl that the public would not get a free bridge if he succeeded in defeating the Second Reading of this Bill. What would happen would be that there would be no bridge at all. The old Streatley and Goring bridge was erected on a number of piles, and I do not think there is a sound pile left. I can assure the House that the Bridge Commissioners are not in the least anxious to put into operation the powers to which the noble Earl so very much objects. They approached both the County Council of Oxfordshire and the County Council of Berkshire and offered to make over to them their whole interest in the bridge if only the two county councils would undertake to construct a new bridge, but for one reason or another neither county council was prepared to undertake the duty. People who live at far ends of counties do not very often see the object of spending large sums of money on purposes which they regard as of local utility. But this is an important bridge, and if something is not done soon there will, as I say, be no bridge at Goring and Streatley at all. The nearest bridge towards Reading is four miles off, and the nearest bridge in the other direction is eight miles away. A large number of troops who were in the neighbourhood lately were warned not to use this bridge, and it is at present impossible for heavy traffic to go over it.
As neither county council would move, the Bridge Commissioners were forced to do something themselves. The noble Earl suggested that a sum of money should be obtained from the Road Board. I can assure him that such a contribution would be cordially welcomed by the Bridge Commissioners. The Commissioners have at the present time a fund of £5,000 which they will spend in the making of the new bridge, but it is necessary to raise certain other funds. The clause which empowers the county councils to lend money was put in to secure economy, for obviously county councils can borrow at a much cheaper rate than could the Streatley and Goring Bridge Commissioners. With the noble Earl, I hope that the county councils will alter their view and decide to take over the bridge.

891
But what we want is to rebuild the bridge as soon and as cheaply as possible, and, with the noble Earl's help, I hope we shall make it as free as possible. In the meantime only those tolls will be levied which are necessary to maintain the bridge. The noble Earl called attention to Clause 22. I would remind him that for fifteen years no charge has been made by the Bridge Commissioners either for foot passengers or for bicycles, and as it is not proposed to exercise these powers in the future Clause 22, to which the noble Earl objects, will be struck out. This Bill has already passed through the House of Commons, and the proposals contained in it constitute the only way out of the present difficulty. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I would appeal to the noble Earl behind me to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading and to go to a Committee. At the same time I am extremely glad—I think all your Lordships will be glad—that he has raised this subject, because I will not admit for a moment that I am second to him in my dislike of toll bridges or anything to do with tolls on roads. In my view they are an anachronism. It is a deplorable thing to create a new toll, and it is a very undesirable thing to continue an old one. But here the general principle must give way to the special circumstances of the particular case. Both noble Lords have explained that the county councils concerned are not willing at the present moment to take over the full amount of this burden. And in that connection there is this particular circumstance which must be remembered. The bridges over the Thames are very much more in number and constitute a much more serious proposition than bridges over most rivers in this country. The problem, therefore, with which these county councils have to deal is far different from that of an ordinary bridge joining two counties. If they took over all the bridges bordering on their counties the burden would be a considerable one, and they are therefore wise in walking warily. These being the particular circumstances of the case, I trust that the noble Earl will not persist in his Amendment. I hope the Bill will go to Committee, and I have no doubt that in Committee the particular points referred to will be carefully considered.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill for his explanation, and to the Lord Chairman for his support of the general principle. In the circumstances, my object having been attained, there is no need for me to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill read 2a, and committed.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Monteagle (M. Sligo) be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Rowallan; read, and agreed to.
SEAFORTH AND SEFTON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BEAMISH'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
DENNY'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CORNWALL, &c.) BILL. [H.L.] (No. 59.)
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, to enable the Councils of the Administrative Counties of Cornwall, Derby, the Isle of Ely, and Montgomery, the County Borough of West Ham, and the Urban District of Leyton to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts: And

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.] (No. 60.)
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, to enable the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts
—Were presented by the Lord President (E. Beauchamp), read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill is really a sequel to that which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has just moved and to which the House has agreed, because this Bill, in spite of its highly imposing and almost alarming title, is in reality simply a Consolidation Bill. It has been thought desirable that all the various enactments relating to the government of India as distinct from the administration of India should be, if possible, brought within the compass of a single Statute. That has been no light or easy matter. The Acts of Parliament concerned go back as far as the year 1770—three years after Lord Clive ceased to be Governor of Bengal and two years before Warren Hastings assumed that office, four years prior to his becoming the first Governor-General of India. The House will understand that the ground covered is therefore enormously large.
It is proposed, as will be seen by an examination of the Bill, to repeal no less than forty-two of the Acts of Parliament which have been passed in the long interval of nearly 150 years, and to repeal some of the provisions of six others. It is clear, of course, that the result is to bring into the form of a Bill—which, though long, as Bills go, is not a colossally large measure as compared with some which we have seen of late years—the general effect of all these Statutes. The greatest care has been taken in the extremely laborious task of co-ordinating and arranging the different sections. The different departments in the India Office have been hard at work for a year or more. We had the advantages of
894
the assistance of an Advisory Committee, including Sir Courtenay Ilbert, whose knowledge of these subjects, as we all know, is unequalled. The present legal adviser to the Office, Sir Stephen Sale, and a former legal adviser also formed part of this Committee, with the two Under-Secretaries of State; and I may mention that by a fortunate accident the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my friend Mr. Charles Roberts, has had a peculiar experience in these matters, having sat on the Consolidation Committee in another place for some years.
Last year the Bill was introduced in another place in order to give an opportunity to those interested of seeing what its general form and scope would be. It was then sent out to India for the observations of the Government of India, and various changes were made in it. But we have not made in this present Bill all the changes that it would have been, and in the ultimate result will be, desirable to make in the law. When you have to combine in a single measure a number of 18th century Statutes with Statutes reaching down almost to the present day, it is hardly possible by simple consolidation to frame your new Act in a perfectly coherent form not containing any anomalies and contradictions. It will be found, therefore, by those who examine this Bill that there are certain changes which in due course ought to be made. In an ordinary session I should have proposed to follow up the bringing in of this Bill by the introduction of another measure containing various amendments designed for the purpose I have indicated, but it is hardly possible to do so without raising certain subjects which, although they might not give rise to acute controversy, yet might be thought disputable; and in this present session it is wise, I think, to abstain from any attempt of the kind. It is desirable, therefore, that this Bill should go to the Joint Consolidation Committee as it is. It will, I hope, then become law; and the necessary amendments will come up for discussion at a future time when the agreement against discussion of all kinds of a controversial sort no longer exists.
I may say, in passing, that so far as the general consideration of this measure is concerned the time is, I think, extremely appropriate. I am given to understand that in another place those gentlemen who

895
are in the habit of considering these consolidation measures, in the absence of the more exciting work of an ordinary session, will be glad to undertake the laborious and unexciting task of examining this measure line by line; and I have no doubt that those members of your Lordships' House who sit on the Joint Committee, under the presidency of my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn, who has done so much valuable work on this Committee in former sessions, will take a similar view to that taken by their colleagues in another place.
There are certain points which, as I have said, at some future time will have to be dealt with. As an instance, there are certain matters in Clause 127 of the Bill, concerned with the question of trading by officials or of the receiving of presents by officials, which are left in a somewhat confused, incoherent, and even contradictory form. Those, as I have stated, can be dealt with in due course. It is hoped and believed that no kind of controversial matter and no shade of change of the existing law has crept within this Bill. The utmost care has been taken, and I desire to express my sense of gratitude to those both at the India Office and elsewhere who have given a vast amount of labour to the discussion of this very intricate series of Statutes. We believe that the result is that this measure represents in a concentrated form the law exactly as it stands, and I therefore with great confidence ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time with a view to its being remitted to the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who leads the House was good enough a few days ago to place himself in communication with me in regard to this Bill and to explain the circumstances in which it was introduced and the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to it. I took upon myself to tell the noble Marquess that so far as those who sit upon this side of the House are concerned I did not anticipate that the Bill would encounter any opposition if he was able to tell me categorically that it was a Consolidation Bill and only a Consolidation Bill. That question the noble Marquess was able to answer entirely to
896
my satisfaction; and he has told the House to-night that any changes which the Bill contains are not due to a desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to alter the law, but are merely to adapt the wording of the measure in such a manner as to make it fit in with the re-arrangement which has taken place. We understand from the noble Marquess that, in effect, the Bill will leave the law as it stands at present.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That being so, we certainly shall not offer any opposition to the Bill, nor shall we offer any objection to the course which the noble Marquess proposes to adopt—namely, that the Bill should be referred to the Joint Consolidation Committee as just moved by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: With your Lordships' permission, I desire to say a few words on this very important measure. I should like to be permitted, in the first place, to congratulate the noble Marquess on reaching the present stage in a very protracted business. This Consolidation Bill took shape in the year 1873. A Bill was then sent to the Government of India by the Secretary of State which it was commonly understood had been prepared in the India Office under the auspices of Sir Henry Maine, whose name is highly honoured by all who are acquainted with the course of Indian legislation. It was carefully considered in India during the years that elapsed between 1873 and 1876, the Legal Member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council at that time being also a distinguished jurist—the late Lord Hobhouse. The Bill was then sent home, and for a long series of years nothing was heard of it.
But Sir Courtenay Ilbert—a distinguished member of the Viceroy's Council in the year 1886, when I first knew him—on his return from India took up the matter, revised the draft Bill, and produced a Digest of the law upon the subject. I believe that his Digest was submitted to the then Secretary of State, but it was not considered at the time to be desirable to proceed with the matter. At the same time a suggestion was made to Sir Courtenay Ilbert that the

897
object he had at heart would be furthered if he would publish his Digest in the form of a book for public criticism. Sir Courtenay Ilbert did so, and we have the basis upon which this Bill is founded in Sir Courtenay Ilbert's book, "The Government of India," which is known probably to many of your Lordships. Sir Courtenay Ilbert's Digest may be taken as an accurate reproduction of the law as it at present exists in the many Statutes to which the noble Marquess referred which have come down from Warren Hasting's time; and upon points where there is no statutory provision but a common acceptance, a common-law as it were, the effect of that common law is reproduced.
Having taken an interest for a long time in this matter, I have been at the pains of carefully comparing the Bill now before your Lordships with the Digest published by Sir Courtenay Ilbert, and, if the noble Marquess will permit me to say so, there are certain parts of the Bill which are not in accordance with the Digest, which omit certain portions of the Digest, and which present a new reading of the established law. I do not propose on this occasion to call your Lordships' attention to all these matters, but as an illustration of what I say I may, perhaps, refer to one or two points. Part II of the Bill deals with the revenues of India, and provides that these revenues shall be "applied for the purposes of the government of India." Those of your Lordships who have had experience of Indian administration know that the term "India" differs in meaning from "British India." The term "India" includes the Native States, whereas the term "British India" is restricted to British possessions; so that, if the Bill were passed as it stands, on that particular point you might be committed to the expenditure on Native States of moneys which, in the present state of the law, can only be expended on the British area.
There are other points which have attracted my attention. One has reference to the Civil Service. The Civil Service, as your Lordships know, is now recruited separately for each of the Presidencies and Provinces. Under the terms of this Bill the Civil Service is to be recruited for the whole of India without any specification regarding a particular Presidency or Province. One of the greatest difficulties of our administration in India is the wailing acquaintance
898
of our officers with the vernaculars of the country. It is perfectly certain, to my mind, that if an officer recruited for general service in India is sent in the first place to the Province of Madras, with the liability as an ordinary incident of his service of being transferred to Upper India, his knowledge of the vernacular will be so diluted that he will acquire no competent knowledge of the language of a particular Province. By all means take for the Government of India the power, on the occurrence of emergencies, of transferring officers from one part of the country to another, but the lesson of experience should be followed in this matter, and the recruitment should be for a particular Province and not for the whole country. These few instances illustrate the discrepancies which I think I have detected between the Bill as it stands and the Digest, which I presume is a correct representation of the existing law. Therefore while I 'raise no objection whatever to the Second Reading of this Bill, and while I congratulate the noble Marquess on approaching the completion of a great work, I think the utmost care should be exercised in seeing that the Bill does not become to any extent a measure of legislation but remains essentially a measure of consolidation.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I fully appreciate the force of the remarks made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, that on a Consolidation Bill it is extremely undesirable to raise any question of principle or any question likely to give rise to acute controversy. But I do not suppose that that is any reason why a suggestion should not be made to render quite clear any clause in the Bill which at present may be ambiguous. Such a case occurs in Clause 4. The text of that clause is as follows—
"A member of the Council of India shall not be capable of sitting or voting in Parliament."
What, in connection with this particular Act, does the word "Parliament" mean? Does it mean both Houses, or only the House of Commons? In other words, are Peers excluded or not? The reason why I draw attention to this point is that a case actually arose a few years ago. When I came back from Egypt in 1907 the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, who was then presiding at the India Office, did me the

899
honour to suggest that I should join the Council of India. We had some discussion on the matter and eventually the proposal fell through, one of the reasons for its falling through being the ambiguity of this clause. I think the noble Viscount consulted the legal advisers at the Home Office on the point, and although I did not see their opinions I believe I am right in saying that they spoke with a rather uncertain voice on the matter. At any rate, the uncertainty was sufficiently great to be of itself a reason for allowing the matter to drop. I think the opportunity ought now to be taken to put the matter right and to declare what the law is. I do not desire to enter fully into the merits of the case. I cannot say that I have looked up the discussions which took place in 1858, but I dare say the point was neglected because nobody thought that a Peer would be proposed as a member of the Council of India. But things have changed a good deal since that time. Many Peers have been created who have Indian experience, and I can imagine cases in which it might be to the public interest that a Peer should be a member of the India Council. I am old enough to recollect a little of the discussions of 1858, and I do not think the Legislature ever intended to exclude Peers. I base that opinion on the history of the old East India Company and on the discussions with which the name of the elder Mill is associated. I do not wish, however, to express any strong opinion as to whether Peers ought or ought not to be members of the India Council. All I say is that as we are consolidating the law the position ought to be made clear. I hope the matter will be considered by the Committee, and possibly by the noble Marquess.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the plea of the noble Earl who has just spoken, that in the consideration of this Bill by the Joint Committee to whom it is to be referred, this question should be examined, and this ambiguity, if possible, removed. That there is an ambiguity is clear, not only from the experience of the noble Earl himself, but from an entry which occurs in Sir Courtenay Ilbert's book about the Government of India. I have not in my possession at the moment the latest edition of that book and it is conceivable that there may have been some alteration in the foot-note on this point, but in my edition the clause in the Digest
900
which refers to the provision that we are now considering has appended to it the words—
"It is, perhaps, open to question whether under this enactment a seat in the Council is incompatible with a seat in the House of Lords."
As regards the merits of the case, I am inclined to agree with the view suggested by the noble Earl. Personally I believe that when the provision was inserted in the original Act it was intended to apply only to the House of Commons. But circumstances may arise—I am not certain that they have not already arisen—which might render it very desirable in the public interest that a Peer should be a member for a time of the India Council.
Let me suggest such a contingency to the House. It might very well be, on the one hand, that a Civil Servant who had shown exceptional ability in the discharge of his duties as a Lieutenant-Governor in India should, on his return to this country, be made a Peer—as Lord MacDonnell was, although at rather a later date. It would be very hard that the India Council should be deprived of the services of such a man by the fact of his career having been sufficiently distinguished to be rewarded by a seat in this House. Let me take another case. It might happen in the future that some English statesman who had gone out to India and filled the post of Governor in one of the great Presidency Governorships would be in a position to render very substantial service to the Government of India on his return. It seems extremely hard that such a man, being a Peer, should be excluded. Finally you may have a case like that of Lord Cromer. Although he had left India for some time, yet when he came back from Egypt and was for the moment freed from public cares he was considered by the Secretary of State for India an eminently desirable authority to place upon his Council. I need not argue the case with regard to the House of Commons. The reasons for prohibiting a member of the India Council from having a seat there are obvious. But I think when the matter comes up we ought to consider not merely the wording of the law but the policy of this matter.
There is one other point about which I should like to ask a question. The noble Marquess was very emphatic in assuring us that in this Bill no change—I think he

901
even used the words "no shadow of a change"—was contemplated in the existing law. Lord MacDonnell seemed to throw some little doubt upon the justice of that statement. My question is addressed to the Fifth Schedule, which is thus described—
"Provisions of this Act which may be repealed or altered by the Governor-General in Legislative Council."
Then a long list of these subjects is given, and to a large number of them—in fact, to almost all—the remark is added "The omission of this entry is suggested." In another place the words are, "The alteration of this entry is suggested"; and, again, "The omission or alteration of this entry is suggested." I have not been able clearly to ascertain to what this refers. The question I desire to ask is whether any alteration in the law is contemplated, or whether this particular schedule is covered by the assurance as regards consolidation which the noble Marquess gave us.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lord, I am very much obliged, both to the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and to those other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, for the general reception which they have given to this measure, and I hope I may assume that it will now proceed peacefully on its way to the Joint Consolidation Committee. So far as any criticism has been directed at the Bill, that criticism has taken two different forms. My noble friend Lord MacDonnell called attention to more than one instance in which he conceived that the attempt to leave the law precisely as it is and to treat this as a consolidation measure not involving any amendment had not been successful, showing, as he endeavoured to do, that as a matter of fact if this Bill passes in its present state certain changes in the law will actually be enacted. That particular criticism I consider to be in the first place a matter for the eagle eye of my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn, who, presiding over the Joint Consolidation Committee, will pursue his usual practice of regarding with the utmost sternness any provision in a Consolidation Bill which affects the law as it stands. Unless I am greatly mistaken, in dealing with past Consolidation Bills the Joint Committee has been infinitely scrupulous in refusing to admit any changes of the law. Therefore we must, I think, await the result of their examination of the Bill and
902
its return to the House before we can know whether the strictures of my noble friend Lord MacDonnell are, as a matter of fact, justified.
But the observations of my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer) and of the noble Earl opposite were of a somewhat different character. They suggest not leaving the law precisely as it stands, but the re-enactment of the Statutes in a form which, if it does not alter the existing law, will at any rate remove doubts. You can only remove doubts by taking a step which ex hypothesi some people will consider to involve a change in the law. Those who believe that the exclusion from Parliament of a member of the Council of India covers both Houses will believe, if the House of Commons is mentioned simply, that a change in the law has been made for the benefit of members of your Lordships' House. Those, on the other hand, who believe that the term "Parliament," or at any rate the intention of those who framed the Act, was to include members of this House and only to exclude members of the House of Commons will be proportionately gratified. But I do not think it can be disputed that to deal with this matter in the present Bill might be trenching on somewhat dangerous ground, and might lead to the introduction of other amendments of substance which in turn might become matters of controversy. I should certainly have supposed that it would have been wiser to leave this question, among others, to be settled whenever the Amending Bill—which, as I have pointed out, I should have brought in pari passu in ordinary times—can be dealt with; and I hope that on reconsideration noble Lords opposite will agree that that is the wiser course to pursue.
I do not desire to enter into the question whether or not it is desirable that members of this House should be able to sit on the Council of India. Personally, I should be very glad if they could. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches mentioned the case in which he may have appeared to be debarred—I am sure it was a great misfortune to the Council of India if he was—from sitting upon it owing to the fact of his being a Peer. I remember a later case—that of my noble friend who was for some time a Member of Council, Sir James Mackay as he then was, afterwards Lord

903
Inchcape. We all assumed that when my noble friend became a member of this House he was thereby debarred from remaining on the Council. But, as I say, I should be very sorry to prejudge the question, as it is one which I think is well worthy of being considered when the time comes for making certain changes which undoubtedly will have to be made in the law.
The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, referred to the Fifth Schedule and to those matters which are within the competence of the Viceroy's Legislative Council to deal with. In reply to his question, I take it that the rule which holds good here will also be held to hold good in India—that is to say, that no possible change which falls within the competence of the Viceroy's Council to make, if it should involve any change of the existing law or practice, will be made so long as the war lasts.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There is a further question I should like to ask, arising out of the wording of Clause 4. The noble Marquess has just told us of the case of a member of his Council who became a Peer and was thereby considered disqualified from retaining his seat on the Council of India. The words of Clause 4 are—
"A member of the Council of India shall not be capable of sitting or voting in Parliament."
I wonder whether we may draw from that the conclusion that it is possible for a Peer to be a member of the India Council, but that if he accepts that office he would not be at liberty to sit or speak or record a vote here? What is the existing interpretation of the law on that point? There is only one other point, to which I had meant to refer before. I do not think any of us ought to discuss this matter without registering our hearty vote of thanks to Sir Courtenay Ilbert for his services in connection therewith. As the noble Lord opposite pointed out, Sir Courtenay Ilbert's book is the whole foundation of this Bill. That book was on the table of every one of us while we were in India, and there was hardly a week in our lives when we did not have to consult it. I believe that has been the case, too, at the India Office. I believe, further, that Sir Courtenay Ilbert's assistance and labours in the drawing up of this Bill have been quite invaluable.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised an interesting legal point which I confess had not occurred to me—namely, whether the exclusion of a Peer from the India Council and of a member of the India Council from Parliament was reciprocal, or whether it was only one-sided; that is to say, whether a member of Council might become a Peer and, so long as he refrained from taking his seat, might remain a member of the India Council. On the face of it I should have thought that the wording of the clause would admit that possibility, but I should like to be fortified by some legal opinion before expressing a definite judgment on that point. As a matter of fact it is, of course, not likely, if one comes to think of it, that a member of the Council who became a Peer would agree to abstain altogether from attending this House; and therefore the case is probably not one which is very likely to arise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, before putting the Question there is one observation which I would like to make. I have noticed with relief that the general sense of your Lordships has been to desire that in this Consolidation Bill no alteration should be made in the law, even though confined to settling points of doubt. The importance of that is that this Bill is going before the Joint Consolidation Committee. The convention between the two Houses on which the Joint Committee was founded was that no alterations of the law should be made by that Committee, except where very definite instructions had been agreed upon. If we depart from that, even with regard to matters which may seem not to be of high importance, the result will be that difficulties will be placed in the way of the easy passage of Bills which go to that Committee. Usually the most convenient course is to amend the law first and then pass your Consolidation Bill. But you cannot always do that, and the next best thing is to do what we are doing here—put the law into a consolidated form, so that the points can be seen on which amendment is desired. I urge upon your Lordships the importance of conserving the convention on which the Joint Committee was founded, the essence of the matter being that unless that convention is strictly observed Bills will not go through as smoothly as they have done in the past.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I think I ought to say a few words on the point to which the noble and learned Viscount has just referred. I am glad that this Bill is to be referred to the Joint Consolidation Committee. I have sat upon that Committee since it was set up seven or eight years ago, and I am anxious that it should continue to be useful. It was started for the purpose of consolidating—not amending—the Criminal Law of this country. It was then found convenient to send divers Departmental Bills to the Committee, and we did our best with them. But the terms on which we have always dealt with both Houses of Parliament are these, that we strictly confine the Bills before us to the law as it is. The result of that unwritten ordinance has been that we have never had a division on the Committee nor has Parliament ever failed, when the Bills have come up, to pass verbatim et literatim the fruit of our labours. The Departments, very naturally, have been making use of this Joint Committee, and I have observed a tendency to use it for the purpose of recommending and promoting alterations in the law. But it would be fatal sooner or later—sooner rather than later—to its whole purpose if the Joint Committee ceased to be a Committee for the purpose of casting into a useful frame the law as it stands. I do not say for a moment, in this exceptional time and as this is an exceptional Bill, that we shall not be able to try and do something in the sense desired by the Government. But if any alteration of the existing law is found in the four-corners of this Bill we ought to state that it is an alteration, so that Parliament shall know exactly what they are doing when they are passing the Bill; and if any further amendments of the law are to be proposed then we ought to follow the example that we have always set ourselves of showing in the Schedule the exact meaning of the departure from the existing law. I hope the House will recognise the truth of what has been said—that the very existence and usefulness of this Committee depends upon its not embarking upon controversial questions at all, and upon its affecting to do nothing in the way of new legislation except by general assent and that in a very meagre degree, our primary function being to lay down what the law is and not to presume to say what the law ought to be.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

MILITARY PROSECUTIONS OF JOURNALISTS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government in what circumstances a reporter was prosecuted for sending a report to a newspaper editor, by whom the report was published, what damage was done to the interests of this country thereby, and what steps it is suggested that a reporter ought to take before communicating with his newspaper.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question which I have placed on the Paper refers to the case of the reporter who was prosecuted at Portland. It has been pointed out to me that there may be some little difficulty in discussing the matter, as it is sub judice in the sense that an appeal has been lodged. But I think those difficulties can be removed, for two reasons. The first is that I understand the appeal is to Quarter Sessions, and therefore there is no question of any jury to be influenced by our discussion. The second reason is that I do not propose to found anything I have to say on the circumstances or facts of the individual case, or on the guilt or innocence of this particular reporter.
Personally I have little doubt that almost everything could be made an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act. To stand and look at a view if that view were a fortification would be an offence under the Act. I express no opinion to-day upon that point. But I am anxious to ask His Majesty's Government what are the circumstances and the methods in which they think that these powers should be exercised. This question was raised in another place, and an answer was given which I have perused but without being very much enlightened by it. I discovered, in the first place, that the particular gentleman in this case desired to be tried by a jury of his countrymen, not perhaps unnaturally, and that His Majesty's Government met that desire by prosecuting him at Petty Sessions before magistrates, which procedure did not involve a jury. Therefore this reporter's desire was not complied with. I did not discover exactly what the offence was that he had committed, but I will take the general case. What is it thought that a reporter ought to do? I am talking, of course, of a

907
reporter who is carrying on his ordinary duty, and whom there is no reason to suspect of being anything but a loyal subject. He collects news and sends telegrams containing that news to his newspaper. That, as I say, may very well be an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act. But is he to be prohibited from sending the news if the news is of a character which some local officer thinks undesirable? I understand that in this particular case an officer—a naval officer—was asked whether he could say what harm the news could do or whether its publication mattered, and he replied that he could not.
These large powers have been entrusted to His Majesty's Government with universal consent. We are all perfectly willing to submit to dictatorship and tyranny for the purpose of the prosecution of the war, but that is no reason why we should not keep an eye upon the particular powers exercised and question whether they are being exercised reasonably and intelligently. It has come out that the initiation of prosecutions of this character depends upon local military officers; that the prosecutions are not in any sense sanctioned by the Home Office or by any central Department, but depend on the view taken in any military district by the particular military officer in command. If that is so, it is perfectly obvious that you will get a very diverse operation of the law. For if there were an officer—if we have any such—of the Prussian type of mind who regarded militarism as being above all to be considered and military duty as the only thing to look at, you might, of course, get prosecutions ad libitum under this Act for all sorts of offences. But I am perfectly certain that His Majesty's Government do not desire, any more than the general public of this country desires, that prosecutions of such a kind should take place. Everybody must wish that these powers should be exercised reasonably and with some regard to the necessity for their exercise.
In cases where a reporter sends a telegram to his newspaper the telegram is published, I suppose, to the editor, and in fact, though not technically, to the telegraph officials. But unless that telegram contains something which on the face of it anybody could say was undesir-
908
able to send—information about the movements of the Fleet, or the movements of troops, or anything of that sort—is a man to be prosecuted for sending it when he has no opportunity of consulting any one first as to whether he should send it? Has he, in fact, an opportunity of consulting any official as to whether or not he should send it? Its publication to his editor can presumably do no harm, because the question whether the editor puts it into the newspaper or not is for the editor himself to decide; and the editor is kept in possession of all the orders and rules made by the censorship, and is a person who could be easily got at if he did publish information which it was undesirable should be published.
What in these circumstances is it suggested the reporter should do? Probably the truth of the matter is that in this and possibly in some other cases there has been an excess of zeal. If that is so, I venture to think that the situation would be much better met by His Majesty's Government saying that they did not desire to interfere with the legitimate collection and sending of news and that they regretted that unfortunate cases sometimes occurred, than by defending as absolutely right and proper every case, no matter how ridiculous, which does arise. While everybody is willing that autocratic powers to an unlimited extent should be exercised where necessary, we all want them to be exercised reasonably; and we should not make ourselves ridiculous by putting them in force in an unreasonable way against persons who are doing something which is perfectly harmless.
I should be glad if His Majesty's Government could indicate some way in which questions of this sort could be considered by some central authority or superior tribunal which was possessed of other things besides a desire to do its duty—which was possessed, may I say, of a little tempering of common sense and a little humour in the matter. The object of my Question is to raise that point, and to ask whether steps cannot be taken to avoid any of these absurd things happening in the future, because if they occurred often they would altogether discredit the use of these exceptional powers—a result which I am sure none of us desire.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, as my noble friend has stated, the particular case to which he refers in his Question is at the moment under appeal, and therefore it is very undesirable to discuss it. But the speech of the noble Earl took a more general complexion, and I hope I may be able to answer some of his chief points without making any reference to this case which would in any way be calculated to prejudice it. I would like to point out to the House that cases of this kind are undertaken because they are in contravention of No. 18 of the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. That Regulation provides that no person shall without lawful authority collect, record, publish, communicate, or—and I think this is rather important—attempt to elicit any information with respect to movement, numbers, description, position or disposition of any of the forces, ships, or war materials of His Majesty or of any of His Majesty's Allies—in short, any information which might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy. There is no question that these are very wide powers, and I quite agree that the use that is made of them is a matter which is a very fit subject for discussion.
From the point of view of the Government Department—the War Office in this case—who instituted these proceedings, you have to look at the matter from two different points of view. First of all, we know by this time that there are certain classes of information which are absolutely ruled out from publication. I need not go into them. But there are certain operations in this war to which no reference is ever by any chance made in the newspapers. They are pretty clearly defined. I am sure that every ordinary reader of the newspapers knows them quite well, and I should be doing very far from justice to reporters as a whole if I were to suggest that they were not just as much aware as we are of those subjects which are for this purpose entirely taboo. That is the first point, that you have these particular classes of information which it is known may not be published. When a man collects and attempts to publish any kind of information which falls under those headings, he has to a certain extent himself to thank if he gets into trouble.
There is the other point of view, and it is one of great importance to a Department
910
like the War Office. It is this. It is not the sending of the information to the newspaper to have it published that is in all cases the action against which you have to guard. A man may represent himself as a reporter, and say that he is coming to collect information for the newspaper which he represents. But if it is of importance that information on the particular subject should not-get to the ears of the enemy, far the best and most effective way is to prevent the information being collected, and for that purpose the words "attempting to elicit any information" have been specially put into the Regulations. When it comes to dealing with information of this kind, by far the safest way is to take steps that people shall be deterred from coming round and attempting to get it. I quite agree, as I said at first, that these are very wide powers and may be used in an arbitrary way.
This, I think, is the only case of the kind that has come up, which goes to show that in the view of the War Office the kind of information which has to be treated like this is to a great extent limited. I am sure that I am expressing the view of the War Office when I say that it is not their intention to take action of this kind except in regard to information concerning matters which have to be treated with the greatest secrecy. That being so, and it being perfectly well known what those particular classes of information are, I do not think the steps which were taken in this case and which would be taken again can be treated as being either too arbitrary or too severe.

THE CENSORSHIP.
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE rose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, having regard to the undertaking which he gave some weeks ago that further consideration would be given to the requests made in the House for information regarding the administration of the censorship, he can now supply to the House some further information regarding the organisation of the various branches of the censorship and the classes of persons employed therein, and whether he can lay on the Table a general statement of the directions given or rules laid clown for the guidance of the censors in the discharge of their functions, including a statement of the rules in force regarding the admission to this country of printed matter from abroad.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may remember that five or six weeks ago I took the opportunity of asking the noble Marquess who leads the House for some information with regard to the persons who conducted the censorship and the rules and principles upon which the censorship is conducted. The noble Marquess then made an interesting statement which unfortunately was very imperfectly reported in the newspapers, so that it does not appear to have come to the knowledge of most of those who care about the subject and desire to have some information with regard to it. In the course of the discussion an appeal was made to the noble Marquess by my noble and learned friend beside me (Lord Loreburn) and, I think, by other noble Lords, that he should endeavour to consult the authorities who direct the censorship and ascertain from them whether some ampler information could not be given to the House than that which he then felt himself at liberty to give. The noble Marquess was good enough to say that he would consult the authorities, and that after a time he might possibly be in a position to say something more than the very small satisfaction which on that occasion he was able to give to our curiosity.
I propose, therefore, to repeat the Question now, and to mention the particular points upon which, if I am not mistaken, both your Lordships' House and the public generally would desire to be informed; and I would venture to suggest to the noble Marquess that if he could see his way to putting that information in the form of a printed statement which could be laid upon the Table it would be convenient, not merely because our debates are sometimes imperfectly reported in the newspapers, but also because it is not very easy for any one who wants to know precisely how the censorship is working to turn back to the file of a newspaper for a particular day. It would be a great deal easier if we had it in the form of a Parliamentary Paper, which a man could keep by him for his information whenever it was necessary to refer to it.
Such a Return as I have suggested might take the following form. It might contain information as to the number of persons employed in the United Kingdom in the work of censorship, and go on to state the method by which they are selected, the qualifications which are required from
912
them, and the supervision that is exercised over them. And then it should further state the directions given or principles laid down for the guidance of the censors, including a statement of the rules regarding the admission of printed matter from abroad and the sending out to foreign countries of matter printed here. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, also has a Question on the Paper which relates to the same matter, and perhaps if this does not sufficiently meet the point on which he desires to be informed he will be good enough to say so.
What I feel that we want to know about the censorship is this. What are the methods which the censors follow? What are the methods that are employed in selecting the persons to be censors? What are the qualifications which a censor is expected to possess? And, in particular, how those who make the appointments satisfy themselves that the censors possess the kind of discretion which is needed to administer these very wide and very large powers—in fact, that sort of common sense to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred in the remarks which fell from him a few moments ago, and which, as we all feel, must be applied wherever large discretionary powers are given. Here let me observe that I am referring particularly to the case of those who work for the Press Bureau and those who work in supervising the private correspondence which passes between this country and other countries, because I think we may fairly take it that as regards military and naval intelligence those who make the appointments must first have taken careful pains to satisfy themselves that the persons whom they appointed were eminently qualified for that function. I am sure we should all agree that we do not want to be censorious—to be captious, let me say—with regard to the exercise of the censorship upon naval and military intelligence. We know, of course, that there are often things stated in the newspapers of other countries which are not stated in our newspapers. Some of my friends tell me that they find more in the newspapers that come to them from the United States than they find here. I had a letter a few days ago on that point from a very experienced and eminent diplomatist who was many years resident abroad in our Diplomatic Service. He told me that when he wanted to know the news he was obliged to go to the French and Italian newspapers

913
rather than to those of this country. Of course, incidents of that kind may sometimes happen, but I do not want to press that point. If there is any question as to whether things can be safely given or not, I think it would be much safer to prevent their being given rather than run the risk of their being given and doing harm. Therefore, I do not think we wish to dwell on any suggestion that the censorship with regard to naval and military intelligence may have been applied in a too rigorous and not very practical way.
But considering the great power which is exercised by the censors, a power quite unknown to all previous times in this country, considering their very large number, which was given by the noble Marquess in the previous debate as exceeding one thousand, and considering that their names are not given in the Estimates presented to the House of Commons, it is really important that we should, if possible, be satisfied that due care and pains have been taken in selecting these persons and that they are people in whose discretion we can repose full confidence. If the noble Marquess sees a difficulty in giving the names I will not go so far as to press for them. But surely something should be done, I will not say to satisfy, but partly to assuage the curiosity we feel with regard to these unseen masters who open all our letters and decide what we are permitted to know.
The other part of the inquiry I have to put relates to the directions or instructions which are given to the censors to guide them in the discharge of their duties. I presume that such general directions must be given. The noble Marquess on the previous occasion said he thought it would be rather difficult to specify all these instructions in a formal way in a Paper to be presented to the House. If that is the case, of course I will not press for it; but I think we should, at any rate, be given some indication of what are the general principles and directions upon which the censors act. I would like in particular to have these three points elucidated. Firstly, to what extent the censors are directed to eliminate from anything to be published in the newspapers criticism of His Majesty's Government. There have been debates in the other place upon that, but, I think, on individual instances, and they did not go
914
so far as to lay down a general principle. In the next place, it would be desirable that we should know what principles are applied to the censorship of news of a political, not of a military kind, coming from foreign countries. I instanced when we discussed the matter before the cases of certain omissions which had been made from the news sent to this country from Japan and China about the negotiations which were in progress there—a matter on which it is extremely important that the people of this country should be fully informed, because, as your Lordships know, very grave questions may arise, questions which may require great tact and judgment to deal with, when the more urgent question of the present war has come to an end. It is very desirable that we should follow the whole of those negotiations with the amplest knowledge. In the same way it is very important with regard to the difficulties that arise as to points of international law between ourselves and neutral nations, particularly latterly with the United States, that we should know what are the opinions entertained in that country. We should not merely be guided by what we know of the views of the United States Administration, but also by what we know of the public sentiment of the nation. I am glad to say that since the previous debate—though I do not think in any way connected with it—there has been a great deal more information both with regard to United States opinion and the negotiations in the Far East than we had before. Therefore I am very far from complaining of what has been done with regard to those questions now. But, of course, the question has its general bearings.
Lastly, I think your Lordships and the country wish to know what precisely are the regulations which are now in force under which the censors act with regard to the admission into this country of printed matter from abroad—newspapers, pamphlets, and so forth. Personally, I venture to believe that the more we let in the better. I do not think that we gain anything by suppression in these matters. Of course, the question has two aspects. It relates, on one side, to printed matter coming into this country which is intended to be passed on to neutral countries and possibly to influence public opinion there. I will not deny that there may be cases in which statements can be so palpably

915
false, or malicious, or dangerous, that it may be thought necessary to arrest them here and not let them get any further. Such cases may arise. But, speaking broadly and generally, we have been led to believe during the last few months that the efforts of the propaganda of the enemy in neutral countries have done him little or no good, and that in many cases they have positively helped the Allied cause. I think it is also clear that the friends of the enemy in neutral countries have ample material at their disposal, and certainly no want of zeal in using that material, by which they can propagate there as many falsehoods and misrepresentations "off their own bat," so to speak, as they could by any communications passing through this country.
The other aspect of the matter is, of course, how this printed matter affects people here. Is it not very desirable that we should know all the case the enemy can make? Through the kindness of friends in neutral countries I have had the good fortune to receive a good deal of matter which has come from Germany upon the subject of the causes of the war and the method of conducting it, and there has not been a single one of those statements of the German case which it has not seemed to me would be very desirable and wholesome for our people to read, because they put the flimsiness of their case in the clearest light, and they put the unabashed shamelessness of their methods in such a manner as is calculated to shock the opinions of any honest and humane man. So far from injuring us, all that has come through from German propaganda has tended not to raise our opinion of the veracity of that Government but certainly to increase our sense of the ruthlessness with which it carries on the war. I therefore do not see, speaking broadly and allowing for possible exceptions, that we are likely to suffer from allowing a pretty free entry here of matter from the enemy quarter. Let me say again, before sitting down, that I fully recognise the great difficulties with which the whole question of the censorship is connected. I have not the slightest desire to press His Majesty's Government in the matter, and it is to give them an opportunity of making a statement which will tend to assuage public curiosity rather than to be censorious that I have ventured to offer these few remarks.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: MY Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, in the first place, for the patience which he has exercised in not pressing the Government unduly for an early reply on this subject, and also for the great moderation with which he has presented his case this afternoon. So far as I can I will endeavour to satisfy my noble friend. I quite agree with him that it will be more convenient if the principal substance of this answer takes the form of a Paper which can be laid upon the Table rather than that of a very long Parliamentary reply, for the thoroughly sound reasons which my noble friend indicated. I shall, therefore, hope to be able soon to lay on the Table a Paper containing at any rate a considerable part of what my noble friend requires. Those concerned with this question of the censorship, as my noble friend will well understand, have been exceedingly busy, and it has therefore taken them a little time to draw up anything like a full statement of all the circumstances. Perhaps it would be as well, however, if I make a few observations now in reply to various points which my noble friend has raised.
The object, of course, of the censorship is partly military—that is to say, to prevent information of military value leaking out and reaching the enemy. It also has the object of trying to obtain, so far as possible, information which the enemy would not desire us to acquire, and to prevent the general dissemination of information not purely military in character which might be of use to the enemy or might be of disadvantage to ourselves or to our Allies. There is one point upon which I think the possibilities attaching to a censorship had never been realised until this present war. I refer to the part which the censorship is able to play in connection with financial and commercial transactions in preventing the enemy, or any persons living in enemy countries, from acquiring information which would be of advantage to them financially or commercially. A very large part, it will be found, of the censorship is taken up with the examination of financial and commercial messages, whether by telegraph or letter; and not an inconsiderable part of the discontent which has been expressed with the censorship has been, very naturally I think, founded upon the inevitable inconvenience which has followed the close examination of commercial correspondence of different kinds.

917
There are three branches of the censorship which are administered independently but are all closely co-ordinated and under one general system of supervision. There is the cable censorship, then there is the postal censorship, and, finally, the one to which my noble friend alluded as not the least important—namely, the Press censorship. The cable censorship is controlled by an officer of the General Staff. He has a great many subordinates. Although there is such a number of cable stations in this country and throughout the Empire, yet it has been ingeniously managed that the actual censorship does not take place at very many of them. There are about 120 cable and wireless stations in different parts of the Empire, and of course there are all the stations, both telegraph and cable, in this country. This censorship in particular has proved to be a difficult one to conduct, because, as the House knows, there have been all sorts of occasions when it was assumed, or at any rate it was alleged, that information of great value to the enemy had passed either by wireless or through the cables. On the other hand, there were continual and loud complaints of the interference with commercial activities by means of the supervision exercised by the censorship. I should hope by now that it has been found possible, by allowing the use of various codes, to diminish that inconvenience at any rate to a great extent. But the prevention of the transmission of news which may so easily affect the Navy is obviously most important, and I hope and believe that those who have been prejudicially affected in their private affairs by the care which it has been necessary to exercise have realised that they are suffering in a good cause. The censors have to look at something between 30,000 to 50,000 telegrams every day in the United Kingdom, and that is obviously no light task.
As I indicated just now, one of the principal objects which the cable censorship has to keep in view is the prevention of any form of trading with the enemy's country, and a large part of their duties is concerned with that task. Therefore any transaction—whether the subject of it be contraband or non-contraband, or a simple article of trade—which refers to or deals with a resident of no matter what nationality in the enemy's country, is liable to be stopped and examined. That applies to all persons—to British subjects, the subjects
918
of our Allies, and the subjects of neutral States—if it is supposed that there is any possibility of the particular transaction concerned proving even indirectly of benefit to the enemy. There are about 180 of these censors in the United Kingdom, and there are 300 to 400 in other parts of the Empire. A large number of them in this branch are retired military officers, but not all; there are a certain number of civilians.
The next branch is the postal censorship. There is, of course, the general result of delay in all mails which are liable to censorship. Letters sent to an enemy country must be enclosed in a cover addressed to a neutral country. The following categories of letters are all liable to censorship. I say nothing about letters either from prisoners of war in this country, or from British prisoners in other countries; those, as we know, are in each case censored in the country in which the prisoner is. All letters, not merely from those actually forming part of the Expeditionary Force but in the area of operations, are liable to be censored. From certain foreign countries and to certain foreign countries all letters are censored. All Press messages which are not sent by cable and newspapers are liable to censorship. Also all commercial correspondence with foreign countries. I say nothing about the military censorship, became it is not upon that that my noble friend has laid the most emphasis. Certain classes of persons are exempt from censorship—all letters addressed to members of either House of Parliament at the House pass uncensored. But it is not possible to issue a list of individuals whose correspondence is free from censorship, for obvious reasons. It would be impossible, for instance, for the censor to look through a long list of persons before deciding whether a particular letter ought or ought not to be opened. On the other hand a great number of letters are opened and not censored, in this sense that it is seen from their character and that of the person to whom they are addressed that no interference with them is necessary. Therefore all those letters which arrive as having passed the censor have not necessarily been read; and I think it may be assumed that the complaints of those who allege that their letters have been read out of curiosity by those employed at the censor's office are not likely to have much foundation. I imagine that the work of reading

919
a number of letters, a great many of them probably in more or less illegible handwriting, must become so absolutely nauseating to those who have to undertake it that, far from desiring to add to the number of letters which they peruse, I should think they are more likely to be tempted to let letters which ought to be read pass without close examination. It has also, I believe, been complained that a number of letters have passed the censor coming from enemy countries which ought not to have been allowed to pass. But the censors do not hold the view that the mere reception of a hostile, or possibly abusive, letter is likely of itself to undermine the loyalty of the recipient, and therefore a large number of these letters are allowed to go by.
Then as regards newspapers. No restriction whatever is placed upon the transmission to newsagents and reputable dealers of newspapers in bulk from any country or to any extent. Therefore those who—I think the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) was one—complained that they were not able to obtain a paper at a particular newsagent's should lay the complaint against the newsagent and not against the authorities. I have explained before that newspapers sent to private individuals are likely to be delayed, for obvious reasons; and I think I also explained on the former occasion that some restrictions are exercised in the distribution of pamphlets, but not such, I should hope, as to interfere with the convenience of those who desire to import into the country such pamphlets as are not of a character which at any ordinary time might be liable to be stopped by the Police. There are about 700 censors of letters and newspapers. They are mainly civilians, and have been carefully selected under the direction of the War Office authorities. Every possible inquiry has been made in each individual case, and in every case also responsible persons have answered for the character and integrity of those who have been chosen.
The third and last stage is the Press Bureau proper. Of that, as we know, the Solicitor-General has undertaken the control. He has two experienced assistants known, I have no doubt, to many members of your Lordships' House—Sir Frank Swettenham, who had a distinguished Colonial career, and Sir Edward Cook, who is well known as a writer and publicist.
920
My right hon. friend has about fifty assistants, naval, military and civil. The naval censors have been selected by the Admiralty, the military by the War Office, and the civil by the Director. All Press cable messages pass through the office and are censored there. They are censored in accordance with instructions, some received from the War Office, some from the Admiralty, some from the Foreign Office, and some from other public Departments. When the conductors of newspapers desire, articles and illustrations are censored in the same manlier, but that, of course, is a voluntary act on the part of those responsible for the newspapers. Those who publish either an article or an illustration without submitting it do so in one sense at their own peril, because they are, of course, liable in an extreme case to the penalties provided under the Defence of the Realm Act. Various confidential notices have been issued from time to time to the Press by the different Departments concerned. It is important to note that those instructions are not issued at the instance of the Press Bureau itself, but of the particular Departments concerned. That, of course, is due to the fact that the ultimate power of the enforcement of the instructions rests with the Department and not with the Press Bureau. There have been certain cases, not very many, where some newspapers have apparently quite with deliberation published news to which objection can properly be taken on the ground of interference with military operations or of prejudice to ourselves or our Allies. But those cases have been very few. There have been, of course, an infinitely larger number of cases where conductors of newspapers have honourably refrained from publishing information which might be regarded as damaging by the authorities.
I come now to the last part of my noble friend's Question. I shall be happy, in the statement which I propose to lay on the Table, to include, so far as it is possible, the directions given or the rules laid down for the guidance of the censors in the discharge of their functions, including statement of the rules in force regarding the admission into this country of printed matter from abroad. My noble friend will understand that I cannot promise that all the instructions which are issued by the various Departments will form part of this White Paper, because there are some which

921
are of a purely confidential character and the publication of which, in the opinion of the authorities, would be highly undesirable. That I am sure my noble friend will understand. But so far as I can I will include in the Paper all possible instructions, and I will also venture to repeat in the earlier part of the Paper some part of the facts and figures which I have been giving to the House, in order to make it as complete a statement as possible compatible with the public interest. I quite agree with my noble friend that it is undesirable that there should be any sort of mystery about the matter. We know that a large number of persons have to undergo no little inconvenience in their private affairs and in business relations owing to the necessity of enforcing this censorship. I say nothing of the baffled curiosity of a large number of persons, because that, although one may sympathise with it, is not in itself an important matter in these times. But I should like my noble friend to believe that, so far as possible, we are anxious to meet his wishes and to give the public all the information in our power about these hampering restrictions.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I gather from some of the remarks of the noble Marquess that as regards foreign newspapers no supervision is exercised if they are sent to a newsagent, but that there is supervision if they are sent to individuals. No doubt the noble Marquess will be able to explain that point, but I do not quite understand why it should be so. I presume that the object of exercising supervision over foreign newspapers is to prevent them becoming the vehicle, through a cipher, of communication from spies in one country to spies in another. But is it not easy for the spy to go to the newsagent and procure the paper from him? You do not really stop what you ought to stop, which is a communication passing from a German spy in Germany to a German spy in this country. Perhaps the noble Marquess will explain to me whether there could not be some more stringent step taken to prevent that.
THE MARQUESS OP CREWE: The main object, as I understand it, of preventing the free transmission of newspapers to individuals unopened is as the noble Lord has stated. But he will, I think, see that it is not altogether easy to carry on a cipher
922
correspondence through a copy of a newspaper which you buy at a newsagent's or a bookstall. The common method, as I understand, by which a newspaper may be made the vehicle of a cipher is by a certain system of marking a particular copy of the newspaper. The attempt to carry on a cipher correspondence through the actual substance of a newspaper is, of course, of a different kind; and it is exceedingly hard to see how any method of examination by a censor could prevent that being done, supposing an elaborate system of cipher communication to be invented. Nothing but a complete prohibition of the passage of the paper would ensure that. But there is, of course, a further point. It is very easy to conceal written matter in a folded-up newspaper, and if people were allowed to receive packets of newspapers directed to private individuals a large amount of correspondence might pass which would be entirely uncensored. As a matter of fact, I believe a considerable number of private persons have permission to receive foreign newspapers. I have no doubt that the noble Earl himself, if he desired to take in any number of foreign newspapers, would find them delivered daily at his house. But it has been thought wise to impose this particular restriction.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, we are much indebted to the noble Viscount who initiated this discussion, both for his own contribution to it and for having elicited from the noble Marquess much the fullest statement that has been given to the public on this subject in either House of Parliament; and we shall be glad to see that statement incorporated in a Paper to be laid on the Table. It is clear from what we are now told that the Press Bureau has developed into a highly organised institution. They have now nine months of experience behind them, and it is evident that the necessary work they have to do is being done with less friction and with more convenience to the public than was the case at first, and I think we are beginning to understand better under what conditions the censorship itself works. Those of us who know Sir Frank Swettenham and Sir Edward Cook know that you could not possibly find two men better qualified to exercise their functions, not only with great technical knowledge and skill, but with that fund of common sense without which any censor must surely come to grief.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But what we now are aware of is this, that the censors have really very little personal discretion as to the principles under which they act. As I understand the noble Marquess, they act under instructions given by the Government Departments and for which, therefore, the Cabinet is responsible.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: At the same time a considerable amount of latitude in dealing with any particular subject, any particular letter or pamphlet, must be allowed to the censor who actually examines it. It would be impossible to say that the latitude is always exercised with the same discretion by every one of this great number of individuals. I think it is important to bear in mind that when all is said and done much depends upon the individual.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Quite true. When you have a body of one thousand persons they cannot all be equally endowed with common sense or with the power of wise judgment; and no doubt sometimes they might interpret the instructions given them by the Government Departments in a manner of which the heads of those Departments would not approve. I fully admit that. But what I want to lay down is this. We understand that they act on general instructions received from the Government Departments, and for which, therefore, the Cabinet is responsible. We have thought all along that much news is withheld from the public which ought to be given—for instance, the deeds of regiments, of brigades, and of divisions, of which in the earlier part of the war we were told practically nothing but of which we are now being told something; but we still think that too little light has been allowed to the country at large as to the wonderful deeds of the regiments in which different parts of the country are interested. And, what is more serious in my judgment, we have thought and still think that that part of the news which is not agreeable to us is too little emphasised, and that too often great losses which have happened, quite inevitably, in the course of the military operations have been concealed from us. I must in fairness admit that we have been told more about that, too, lately; but I do not think that the change
924
would have taken place had there not been criticism in the Press and in Parliament.
In his remarks this afternoon the noble Marquess has partly answered a Question which I have on the Paper for to-morrow. He has told us definitely that newspapers from enemy countries may be imported into this country by a newsagent and sold to the public in the usual manner. I do not know whether he is able to answer to-day the second part of my Question—namely, why so often extracts from foreign newspapers, which would have been inserted in our journals by their editors if they had been allowed to, have been excised by the censor. What is the objection to extracts from foreign journals appearing as such in the columns of our newspapers? If the noble Marquess can answer that question now, then I can take my Question off the Paper and I need trouble him no further. But I may remind him that there was one very important point put by the noble Viscount (Lord Bryce) which he forgot to deal with. It is a matter which I think he will agree is of the greatest importance. I refer to the point that the censorship should not be used as a means of suppressing criticism of His Majesty's Government. It has certainly been alleged—I do not know with what truth—that the censorship has excised, or has forbidden newspapers to publish, matter which those who wished to publish it allege to be nothing more than a criticism of the conduct of His Majesty's Government, or, in some indirect way, a reflection upon their manner of carrying on the war. I am quite sure that the last thing His Majesty's Government would wish would be that the censorship should be used for any such purpose. But it will be to the great advantage of the whole country, and most of all of His Majesty's Government, if the noble Marquess would take this opportunity of answering the noble Viscount's question.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As regards the second part of the Question which the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) has on the Paper for to-morrow, I think he will be wiser to leave it on the Paper because I am not in a position to answer it at this moment. I do not know what the circumstances are in which extracts from foreign newspapers have been stopped from appearing in the English Press. But I will inquire as to that. With regard to the second point, I can assure the noble Earl and my noble

925
friend that it would be altogether contrary to the desire of the Government that anything in the nature of a criticism of our proceedings as a body, or a criticism of individuals, should be suppressed; and I am bound to say, particularly as regards the latter, that my impression is that there has been a tolerably free issue of criticisms of some of my colleagues, as well as of our general action as a body. I can inquire, of course, from my right hon. friend the Solicitor-General as to whether any case has occurred in which it could be colourably stated that criticism of such kind had been forbidden; but I confess that I am quite certain of what his answer will be. It is, of course, possible—I think the noble Earl will see that it is a conceivable case—that some passage might have been subjected to censorship which did contain an imputation against His Majesty's Government or some
926
member of it, but which also contained other statements which made it improper to allow it to be published. But, as I stated in my former remarks, the submission of all articles, not only of this kind but of all kinds, is purely voluntary on the part of newspapers; and I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that any case can be produced in which the censorship has interfered with purely political criticism even though couched in terms which many would think excessive and some might think offensive, because it is obviously not the business of anybody to interfere with the free expression of opinion however undesirable from various points of view such expression may be.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.