Sitting of 18 May 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, 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:—
Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas Bill [Lords].
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords].
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords].
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords].
Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) Bill [Lords].
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
Great Central Railway Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th May, and agreed to.
Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum Bill [Lords], Ilfracombe Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Lurgan Urban District Council Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Neath Canal Navigation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Worksop and Bawtry Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Altrincham Gas Bill [Lords],
Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Northwich Gas Bill [Lords],
Sutton District Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Land Drainage (Raveningham) Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed drainage district in the parishes of Raveningham, Norton Sub-course, Thurlton, Loddon, Chedgrave, and Reedham." Presented by Sir HARRY VERNEY; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 85].
Forfar Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Forfar Gas." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government, Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Swansea, Wombwell, the West Kent Main Sewerage District, and Leeds." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Bury and District Joint Hospital District, the Henley and Wallingford, and the Middlesex Districts Joint Small-pox Hospital Districts, and the North-east Salop United Districts." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Harrogate (Extension), Keighley (Extension), Teignmouth, Tunbridge Wells (Extension), Warrington (Extension), and Ystradgynlais." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Lossiemouth and Portmadoc." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Cattewater and Poole." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban District of Kingstown, the Rural Districts of Dingle, Kenmare and Rathdrum, and the Londonderry Port Sanitary Authority." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Standing Orders,—Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;
1. "That, in the case of the London Electric Railway Companies Facilities, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Port of London Authority [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolutions agreed to.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments: Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from The Lords,—That they have agreed to—
Defence of the Realm (Amendment) No. 3) Bill,
Army Act Amendment (No. 2) Bill,
Statutory Companies (Redeemable Stock) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Neath Canal Navigation Bill [Lords],
Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum Bill [Lords],
Ilfracombe Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers on the Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board." [Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board Bill [Lords].
Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Memorandum on the Censorship [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Memorandum on the Official Press Bureau [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Account of Receipts and Expenditure for 1914, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 236.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects who are allowed to remain uninterned in Germany?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Neil Primrose): If I had the information I would certainly state it to the House as requested. I am endeavouring to ascertain the number of British subjects between seventeen and fifty-five years of age who are at present in Germany uninterned, but it is exceedingly difficult under present circumstances to obtain detailed information.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (BRASSARD).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, under W. O. 20, No. 3604 (A. G. 1), dated 19th November, 1914, the Army Council undertook to recognise volunteer corps on condition that such corps obeyed the rules of the Central Association, and such Central Association agreed to certain conditions; whether Rule 4 of such conditions is permissive as regards the wearing of the red armlet or brassard; whether the fourth edition of the rules of the Central Association just issued is in like manner permissive in respect of wearing the said armlet; if so, whether the Central Association is exceeding its powers in making the wearing of such armlet compulsory; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for War will desire the Central Association to withdraw a requisition which is unauthorised, unpopular, and, for corps with uniforms, unnecessary?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Rule 4 of the Army Council letter of the 19th November, 1914, is permissible; but as the brassard is the authorised mark of recognition by the Council of a corps or an individual, the action of the Central Association in making the use of the brassard obligatory cannot be considered as in any way in excess of its powers, and its use for military exercises or duties is desirable. The answer to the last part of the question, therefore, is in the negative.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the volunteers are no use why are they recognised, and if they are any use why are they ignored?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not quite certain what the hon. Gentleman wants. He says the volunteers are useless.
    Sir J. D. REES: I did not.
    Mr. TENNANT: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say so.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the only possible effect of wearing the brassard as well as uniform is to throw some doubt upon the validity of the uniform, and that that is the reason why it is so much objected to?
    Mr. TENNANT: Inasmuch as the volunteers find it easier to obtain the brassard than the uniform, it is considered desirable to place the smaller obligation upon the volunteers; therefore they wear the brassard.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that where they have got uniform the question is a totally different thing, and that where they have got uniform the only effect of wearing the brassard is to throw some doubt upon the validity of the uniform?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only reiterate what I have already said about the smaller of the two obligations. That is a very important point. We cannot demand a uniform of all these volunteer corps, because they would not be able to obtain them. Therefore we have demanded that for them to be affiliated they must have the brassard. To say that because they can have a uniform as well, the brassard is unnecessary, would not be a good policy to adopt.

    DEFENCE OF REALM ACT (TRIAL IN CAMERA).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the three prisoners who were tried on indictment in camera on or about 26th April for an alleged offence under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, were convicted, or any of them; and, if so, what sentences were passed?
    Mr. TENNANT: No trial has been held.

    OFFICERS (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Under-Secretary for War why casualties to officers of the same battalion occurring on the same day at the Dardanelles are not communicated to the newspapers on the same day, but, in some cases, with an interval of several days, although such casualties had been simultaneously communicated to the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: Cases of this sort must necessarily occur. The Department is frequently not in possession of the names and addresses of the next of kin, and the Press announcement in such cases has to be deferred until the next of kin have been communicated with. I must again emphasise the fact that casualties are first communicated to those most directly concerned, namely, the wife, father, etc., and that the announcement cannot fittingly or decently be made to the public at large through the Press until the next of kin have been informed.

    PROMOTION OF OFFICERS.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Special and General Reserve second lieutenants, who were either attached to regiments before mobilisation or who joined at the outbreak of war and who have been many months at the front, are being habitually superseded for promotion by the cadets from Sandhurst, gazetted to commissions subsequent to theirs and far younger in age, and who, owing to their youth and lack of war experience, are less competent to take command of troops; if he is also aware that non-promotion to temporary rank is causing a sense of injustice in the minds of the Reserve officers; whether he will state the reason why this system is being enforced; and if he will reconsider
    2118
    it with a view to securing the best interests of the Service now and in the future?
    Mr. TENNANT: Promotion in the Special and General Reserve are not on an identical basis. Officers of the former are promoted as vacancies arise in their Special Reserve battalion: those in the General Reserve are promoted to vacancies as they arise in the Regular unit with which they are serving. It is not possible to ensure that promotion on two different rosters is absolutely identical. Officers from Sandhurst have passed more difficult examinations and gone through a training different from that of the Special Reserve officer. It is hoped that most ground for complaint will be removed by the steps being taken to give effect to the recent decisions in reference to temporary rank.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that a few months' training on the part of a cadet at Sandhurst is equal to four or five months' service at the front in the trenches? That is the point. The men who have learned by experience in the trenches are superseded by these mere boys, who have merely gone through a course at Sandhurst. To point that out was the object of my question.
    Mr. TENNANT: I appreciate the object of the Noble Lord in asking the question, and I would affirm that the examination which has been passed by these cadets is quite an important element in the training of the young officers.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the case that a large proportion of those who are now entering Sandhurst do not pass any examination at all, but are selected for approval; that after three or four months' work at Sandhurst the cadet is given a commission, and that some of them have been selected at the age of seventeen?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course, their curriculum is very much shortened. I am quite aware of that.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a fact that there is no examination?
    General Sir IVOR HERBERT: May I ask, in view of the consideration that in many cases there are serious hardships to individuals, and also in view of the effect on regiments, would the commanding officers be called upon to report, and would the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that that report would have the same con-

    2119
    sideration and be given the same weight as the views of gentlemen who are seated in Whitehall?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is rather doubtful. In view of the very large responsibility of the commanding officer it is doubtful whether it would be desirable to take up his time with such reports as are suggested. I will consider the suggestion, but it seems a rather doubtful one.
    Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commanding officers do not like to put these young officers, who are not fit to lead men, over a number of men, especially where men's lives are involved, and would he not think that it is desirable, apart from any other question, to have the best officers rather than these young officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course, it is obviously not only desirable but imperative that the best officers should be selected. My whole point is that this method of education at Sandhurst is very likely as good as the other.
    Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some officers have already been promoted lieutenants who only went to Sandhurst since the beginning of the War, and have not even yet left the country?

    MANUFACTURE OF SHELLS.
    Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as stated by Sir Percy Girouard, it is intended to establish steel works in Leeds on behalf of the Government; and, if so, will he say what are the reasons, looking at the supplies of shell steel in this country and that new competition will adversely affect the wages of existing works and the supply of ore?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, it is not intended to establish steel works, but works for the manufacture of steel into shell.

    ASPHYXIATING GASES (HAGUE CONVENTION).
    Mr. DENMANasked whether any convention exists whereby the use of asphyxiating gases, except when emitted from a projectile, is forbidden?
    Mr. TENNANT: The actual terms of The Hague Declaration forbid only the use of projectiles the sole object of which is to diffuse asphyxiating or deleterious gases. Obviously the diffusion of the gases was the object of the prohibition rather than the means by which they were diffused.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (VISITING HOMES).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether cases have occurred of wounded soldiers, during convalescence in this country, having been denied the privilege of visiting their homes before returning to the Front; whether such privilege was withheld because a few men of a battalion had overstayed their leave; and whether, in view of the disappointment caused to good soldiers, he will look into the matter with a view of preventing the recurrence of such cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: The War Office has no information in the sense mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If he will furnish the name of the battalion, inquiry shall be made.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. RAFFANasked whether the decision of the regimental paymaster or the Secretary of the County Territorial Association is final in all cases where dissatisfaction exists as to the amount of separation allowance fixed by the pension officer and the old age pension committee, or whether any machinery exists by which an appeal can be carried to a higher tribunal?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): If an applicant is dissatisfied with the award made by the pension officer and committee, appeal may be made for reconsideration of the case by those authorities. A decision then given by them in agreement is final. If they differ, the final decision is given on behalf of the War Office by an independent committee set up for that purpose, as has already been publicly announced. No questions of assessment are in any case decided by Paymasters.
    Mr. RAFFAN: To whom are the appeals to be addressed?
    Mr. BAKER: The appeals come before the independent committee set up by the War Office, in the ordinary form, when there is a disagreement with the authorities below.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Do I understand that there is no appeal for the relatives of soldiers at the front in the case of a decision by the pension committee and the pension officer?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes. There is an appeal, but there is not a second appeal after that.
    Sir R. ADKINS: To whom is the first appeal?
    Mr. BAKER: To the pension officer and committee, who in a great number of cases revise the first finding.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Are we to understand that there is no final appeal from that authority to the central committee at the War Office?
    Mr. BAKER: The pension committee and the pension officer reinvestigate the case. The decision, the second time they consider the case, is to be considered as final.
    Sir R. ADKINSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the dissatisfaction in various parts of the country with the decision of pension officers as to the amount of allowances to dependants of soldiers and sailors, he will publish the instructions given to such pension officers, and so enable an accurate judgment to be formed as to whether they are acting fairly?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): The function of the pension officers is not to decide as to the amount of separation allowances to dependants of sailors and soldiers, but merely to investigate and report to the pension committees as to the fact and degree of dependence. In doing so they are guided by instructions which my hon. Friend will find set out in the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire on the 10th February last. The pension committees also report as to the fact and degree of dependence, and the amount of the allowance to be granted is then determined by the naval or military authorities, or, where there is disagreement between the pension officer and the pension committee in the case of soldiers' dependants, by the Appeals Assessment Committee which has been appointed.
    Sir R. ADKINS: As pension officers do not have the power of fixing the amount of the allowance, nor do the pension committee, is there no appeal at all from their decision on behalf of the beneficiaries?
    Mr. ACLAND: That sounds very like a supplementary question which the hon. Member asked earlier to-day, and the answer is the same. Where a pension officer and pension committee have reconsidered any representations that have been made to them and after that reconsideration have fixed the rate, there is no further appeal. They agree as to the local facts according to their local knowledge.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Do I understand that a soldier or a sailor can secure the pension committee and pension officer hearing the case twice, but that after that there is to be no appeal from the decision?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think where two authorities looking at matters from a different point of view agree as to the facts after reconsideration, there is no further appeal.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Are we to understand that the pensions officer is the servant or official of the pensions committee?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, that is not so. The pensions officer is the servant of the Customs and Excise Department, and the pensions committee is a local committee appointed to be advised by him, and, after taking his advice, to form their own opinion as to the facts.

    MALE SERVANTS (TAXATION).
    Colonel WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the numbers of men of serviceable age still employed as chauffeurs, footmen, gardeners, and in similar capacities, he will consider the advisability of largely increasing the duties payable on the employment of men servants, unless the employer can produce a certificate from an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps showing that the servant in question is physically unfit for war service?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I will consider the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would not it be fairer to charge those who do not go rather than employers who have no power to exercise compulsion?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not like to give an opinion on that.
    Mr. RONALD MCNEILL: If the right hon. Gentleman considers compulsory service desirable, would not it be better to have it by direct rather than by an indirect method?

    BEARER SECURITIES (TREASURY AUTHORITY).
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked whether the Treasury have in any case given authority for German subjects to obtain bearer securities from bankers on an undertaking that the value of such securities should not be transmitted to an alien enemy; and, if so, what safeguard is there to prevent the proceeds reaching an alien enemy through a neutral country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot trace any case of the nature referred to but if my hon. Friend knows of any and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (BONUS).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to reply to the proposals for arbitration on the question of a war bonus for Civil servants addressed to him on the 27th April by the Civil Service Federation; and, if not, will he say when a reply may be expected?
    Mr. ACLAND: An arbitrator having been appointed to adjudicate on the claims of the postal servants, the Government propose to await his award before dealing with the case of the Civil Service generally.

    LIQUOR TRADE (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked whether any representative of the liquor trade is to be put on the Commission for Scotland dealing with compensation to that trade under the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HOGGE: Who are the responsible authorities in Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that I gave the names. I have not got them with me.

    JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Treasury has no power to prevent the registration of a new joint stock company, in regard to which it has refused to approve the issue of the capital with which it proposes to operate; and whether he proposes to ask Parliament for powers to prohibit the issue of such capital?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation with the object of controlling the issue of fresh capital in this country without the approval of the Treasury?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will answer together Question 23 and Question 48 addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Treasury have no legal power to make their disapproval of fresh issues of capital effective, and the Government do not propose to seek such power at the present time. I do not, however, consider it probable that in present circumstances promoters will persist in prospectuses of which the Treasury have expressed disapproval, or that if they do persist such prospectuses will be supported by the public. Should they do so, the question whether any advantage they may thereby obtain over those who have been content to be guided by the rules laid down should not be counterbalanced by special fiscal burdens will not fail to receive careful consideration.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this operates very unfairly to small companies which are being floated and which do desire to observe the restrictions placed upon them by the Treasury, whereas others may not be so scrupulous and may not observe these restrictions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend will read my answer carefully he will find that I do indicate what should be done.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when no appeal is made to the public and those companies are being floated, they are to be prejudiced?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That question has been considered by the Committee on issues, and I am not sure at the present moment what their decision is. Perhaps

    2125
    my hon. Friend would put it down. I would rather not answer without considering it carefully.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend state whether this Committee of the Treasury has any statutory powers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HOGGE: Then the answer is "No."

    PEDLARS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what inquiries are made before the granting of pedlars' licences in Scotland; and whether he is aware that two Germans still act as pedlars, one having recently been seen at Cromartie?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The chief officer of police is required by Statute to satisfy himself as to the character of the applicant before granting a certificate. I am aware of two German pedlars in Scotland, who are sixty-six and sixty-seven years of age respectively, and have been forty-two years in the country, and who are considered quite harmless.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (ENGLAND).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can and will state to this House the amounts of advance in wages given to labourers on the land in the middle and southern counties of England?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have been asked by my hon. Friend to reply to this question. So far as reported, it appears that since the outbreak of war the increase in the weekly cash rates usually paid to agricultural labourers reached 4s. in Hants, Kent, Leicester, Salop and Wilts; 3s. in Berks, Cheshire, Derby, Devon, Dorset, Herts, Middlesex, Notts, Northants, Oxford, Somerset, Staffs, Sussex, Warwick, and Worcester; and 2s. in Bedford, Bucks, Cornwall, and Surrey.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Is there any objection to extending the figures to cover the whole of England, and to issuing them in a Parliamentary Paper?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred question, I will give the whole of the counties and circulate the answer with the Votes.
    Mr. PETO: Does that answer cover the results of the recent official inquiry made among farmers under Form Z 8, issued only a few days ago?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not remember under what form the information was given, but this is the most recent information we have at the Board of Trade.

    SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state when he can issue the supplement to the table given on page four of the Report on School Attendance and Employment in Agriculture [Cd. 7881], bringing the information up to the 30th April?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I hope to publish the Supplementary Return by the end of the month.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEES.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the increased cost of food, rent, coal, and clothes, which makes a fresh burden on the working classes, he will now approach those local authorities which charge fees for elementary school children with a view of relieving this burden?
    Mr. PEASE: I am not proposing to make the representation suggested. I have no evidence and have received no representations that there is any deficiency of free places, and apparently there is no indication that the parents who pay these fees desire relief from them.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the case of Liverpool where a large number of free places have been commandeered by the military authority, and where the children are contributing £1,000 a month to the school authority?
    Mr. PEASE: My attention has been called to that case, which is rather peculiar, owing to the fact that the school has been commandeered.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman revise his answer in view of the fact to which I have called his attention, and which shows that it is wrong?

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SCHOOL BUILDINGS).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board has receded from the attitude taken up on 3rd May, and stated in a letter to the London education authority, that the existing arrangement between the Board and the council as to school-building should be maintained; and, if that arrangement is to be modified, will he state exactly the changes which are proposed and sanctioned?
    Mr. PEASE: I may refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister on Thursday, 13th May. I have not since then received any further communication from the council, who, I understand are considering the question.

    LETTERS AND PARCELS FOR TROOPS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has completed his inquiry concerning letters and parcels addressed to soldiers on active service and undelivered owing to the death of the addressee; if he will say how many letters and parcels have been undelivered from this cause; how many, when opened, have been found to contain no name of the sender, and how these latter have been dealt with; and whether he will make arrangements by which for the future all parcels undelivered, owing to the death of the addressee on active service, shall he delivered at the home address of the addressee to be at the disposal of his representatives.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): About 2,000 letters and 500 parcels are returned from the front each week as undeliverable from this cause. Of these about 300 letters and 80 parcels a week are found to contain no indication of the names and addresses of senders. Such letters and parcels are retained for a time, as prescribed by the Post Office regulations, in order to afford the senders an opportunity
    2128
    to claim them, and are then disposed of. The normal procedure is to sell for the benefit of the Exchequer any that are of saleable value and to destroy the rest. I have, however, arranged that for the present the contents of any packets or parcels that are suitable for the purpose shall be handed over to the Prisoners of War Help Committee for distribution to British prisoners of war interned abroad. Neither the Post Office nor the War Office could undertake to discover the legal representatives of the addressees in such cases; and delivery to the next-of-kin, apart from the objection to the additional work which it would impose on the Military Record Offices, seems to me to be open to serious objections of a more general nature, since it may often happen that the senders of letters and parcels who omit to state their names and addresses would prefer that the correspondence should not be forwarded to the addressees' next-of-kin. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion, after consultation with the War Office, that the hon. Member's suggestion cannot be adopted.
    Mr. McNEILL: Whatever objections may apply to letters, can the right hon. Gentleman not secure that parcels, at all events, shall be sent to the representatives of the addresses, seeing that they have the first claim on the property contained in the parcels in question?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that is possible, and if the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter I think he will see that the attitude taken by the Post Office is the proper one.

    SOLDIERS' WIVES (SAVINGS BANKS).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to encouraging thrift amongst the soldiers' wives who draw separation allowances, he can arrange to have savings bank facilities in the halls which have been secured in populous districts for the distribution of separation allowances owing to the want of accommodation in the ordinary post offices; and whether steps will be taken, by means of pictorial posters or otherwise, to bring to the notice of soldiers' families the special advantages offered by the Post Office Savings Bank for the encouragement of thrift?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestions, which will receive full consideration. The extent to which the Post Office Savings Bank can usefully extend facilities for the encouragement of thrift at the present time is already receiving my special attention.

    COAL (PRICES).
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government can do anything to prevent the advance in the price of coal in the middle and southern counties of England?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire on Thursday last, I am conferring with the Midland coalowners on the subject, and they are to meet me again this week.

    DESTRUCTION OF "LUSITANIA."
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the questions which will be addressed to Lord Mersey's Board of Trade Inquiry into the loss of the "Lusitania"; and whether he can give the positions or names of the Law Officers and the assessors who will assist Lord Mersey?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The questions for submission to the Court cannot be satisfactorily prepared until sufficient evidence has been obtained from passengers and crew on which to found them, but this is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General will be the leading counsel in the Inquiry. The assessors, who are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, will, I understand, be Admiral Sir Frederick S. Ingle-field, K.C.B., and Lieutenant-Commander Hearn, R.N., together with two mercantile marine masters, Captain D. Davies and Captain J. Spedding.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: May I ask whether the instructions alleged to have been given by the Admiralty to the captain will be disclosed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is competent for the Committee to call for any information which they desire in the course of the Inquiry, either for the Admiralty or any other Department.
    Mr. FELL: Will any naval advantage be derived from this Inquiry? Cannot it be abandoned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We would not abandon it. I have already announced it may be necessary to conduct the Inquiry, or parts of it, in camera, but we should not think of abandoning it.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (HOLIDAY EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large number of teachers, both male and female, who are prevented by their duties from co-operating permanently in the national efforts required by the present crisis, are anxious, during their summer holidays, to contribute some assistance to the common work; and whether it would be possible for the Board of Trade, with the co-operation of the Board of Education and the Scotch Education Department, to arrange to give these teachers an opportunity of rendering temporary assistance in various capacities for which they are qualified?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has already been called to the desire of some of the teachers in England and Scotland to undertake work during their summer holiday. I will, as suggested, consult the Board of Education and the Scottish Education Department further on this point.

    COAL (EXPORTS).
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a communication from the Scottish coal exporters showing the necessity of postponing until June the proposed Order to prohibit export of coal except under licence; and, if so, will he explain his attitude on this proposal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I received a request from the Scottish Coal Exporters' Association for the postponement of the date on which the Order in Council prohibiting the export of coal came into force, but I did not see my way to accede to it. The whole question was very fully considered in all its bearings, and a week's notice of the prohibition was given. A strong Committee has been established to deal with applications for licences to export to prohibited destinations.

    BOROUGH RATES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any local bodies have, since the receipt of his circular enjoining economy, reduced their rates other than the borough council of Woodstock; and whether that borough has reduced its general district rate from 1s. 6d. to 1s. in the £?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have no general information on this subject. In the case of the borough of Woodstock there has been a reduction, as stated.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman commend the example of this small borough to the greater offenders?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think the hon. Member's question and the answer to it will ensure the necessary publicity.

    HORSE RACING.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Prime Minister whether any complaints have been made about racing in Ireland interfering in any way with the movements of troops or other necessary war activities there; and whether he will, in view of the importance of horse breeding in Ireland, take steps to see that Ireland will be excluded from any restrictions which may be imposed in Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This suggestion will certainly receive consideration.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind there is not only a question of the unemployment of a few persons, but a question also of the employment of a great number of people?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these questions are borne in mind.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the views of the societies connected with the turf, and other interests concerned, receive consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Home Secretary if he will give instructions that police officers of the Metropolitan force shall not, during the continuance of the War, do duty at any race meeting, and
    2132
    recommend the various authorities whose forces are under the inspection of the Home Office to take similar steps?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police reports that it is not proposed to utilise the Metropolitan Police outside their own district in the manner suggested. Within their own district they are responsible for the maintenance of the peace and must be ready to intervene if disorder occurred at a race meeting held within the Metropolitan Police area, as at any other large assemblage of people. The chief officers of other forces will no doubt act on similar lines with regard to this matter.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the high price of food and of the desirability of increasing the national savings to the greatest extent possible, it is proposed to take any steps to encourage thrift and economy and to secure a wider know ledge of food values and of the most economical methods of using food?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These questions are receiving the consideration of the Treasury and the Board of Education.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the continued issue of currency paper money by the Treasury affects the price of food?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a debatable question.

    WAR STRAIN.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the provision for war was based on the assumption that the War might last for three years; whether the Government have considered the possibility of the War lasting for more than three years; and, if so, whether any steps are being taken to adjust the social, economic, and industrial organisation of the country to meet the strain to which it would be subjected?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government cannot neglect the possibility of a long-continued struggle, and are doing all in their power to strengthen and husband the resources of the country to meet the strain.

    IMMATURE SPIRITS (RESTRICTION) BILL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, under the combined effects of the Defence of the Realm Act and the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Bill, when it becomes law, the Government is in a position to promise compensation or to promise consideration of each claim to compensation upon which the compensation committee favourably report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer to the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General in the Debate yesterday.

    BRITISH AND FRENCH CONVERSATIONS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that when plans of military co-operation between the French and British Armies had to be discussed prior to the War, Field-Marshal Sir John French was sent over to France for this purpose; and whether, in future, when conversations of a similar character take place in France in regard to naval plans, a sailor of prestige and distinction can be sent over instead of the civilian First Lord of the Admiralty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Churchill went over to Paris to see M. Augagneur, the French Minister of Marine. Both Ministers were accompanied by their professional advisers.

    INFANT MORTALITY.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the President of the Local Government Board if, having regard to the importance, especially at the present time, of taking steps to reduce infant mortality, he will consider the desirability of amending the Notification of Births Acts, so as to confer an express power on local authorities to provide health visitors, maternity centres, and similar arrangements for promoting infant welfare?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There can be no division of opinion as to the great importance of measures for reducing infant
    2134
    mortality, and I may perhaps remind the Noble Lord that the Government have undertaken to make substantial Grants in aid of maternity centres and other agencies for infant welfare, which are approved by the Local Government Board. It would, I think, be an advantage if the Notification of Births Act were amended in the way suggested in the question. Notifications are of little value unless they are followed up by health visiting and by the provision of advice and skilled assistance to mothers. The Act itself confers on local authorities no express power to do this work, and at present recourse has to be had to powers in other Acts which were not framed with infant welfare particularly in view. One result is that the powers of a county council adopting the Act differ from those of a district council. If it were shown that a small amending Bill, such as is suggested, would meet with general support, I should be glad to consider the early introduction of such a measure.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the views of Members of this House on the possibility of doing this?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will inquire as to that.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a resolution from the Warwickshire County Council advocating that, on account of the dearth of labour, a representation be made to the Local Government Board that, during the continuance of the War, no limit should be placed on the earnings of those now in receipt of old age pensions; and whether he is prepared to take the necessary action to carry this into effect?
    Mr. ACLAND: Instructions will be given to pension officers not to raise questions in the case of existing pensioners in respect of any temporary increase of means due to the pensioner's re-employment on account of shortage of labour arising out of and during the War, provided that there is no evidence of a desire to pay, on account of the pension, less than the proper rates of wages.

    ALIENS ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the Hampton District Council (Middlesex) on the 11th instant, which broke up in disorder owing to the refusal of a German member to abstain from attendance; and whether he can take steps to prevent Englishmen being compelled to sit on local authorities side by side with Germans?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper paragraph which relates to this incident. With regard to the latter part of the question, I may say that aliens are disqualified for being members of any local authority.

    PRIVATE HOSPITALS (RATING).
    Mr. WHELERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that many private houses, now being used as hospitals for the wounded in the War, are liable to be rated; and whether he will consider introducing a Bill to enable their exemption from rates where the guardians are satisfied that such houses are bonâ fide used solely for such purpose and that only those wounded and those necessarily attendant on them reside therein?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As stated in reply to a question on 9th March, if a local authority, in cases of the kind referred to, should see fit to exempt the premises from rating, the Board themselves would not, in the present circumstances, wish to take exception to such a course.
    Mr. WHELER: Have not the Local Government Board power to exempt from rating private houses?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: No, Sir, the power of exemption is vested in the local authorities.

    INTERNMENT OF ALIENS (ISLE OF MAN CAMP).
    Mr. STEWARThad given notice to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many German prisoners have been released from the Isle of Man camps within the last
    2136
    six weeks; why have they been released and where are they to reside; and are any of the released prisoners to be permitted to reside in prohibited areas?
    The HON. MEMBERsaid: I beg to postpone this question till to-morrow, when it will be addressed to the War Office. But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Isle of Man Camp is not especially under the Home Office?
    Mr. McKENNA: Until quite recently the administration did not rest with the Home Office with regard to the internment or release of prisoners. In future I shall answer all questions relating to this camp, but this particular question refers to the matters arising at a time when I had no control over it.

    PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if anything is to be done which will enable the men who may be absent at the War to record their votes at the coming elections?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government are fully alive to the importance of ensuring that when an election takes place the men who have been absent on war service shall not have been disqualified for voting. The question as to the best method of attaining this object is receiving full consideration.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any announcement about this question before the House rises?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I fear not before the House rises. The matter is receiving daily attention. It is not free from difficulties, and the question is how best to attain the object which, I think, the whole House has in view.
    Mr. SANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the claims have to be sent in by July?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am well aware of the fact that the matter is one of urgency.

    WORKSOP AND BAWTRY RAILWAY BILL.
    Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a Committee sitting on the Worksop and Bawtry Railway Bill have granted a Clause

    2137
    for the protection of the Northern Union Mining Company, owned and controlled by German capitalists, and thereby continuing this company in control as lessees of 28,000 acres of coal-bearing land in the counties of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire; and whether he will take some steps to prevent these aliens from continuing as lessees of coal-bearing property in this country and to prevent trading with the enemy in this manner.
    Mr. McKENNA: The sinking operations at this colliery have been suspended since the outbreak of war, and is now lying idle. No question of trading with the enemy arises.
    Sir J. ROLLESTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the middle of last year arrangements were made to build houses for and plant 4,000 German workmen on this colliery, and does he consider that an operation suitable to be carried out by a company which asks for and obtains privileges from the British Legislature?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware as to what arrangements were made last year, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing of the sort has happened now. The colliery is lying idle; of that there can be no question.
    Sir J. ROLLESTON: When the War is over will those 4,000 Germans be allowed to come over here?
    Mr. McKENNA: The arrangements that were made have not been carried out. As to what was done by the Committee upstairs, the hon. Gentleman is better informed than I am.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Cannot this matter be safely left to the South Yorkshire miners?

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Sir W. BULLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a National Reservist whose services had been taken over by the Admiralty, and who is thus deprived of an enlistment bounty, would be given facilities to resign his position in the Navy so that he may enlist in the Army in order to secure the bounty; and, if not, whether new regulations can be made to prevent the loss of the bounty in such cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As regards the bounty referred to, the National Reserve was instituted for the benefit of the Army, and the bounty system was adopted to induce its members to join the Army. If, therefore, a National Reservist does not join the Army—for joining which he is offered a bounty—but elects to join the Navy—for which he is not offered a bounty—no bounty is paid. As far as is known, no application for transfer to the Army has yet been received from any National Reservist who has joined the Navy. Should such applications be put forward, each case would have to be decided on its own merits.

    INTERPRETERS (ROYAL NAVY).
    Mr. HOHLER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, during the present War, the Admiralty will grant acting appointments as interpreters in the languages of the belligerents to petty officers who hold a certificate of proficiency in those languages and whose services have been or may be utilised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Regulations only contemplate the definite appointment of officers as interpreters or acting-interpreters, and such appointments are only made after a strict examination. But I may say that there are several cases in which petty officers have been and are being employed on interpreting duties, for which they receive extra pay.
    Mr. HOHLER: What is the objection to giving these appointments to petty officers who have qualified themselves by their own endeavours?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have pointed out that there is an examination for interpreterships. There are petty officers, however, who are being employed and who get pay for this work. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman the Regulations.
    Mr. HOHLER: What I want to know is, what objection there is to giving them appointments?

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    FLEET RESERVE.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether those Royal Fleet Reserve men who are now doing

    2139
    civilian work in His Majesty's dockyards and elsewhere will be continued in that service and work after the War is over; and what will be the position of these men, who are not allowed to volunteer for active service because told to remain on and work as civilians?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Any such men now employed as civilians in the dockyards will be given every proper consideration as regards future employment, but I am afraid I cannot give a pledge that they will be retained permanently in the dockyard service. As regards the second part of the question, if the hon. Member refers to their position in the Royal Fleet Reserve, these men, whilst serving in the dockyards, will remain in the Royal Fleet Reserve on the same terms as in time of peace, and their time will count towards Royal Fleet Reserve pension or gratuity accordingly.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a certain number of shipriggers who had served twelve years in the Royal Navy and from seven to eleven years on the Royal Fleet Reserve, and have now become established in the dockyard, have since been told that they lose what they consider their right under Royal Fleet Reserve conditions to the Royal Fleet Reserve bonus; and, seeing that some of these men deny that they were informed that establishment would mean loss of bonus, will he have their case inquired into?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As establishment frees men from the obligation for active service, which is the condition of the Reserve, men so freed cannot continue to enjoy the advantage of service in the Reserve. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind cases of men who have completed twenty years combined service in the Royal Navy and in the Reserve before becoming established, and will furnish me with their names, etc., I will have their cases investigated.

    CLERICAL STAFFS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision regarding the increases of pay to the clerical staffs of His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments has yet been arrived at; whether the terms can be communicated to the House; and, if a decision has, not yet been reached, can a date be given when it may be expected?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as the members of the permanent clerical staff are concerned, the matter referred to in my hon. Friend's question is still under consideration. I am unable to say on what date the decision will be announced, but I hope that a settlement of the question will be reached shortly. For temporary members of the clerical staffs the following rates have been approved: At the West India Docks and Deptford, 30s. a week, rising to 35s. a week after a month's satisfactory service. At the Naval Ordnance Depot, Woolwich, 26s. to 30s. a week on entry, with gradual rises for approved service up to a maximum of 38s. a week; subject only to the condition that not more than 25 per cent. of the staff shall be on rates in excess of 30s. and not exceeding 34s. a week, and not more than 25 per cent. on rates in excess of 34s. a week. At Naval establishments outside the London and Woolwich area, 27s. a week on entry with a rise of 5s. a week for not more than 25 per cent. after six months' service.

    MEDICAL STAFFS.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the advance of wages given to the medical staffs of His Majesty's naval establishments and dockyards since June, 1914?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An advance of 1s. a week has been made to civilian male nurses at the Royal Marine infirmaries, and they also receive the emergency increase. The attendants on lunatics at Yarmouth Hospital with under five years' service have been granted 2s. a week, and with over five years' service 1s. a week. They also will receive the emergency increase. As regards naval hospitals, active service ratings (sick berth staff) are employed, supplemented during the War by St. John's Ambulance men; and no advances have been made to these other than those to which they are entitled under the Regulations, by service, and an additional ½d. a day messing or victualling allowance. The surgery attendants and assistant surgery attendants in the dockyards have participated in the emergency increase of 3s. a week as from the 28th March, 1915.

    GUNLAYERS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that there are a small number of men who had bought their discharge from the Navy but

    2141
    who have returned since the War and have gone through the gunlayers' course at Whale Island and elsewhere, but to whom the gunlayers' pay, given to all others who pass the gunlayers' course, is denied; and if he will have this matter seen to and remedied?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of any such cases, and I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that the regulations providing for the payment of gunnery pay to men who duly qualify in the gunnery schools are not being complied with. Any man who considers himself underpaid should consult his commanding officer in the matter.

  COASTGUARD.
  Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the coastguard pay is the same now as it was in 1856; that in 1907 there was a great reduction in numbers which adversely affected promotion; that none, except perhaps at signal stations, can attain to petty officer (coastguard) rating under the age of forty-five; that the £18 allowed for a house is in many cases given for cottages worth about half that rental; and that, while the retaining pay of 2d. is given, the re-engagement pay of 2d. is withheld; and if he will do anything to remedy all these grievances or any of them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the general question to which he refers has received close attention from time to time, but it has been decided that, taking all the conditions of service into consideration, no general alteration in the pay of the Coastguard was justified.

  PEAT LITTER (IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the measures the Department has taken to promote or encourage taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by the War for developing the bogs of Ireland and obtaining from them peat litter horse bedding, for those who have hitherto imported that article from Germany, and fuel for domestic and other purposes, in view of the increased price of coal?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As the hon. Member has already been informed on 21st May and 9th July, 1914, the Dutch system of cutting peat for moss litter purposes has been successfully introduced, with the Department's assistance, into certain districts in Ireland. It is understood that an increased business has been done by the existing Irish peat moss litter industries since the outbreak of the War. A producer gas installation in operation in Ireland, which uses peat in place of anthracite coal, appears to have thereby effected a considerable annual saving. The Department are at present making inquiries as to some other purposes for which peat might be used, and further experiments by private enterprise in this connection are about to be carried out.

  FULLER (CHARLES WILLIAM).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give any information regarding Charles William Fuller, residing in Mulheim, Ruhr, Germany, connected with the firm of C. W. Hett, Duisberg, and of whom nothing has been heard since the 30th of July, 1914; and whether he is aware that on the 19th March last his Department wrote to Fuller's relatives stating that inquiries would be made?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: Inquiries have already been made through the usual and only possible channels, but I much regret that no information has yet been obtained. In the circumstances, as stated, I shall be glad to request the United States Ambassador to cause such special inquiries as maybe possible to be instituted.

  4TH GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT (SERGEANT A. HARRIS).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if Sergeant Arthur Harris, late of the 4th Gloucestershire Regiment, has recently been discharged from the Army; if, in October last, following inoculation, he became very ill, with the further result that his mind became seriously affected and he was first placed in the Severalls Asylum, Colchester, and is now in the Gloucester Asylum; whether the allowance to his wife and four children ceased to be paid on

  2143
  29th March, and his family are now in receipt of no income whatever; whether the War Office affirm or deny that his illness has or may have resulted from the shock to the system caused by inoculation; and what assistance it proposes to give to the family of this soldier, who served through the South African War and who afterwards, up to the time of the present War, acted as a postman and was always in good health?
  Mr. TENNANT: Sergeant Harris was discharged on the 28th March last as being no longer physically fit for war service. He was first admitted to hospital on the 19th November last suffering from confusional insanity and was transferred to Severalls Asylum, Colchester, on the 21st November. The medical superintendent of the Asylum reports that the anti-typhoid inoculation has, in his opinion, nothing whatever to do with the mental disease from which Sergeant Harris is suffering, and that all the evidence which he has goes to prove that Harris lost his mental balance some time before he was inoculated. Separation allowance has been paid up to the 4th April, no further payment being due. The case will be laid before the Chelsea Commissioners. If they award a pension, as is probable, since the man's condition is attributed to the strain of military service, there is power to pay to his family any portion not required for his own maintenance.

  KHAKI UNIFORM (PRICE).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the cost and average duration of a soldier's khaki uniform prior to the War and since the War began, respectively; whether complaints have reached the War Office of uniforms made of shoddy material becoming worn and tattered prematurely; whether fresh supplies have in consequence had to be provided sooner than would have been necessary if the first had been of genuine quality; by what firms the material was supplied which lasted shortest; whether they have been paid on the same scale as those who supplied good material; and whether they have been struck off the War Office list of contractors?
  Mr. BAKER: The average price before the War of the soldier's khaki uniform, consisting of service dress-jacket, putties,
  2144
  trousers, cap, and great-coat, amounted to £2 3s. 11d., and the average duration of wear was one year, with the exception of the great-coat, which lasted from four to five years. The average price of the uniform since the War has varied at the different tenderings, but on the most recent tendering the increase has been about 10s. 6d. The average duration of wear since the War cannot be stated owing to the varying conditions of service involved. No complaints of the nature referred to by the hon. Member have been received.

  GERMAN AND BRITISH PRISONER OFFICERS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what payments are made by this country to German officer prisoners, and what payments do our own officer prisoners in Germany receive from that country?
  Mr. BAKER: German officers prisoners in this country receive 4s. a day (£6 a month) if below the rank of captain, and 4s. 6d. a day (£6 15s. a month) all other ranks, except medical officers, who under the Geneva Convention receive the full British pay of their ranks. Our officers prisoners in Germany of the same ranks receive £3 and £5 a month, respectively, and I have no information to show that medical officers receive more.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman make quite certain that these payments are received by our officers in Germany?
  Mr. BAKER: I believe such communication as is possible is going on at the present time in regard to this matter.

  MUNITIONS.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries he has made on the question I put to him yesterday: Whether he has seen a statement by the military correspondent of the "Times" that in the recent British attack in the districts of Fromelles and Richebourg the want of an unlimited supply of high explosives was a fatal bar to our success; if the statement was passed by the Censor; and why it was considered proper to inform the enemy that the British Army was short of ammunition?
  Sir RICHARD COOPER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given private notice: If it is the policy of the Government to discourage public discussion on the subject of munitions of war as being contrary to the public interest; and, if so, will he recommend the House to accept a motion excluding strangers on the Adjournment to-night for the purpose of affording Members only an opportunity of discussing this subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer both these questions together. Any such discussion at the present moment would, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be inopportune and possibly prejudicial to the strategic situation. I trust that it will not be raised. There will be ample opportunity hereafter, at a more convenient time, to debate the matter in all its aspects. Under existing conditions I strongly deprecate it in the highest interests of the country.
  Sir R. COOPER: Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman may I ask him whether he would personally consider the desirability of allowing Members to have an opportunity, if they so desire, to submit express proposals for consideration for the purpose of assisting the immediate position?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, certainly; I shall be most delighted to receive them.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The Prime Minister's answer does not cover the question. Would it be desirable to answer the point, as to this message having been passed by the Censor here or in France?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The statement was censored at General Headquarters in France.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: And did not come before the Press Bureau here?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, that is so; it never went before the Censor here.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Thank you, that is the point I want.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the grievances alleged by the London tramway workers and the serious inconvenience of a strike, he is prepared to offer the services of the Industrial Commissioners as a means of arbitrating between the contending parties?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot at the moment say more than that the Board of Trade are in communication with the parties with a view to a satisfactory settlement of this unfortunate dispute.

  Local Services (Expenditure).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the net result of the retrenchments effected by the Treasury in the Estimates for the current year in the three Classes II. (Salaries and Expenses of Civil Departments), III. (Law and Justice), and IV. (Education, Science and Art), is that the expenditure on purely local services in England, eliminating United Kingdom services, has been increased by £408,497; that expenditure on Irish services has been increased by £215,296, while the expenditure on Scottish services has been decreased by £141,569; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure an approximately equal distribution of retrenchment due to the War upon the services of England, Ireland, and Scotland?
  Mr. ACLAND: I find some difficulty in following my hon. Friend's figures, which, even within the classes enumerated by him, appear to put the increase of Irish expenditure some £50,000 higher than is shown in the Estimates, and to treat as wholly English the provision of £145,000 for war losses of universities, etc., of which a considerable part will be applicable to Scotland. The figures are further invalidated by the fact that they cover only part of the total civil expenditure of the year. The reduction in Scottish expenditure to which my hon. Friend refers would be more than accounted for by the reduction in the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, and I should have been glad to direct similar reductions in money to be spent in the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom had there been any similar fund in England or Ireland with a large balance. Economies are effected wherever opportunity presents itself without regard to the particular part of the country affected, a principle which, to my mind, needs no apology.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that the net result of the economies effected has been to increase the expenditure on local services in England and Ireland and to decrease the expenditure on local services in Scotland?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes. That is largely because local services happen to be paid for in Scotland out of taxes which in England are paid out of rates.

  Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how much of the balance of £394,000 to the credit of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund is ear-marked for expenditure to which the Board is already committed, or in respect of which it has undertaken the initial steps; and how much is free for the initiation of entirely new development under the Smallholders (Scotland) Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend's question as to expenditure in respect of schemes in regard to which the Board has undertaken the initial steps is, I regret, not one which it is possible for me to answer.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state, with regard to this large sum accumulated out of this revenue for the past three years, whether it is ear-marked or not, or whether it is a quite free balance?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly it is not all ear-marked; the greater part is not ear-marked.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much is earmarked and how much is not?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member is putting conundrums that neither I nor anybody else can answer. Schemes in their initial stages are sanctioned by me every week, and I cannot reply to the question.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the money could easily have been spent if my right hon. Friend had been given, by his colleagues in the Cabinet, the machinery which would have enabled him to spend this money which is due to Scotland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to say that; but I am bound to state that I think the money we have is sufficient for our purposes this year.

  Australian Mail Service.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that the Commonwealth Government intend at an early date to establish steamship ser-
  2148
  vices between the mainland and Tasmania and between Australia and the United Kingdom; and, if so, can he supply details as to the scope of this enterprise?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It was stated in the speech of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth at the opening of Parliament last October that his advisers were in favour of establishing a line of Commonwealth steamers, and that measures to this end would be taken as soon as practicable. So far as I am aware, no detailed proposals have yet been put forward by the Commonwealth Government.

  House of Commons.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will consider the propriety of increasing the pay of those employed in the lighting and ventilating department of the House of Commons, to meet the increased cost of living?
  Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): So far as the men in question are contractors' men the First Commissioner has nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 9th instant. As regards men directly employed, the First Commissioner can only conform to the policy laid down by His Majesty's Government for the service as a whole.
  Colonel YATEasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether provision can be made in this year's Estimates for the construction of a self-working lift up the Members' old staircase?
  Mr. REA: The First Commissioner is unable to make provision for this service in this year's Estimates, as the Vote has already been agreed to. In view of the need for economy and the fact that a passenger lift for the use of Members has recently been installed, he hopes that another lift will not be found necessary.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a note of this question for consideration under next year's Estimates?
  Mr. REA: I have no doubt it will be considered if there be any real demand for it, but we must have regard to economy in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said.

  Research and Scientific Education.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether any programme has been adopted for the scheme of research and scientific education for which a Supplementary Estimate is to be presented; and what amount will be necessary in the next succeeding financial years?
  Mr. PEASE: I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject. I intimated in my speech on the 13th that the development of the work would involve substantial State aid in future years.

  Dalkey Post Office.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the date upon which Mrs. Somers, late postmistress at Dalkey, after twenty-three years' satisfactory service, was furnished with particulars of the charges made against her by a rival in the service; the time and opportunity given her for rebutting the charges; the date upon which her defence was considered; the date upon which she was dismissed without pension; and whether it is usual to dismiss postal officials without pension after twenty-three years' satisfactory service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The charges made against the late sub-postmistress were fully stated to her by the officer from London who conducted the inquiry at Dalkey in December last. My decision to remove her from office was given on the 22nd of February. I endeavoured to make it clear in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 12th May that Mrs. Somers would not have been eligible for a pension however long she had been allowed to retain her position.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said what time and opportunity were given to Mrs. Somers to make her defence?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I answered that question in a reply to the hon. Gentleman on the 4th May. I do not think there is any necessity to repeat that answer after so short an interval.

  Post Office Savings Bank (Lost Deposit Book).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Postmaster-General whether he will inquire into the case of John King, deceased, who had money in the Post Office Savings Bank,
  2150
  who was employed on the Great Southern and Western Railway between Cork and Limerick, and who died in the Cork Infirmary in September, 1911; and whether, in view of the fact that the deposit book is lost and also that the deceased's mother is in poor circumstances, he will immediately inquire what amount of money is still on deposit in the name of John King?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is practically impossible to trace a Savings Bank account unless it can be stated at what Post Office it was opened. In Ireland alone there are more than 100,000 accounts and more than 1,360 offices. When application was first made in 1911 in the case of John King, the most likely ledgers were searched in vain, and further search has been made from time to time in response to fresh suggestions as to the office at which an account might have been opened. I regret that it is not now possible to do anything more unless some definite particulars of the supposed account can be furnished.
  Mr. FLAVIN: If this man is dead, and his Post Office book is lost, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see if any amount is payable to a John King which has been deposited in Ireland and transferred to London?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say that, because we do not know at what office the account was opened. If the hon. Gentleman can communicate the name of the office I shall be glad to have inquiry made.
  Mr. FLAVIN: This man told his mother there was money to his credit in the Post Office Savings Bank. The deposit book is lost. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry and find out if any money is credited to a John King?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We cannot trace it unless the office of deposit is known.

  Morphia (Exports).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can offer any explanation of the fact that the export of morphia and morphia salts from the United Kingdom to Japan rose from 58,352 ounces in 1911 to 352,130 ounces in 1914?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am causing inquiries to be made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Gentleman.

  Foundering of Steamship "Hydro."
  Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Board of Trade inquiry at Liverpool into the foundering of the steamship "Hydro" covered a period extending from 8th April to 16th April last, and that the whole time occupied by the Court in conducting the inquiry amounted to less than twenty-four hours; and, if so, having regard to the public expenditure involved in protracted inquiries of this kind, he will take steps to insure that these Board of Trade inquiries will be dealt with by the Court for each full day and without adjournment from day to day with long intervals?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the formal investigation into the loss of the "Hydro" the Court sat to hear the case from Thursday, 8th April, to Wednesday, 14th April inclusive, and the only weekday on which the Court did not sit was the Saturday. Judgment was given on Friday, 16th April. The hearing of Formal Investigations into Shipping Casualties at Liverpool has to be fitted in with the Stipendiary Magistrate's other duties, and the length and frequency of the sittings depend upon the time the magistrate can spare from ordinary Police Court work. The desirability of expedition in dealing with these investigations is, I can assure the hon. Member, fully appreciated.
  Mr. STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving some assistance to this Stipendiary seeing that his time is so fully occupied?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman, is referring to assistance on the civil side of the work and not as regards the mercantile marine side he must address the question to the Home Office. I cannot answer it.

  Treasury Grants (County Kerry Deductions).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Secretary to the Treasury the amount deducted from the Kerry County Council for insufficiency of income under Section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, for each year 1903 to 1915, inclusive; also the amount deducted out of grants to the Kerry County Council under the Land Purchase Acts for defaulting annuitants; also the amount refunded for each year 1903 to 1915, inclusive; and whether he can
  2152
  state if the whole of the moneys deducted by the Treasury are a permanent loss to the ratepayers of Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have been asked by my hon. Friend to answer this question. The deductions referred to in the first part of the question began in 1911 and are as follows: In 1911 £674, in 1912 £363, in 1913 £391, in 1914 £430, and in 1915 £420. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the questions of the hon. Member for West Kerry on the 28th July last and 10th instant. The amounts deducted for insufficiency of income under Section 58 of the Local Government Act are a permanent loss to the ratepayers, but as regards deductions in respect of arrears of land purchase annuities, in the majority of cases these arrears are subsequently repaid by the tenant purchasers and in such cases the county concerned is refunded the amounts repaid.

  Civil Service (Employment of Women).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken by the Civil Service Commissioners to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service that women should be admitted to the higher grades of civil servants?
  Mr. ACLAND: I can assure my hon. Friend that heads of departments in the Civil Service are alive to the desirability of employing women to take the place of men who wish to serve their country in the field whenever this can be done without detriment to the public service. But, as my hon. Friend will see from Paragraph 27 of Chapter X. of the Report of the Royal Commissioners, their recommendations—which are not quite correctly described in his question—would entail a systematic inquiry and subsequent action which could hardly be undertaken at the present time. The Civil Service Commissioners are not directly concerned in the matter.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what he proposes to do this Session for the completion of land purchase in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on this subject by the Prime Minister on the 29th ultimo.
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment.

  Disturbances in Travancore (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether recent disturbances at Nayyatankarei and Parrasala, in Travancore, were due to the action of the Durbar in forcing the pace in the way of obliterating or weakening caste divisions and distinctions in the State; and, if so, whether any advice to this effect, whether or not authorised or approved by the Local Government, was given to the Durbar?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Secretary of State has received no information on the subject since the hon. Member's question was answered on 9th February.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  IMMATURE SPIRITS (RESTRICTION) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  IMMATURE SPIRITS (RESTRICTION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction on Delivery for the Purposes of Home Consumption of Immature Spirits.)
    (1) No British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption unless they have been warehoused for a period of at least three years:
    Provided that—

    (a) this restriction shall not apply to spirits delivered for purposes for which they may for the time being be delivered free of duty or to mixtures, compounds or preparations which have been charged to duty in respect of the spirit contained in them or used in their preparation or manufacture; and

    (b) subject to the payment of such duties (if any) as Parliament may determine, and to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose, this restriction shall not apply—

    (i) to spirits delivered to a licensed rectifier, to a manufacturing chemist, or to a manufacturer of perfumes, for use in their manufactures, or to other persons licensed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; or

    (ii) to spirits delivered for scientific purposes; or

    (iii) to imported Geneva and perfumed spirits, and foreign liqueurs; and

    (c) subject to the payment of such duties (if any) as Parliament may determine and to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose, this restriction shall not apply for a period of one year after the commencement of this Act—

    (i) to spirits of any sort delivered for home consumption, if they have been warehoused for a period of at least two years; or

    (ii) to imported rum delivered for home consumption, if it has been warehoused for a period of at least nine months; and

    2172

    (d) any period which, in the case of imported spirits is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have elapsed between the dates of distillation and importation shall be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a period during which the spirits have been warehoused.

    (2) If any person procures, or attempts to procure, the delivery of spirits in contravention of this Act, or acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any conditions imposed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in pursuance of this Act, he shall be liable to a Customs or Excise penalty, as the case may be, of one hundred pounds; and any spirits in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be forfeited.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "consumption" ["delivered for home consumption"], to insert the words "during the period of the War."
    This Amendment will make the Clause read that no British or foreign spirit shall be delivered for home consumption during the period of the War. I shall not occupy the attention of the House for long in explaining my reasons for this proposal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member proposing to move his first Amendment?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Yes, not the twenty years one, but that relating to the period of the War. Am I able to discuss the points of my other Amendments on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not the "twenty years"—I could not accept that. That is an objection to the Bill as a whole. The hon. Member's proper course would be to move to reject the Bill on Third Reading. He could move his first Amendment—"during the period of the War"—as it stands by itself. That is an allowable Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: If the Amendment to insert "twenty years" is ruled out of order, I do not desire to move my first Amendment, as that was the reason for moving it. May I take it, then, that if this specific term of twenty years will cause the Amendment to be out of order, a less number of years would bring it into order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The suggestion that no whisky is to be drunk except after it has been in bond twenty years is absurd, and

    2173
    makes nonsense of the Bill. It is tendered in a "spirit of mockery," and, therefore, I cannot, accept it; but the hon. Member is entitled, if he likes, to move the first Amendment to limit the Bill to the duration of the War.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Could I move subsequently that the period should be ten years, or would you, Mr. Speaker, indicate what period would relieve me of an absurd Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better move his first Amendment, and when that is disposed of the matter can be considered.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Then I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not quite sure what Amendment I have to answer, because the Amendment standing alone simply limits the Bill to the duration of the War. That is not the object of my hon. Friend. His object is to move that in order afterwards to insert ten, fifteen, or twenty years. I, therefore, really do not know what I am to answer. I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: My difficulty has arisen from Mr. Speaker's ruling that the next Amendment standing in my name is out of order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken; he is not entitled to speak twice.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not know what the intention of the hon. Member is, but the Amendment as it stands would limit this Bill for the period of the War. That may not be his intention, but it is the Amendment which he has moved, and, personally, I am in favour of that Amendment. As this Bill is an emergency Bill, it should be limited to the duration of the War. There have been various arguments which appear to be almost unanswerable, and the first is that we are supposed now only to deal with emergency legislation required for the War, and, therefore, it is consistent that we should make that legislation what we suppose and what we think it ought to be—namely, for the duration of the War. The second
    2174
    reason is that, if we limit this Bill for the duration of the War the compensation which will have to be paid, I believe, will be less. That seems to be perfectly clear, because the Irish people will only lose the sale of their liquor for the duration of the War, and, therefore, the compensation to be paid to them is the loss which will fall upon them during that period. If, on the other hand, we leave the period unlimited, the Irish whisky people might perfectly well say, "Here is this Bill which will destroy our business for a period of three years, and at the end of that time the probability is our business will have gone into other channels, and we shall not be able to get it back. Under those circumstances we shall require such compensation as will put us in a position which we should have been in if we had been able to dispose of our business to a willing purchaser." Therefore, under those circumstances, and if it is clear that the compensation to be paid must be much larger than if the period is limited to the duration of the War, and in view of the enormous sums of money we are paying to everybody, and the enormous increase of our debt, I think we ought seriously to consider every shilling we are paying, and if we can save compensation or anything else by making any alteration in the Bill, we ought to do so.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): The hon. Baronet speaks, as he always does speak, in the interests of economy, but I do not think really this Amendment would make for economy. Let us see what would really happen. The extra expenditure on these firms, I submit, would be largely in the direction, first of all, of not getting their ordinary profits from sales during this year, and, consequently, having to provide warehouses and so on in which to keep their whisky until it reached the right age for sale. I do not know how long the War is going to last, but towards the end of the War they will be beginning to get the value of what they have spent on their whiskies, and their trade will be all the better, no doubt permanently, for having kept these whiskies a sufficient time. Therefore I submit that to make all the expenditure in building warehouses useless to the firms by saying that, In any case, there shall be no chance of getting any return out of that expenditure when the War is over, will certainly be, used by the firms as an argument to increase compensation rather than decrease it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that in all probability it will be useless for them to build warehouses because their trade will be gone—the Scottish people will have got it?
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not think it is so bad as all that. I think so long as it can be put on the market cheaply enough, people will buy it
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think my Friends here will agree with me when I say we do not expect very much benefit to come from this Bill if it should be passed into law. Notwithstanding that, we have no desire to limit the operation of this Bill to the period of the War. If the hon. Member is not going to move his consequential Amendment there is no reason why we should support this Amendment. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving a shorter term than twenty years, and I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, would consider that a practical Amendment which you could accept. If I get an affirmative answer, then we should persist in the Amendment now before the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I am no expert in these matters. I do not know how long whisky is kept in bond, but I am quite sure that a period of twenty years is extremely absurd.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware that many spirit merchants advertise that they sell no whisky unless it has been ten years in bond.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: If the term of three years is agreed to it practically means the prohibition of the sale of these spirits because there is no stock.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I really cannot name any fixed period, but I do say that to suggest twenty years is ludicrous.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Would a period of seven years be in order? I understand that the best whisky is kept for seven years in bond, and therefore an Amendment of that kind would secure that none but the best whisky would be sold.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: An Amendment was ruled out of order yesterday beause it practically amounted to the actual prohibition of the sale of spirits. To put in the period
    2176
    named would do exactly the same thing. It would amount to prohibition because there is no stock.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will accept four or five years.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "three," and insert instead thereof the word "five."
    Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, places me in a difficulty because I am not sure that there is such a vast difference between five and two years to effect the purpose I have in mind. We know that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) moved a resolution of prohibition for the period of the War, and that was ruled out of Order. Some hon. Members who support the right hon. Gentleman expressed great regret that that should have happened, and the feeling throughout the House was that a measure of prohibition during the War would have met the feelings of the House and the public sentiment outside the House. That led me to put down an Amendment making the period twenty years, my object being to get as near prohibition as I possibly could. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that there was a great and significant difference between raw whisky and well-matured whisky, and I was very much impressed by that statement. If there is such a vast beneficial difference through maturing whisky for three years then there must be a still greater benefit accruing if you mature it for five years. The right hon. Gentleman told us a story about two monkeys, one of them having been given raw whisky and getting offensive, while the other was given matured whisky and remained genial and everything that a monkey should be. I do not know whether the whisky that had that effect had really been matured for only three years, but probably it was whisky which had matured for five years, and therefore, to carry the principle expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his example into effect, I think the right hon. Gentleman should support the Amendment, and make the period five years. The longer whisky is matured and kept in bond the better it is, and if it is kept in bond altogether till the War is over so much the better. I ask those to support this Amendment who object to the view held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    2177
    when he said, in relation to certain proposals of his for restricting consumption of drink:—
    "We miss the fearlessness of Hugh Price Hughes more than ever when you have the House of Commons quailing before a huge crowd of Irish publicans and distillers."
    I think it was the Government that quailed on that occasion and not the House of Commons. I feel that by moving this Amendment and by extending the term, it will afford the House of Commons an opportunity of relieving itself of the innuendo and aspersion cast upon it in the words which I have quoted.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to second this Amendment, seeing that this proposal has the support of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) I think we may take it as a proposal which it is safe to adopt.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The longer it is kept in bond the better.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The reason I am opposed to this Bill is that we have to pay compensation, and the longer the period the more the compensation. I object to the House of Commons being asked to pass a measure which in itself does not say a single word about compensation, and yet this Bill goes before a Committee who will decide the amount of the compensation, and the House of Commons does not even know the reference which that Committee will have before it, and we do not know who will be paid and who will not be paid. Consider the position in which we stand. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that compensation will only be paid if a business is completely ruined. Is that to be paid merely on the dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not object to discussing the question of compensation at the proper moment, but this is not the right Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I take it that if the period is not extended the amount of compensation will not be increased.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the point which the hon. Baronet wishes to raise is one which should be dealt with on the Third Reading, when the whole subject will be open to discussion.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then I will defer my remarks.
    Mr. ACLAND: Both hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment have been quite frank with the House in stating what was their desire in putting forward this Amendment. One hon. Member says his object is to get as near prohibition as he can, and the other hon. Member is opposed to the Bill on the question of compensation. I do not think hon. Members realise the difficulty that my right hon. Friend had in this matter. I will not say there is an agreement because the Government is asking those concerned to go very much further than they want to go. I do not think hon. Members realise how difficult it will be if we accept such an Amendment as this to arrive at any settlement or understanding which would enable the Bill to go through at all.
    Sir E. CARSON: There is no settlement at all.
    Mr. ACLAND: I agree that there has been no settlement, and this is being done in the face of great opposition. I think if hon. Members would only realise that fact they would hardly ask us to change the whole basis of the Bill at the eleventh hour, with the inevitable consequence of arousing again all the feelings of opposition to the Bill. It is really almost impossible now to change the whole policy and put the whole proposal in a different light. There has been no agreement. One cannot say that to make this change would absolutely amount to a breach of faith, but it is a fact, as hon. Members present yesterday will remember, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) said that while in no way withdrawing or modifying his opposition to the Bill, yet if it remained the policy of the Government to pass it in its present form he would allow the opposition of those he represented to be overridden. That was stated on the basis of the period at present named in the Bill, and it is hardly possible, in view of that position, suddenly to entirely revert to another period, although many of us on both sides of the House may have considerable sympathy with the general principles in hon. Members' minds, namely, to approach nearer to absolute prohibition. I hope the House will not ask us after the Bill has gone so far to reverse the central principles in it.
    Sir E. CARSON: I only desire to say that so far as the distillers who claimed my attention when I put the matter before the House are concerned, it does not matter one iota whether this Amendment

    2179
    is carried or not. The Bill has been framed to ruin them as regards their stocks, and to suit other distillers as regards their stocks; consequently you may as well insert twenty or any other figure so far as I am concerned.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Assuming the circumstance with regard to these particular distillers to be as stated, we would really like to know if it is proposed to give them compensation on the basis of their business having been destroyed or what is the basis? That is really very important from the point of view of this Amendment, because there may be others affected by it. The amount of compensation will presumably be paid upon the amount of damage, and, if the period were increased from three to five years, there would presumably be more damage done and therefore a greater amount of compensation payable. I suggest that the House should be informed on that point, and that we should know how we stand. It affects my view very much, because if it means increased compensation I should certainly be against the Amendment and should want the period shortened as much as possible.
    Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LOUGH: On the point of Order. I would like to ask how we can raise a question with regard to new matter in the Bill? It was not circulated till this morning, and it was not till this morning that we saw that the Government had introduced new provisions, particularly Clause 1 (a). How could I call attention to that matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading.
    Mr. LOUGH: Nothing could be done on the Third Reading. No Amendment could be carried.
    Sir E. CARSON: Move to leave it out.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), at the end to insert the words, "Nothing contained in this Section shall interfere with the supply of rectified spirits of wine for the purpose of making medicines to registered medical practitioners, to hospitals, and to persons, firms, and bodies corporate entitled to carry on the business of a chemist and druggist."
    Mr. LOUGH: On the point of Order. This is on Clause 2.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: No, Clause 1.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Islington is quite wrong.
    Mr. LOUGH: It would cut out the question which I wish to raise.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have given notice of his Amendment.
    Mr. LOUGH: I could not do so because I had not seen the Bill.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I was profoundly dissatisfied with the position in which this matter stood when I left the House yesterday, and my misgiving was greatly increased this morning when I received two communications—one from the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, speaking for the whole of the pharmacists of Great Britain and Ireland, and the other from the British Medical Association, asking that this Amendment should be moved to-day on the ground that they as experts are satisfied that the Bill as it stands does seriously interfere with their obtaining, as they now obtain, rectified spirits of wine for the purpose of making medicines. The position in the Bill is this: Spirits, if they are immature—if they have not been bonded for a term of three years—cannot be delivered except to certain people who are specified in Clause 1, paragraph (b)(i),
    "… to a licensed rectifier, to a manufacturing chemist, or to a manufacturer of perfumes, for use in their manufactures, or to other persons licensed for the purpose by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise."
    Yesterday I pointed out that you were there limiting the people who could get rectified spirits of wine to those named in the Bill, namely, manufacturing chemists and manufacturers of perfumes. The Government did then accept an Amendment to add the words "other persons licensed for the purpose by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise," but in accepting that Amendment the right hon. Gentleman made it very clear indeed that he could not recommend the House or the Commissioners of Excise to grant licences to pharmacists. If pharmacists, doctors, and hospitals are not to be allowed to obtain this rectified spirit, then the position is, indeed, extremely serious. The Pharmaceutical Society have forwarded me a copy of a letter which they have addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in which they have put to

    2181
    him the arguments in favour of this Amendment. I cannot do better than quote those arguments:—
    "The society is seriously perturbed by the provisions of the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Bill as it left the Committee stage in the House last night. It is essential to the preparation of medicine that rectified spirits of wine should be available for use by registered medical men, hospitals, and pharmacists for the making of preparations of the British Pharmacopœia. In the 1914 Edition of the Pharmacopœia there are 27 preparations and of these rectified spirits of wine is a necessary ingredient in 163. As the law stands it is absolutely illegal for anybody to make those preparations of anything but the rectified spirits of wine."
    That being so, it is essential to the carrying on of these people's business that they should be in a position to obtain rectified spirits of wine, which is the only substance which they can legally use in making 163 out of 400 odd preparations in the Pharmacopœia. The other point which they bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that an investigation of roughly 20,000 chemists' prescriptions showed that 2,521 of them contain Pharmacopœia ingredients made with rectified spirits of wine, and in 343 of them rectified spirits of wine was actually prescribed as a distinct ingredient itself. In another batch of 13,000 nearly 6,000 contained spirituous medicines of the British Pharmacopœia, all required to be made with rectified spirits of wine. I do ask attention to this matter, because it may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that he and his advisers are satisfied that it is already provided for in the Bill. It is important, however, that these experts should themselves be satisfied, and they say that no provision is made in the Bill to enable medical practitioners and pharmacists to obtain that spirit.
    "My society feel confident that neither the Government nor Parliament desire to change the conditions under which doctors and pharmacists obtain rectified spirits of wine for this purpose at present, and in order that this shall be made quite clear in the Bill the society have asked Mr. Glyn-Jones to move the amendment."
    That is a very important pronouncement from the body which represent the whole of the pharmacists of Great Britain and Ireland. I have another communication to which the House will, I am sure, pay equal attention. The British Medical Association have this morning directed a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they have sent me a copy. The British Medical Association have no pecuniary interest in the matter at all. If the Government say that they are not to have rectified spirits of wine—well, the people who will suffer will be their
    2182
    patients, and not themselves. These people responsible for the practise of medicine in this country to-day tell the House now, and they have told the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that—
    "The association notes with great concern that, according to the provisions of the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Bill, it will be impossible for doctors who dispense their own medicines, and for pharmacists who dispense medicines for doctors, to obtain rectified spirits of wine."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that he proposes to accept this Amendment. I am quite convinced that it has never been the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to interfere with the existing arrangements with regard to rectified spirits of wine.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move to leave out Clause 2.
    I move this Amendment for the purpose of asking my right hon. Friend exactly how far the Clause goes. It is quite new in the Bill since yesterday. It deals with existing contracts, and I may say incidentally that it shows how wide the difficulties may be which the Bill may raise. It says that where existing contracts are interfered with by the Act the contractors shall, to the extent of such interference, be relieved therefrom. Of course that is quite clear, but it raises the question of compensation again. If they are relieved from their contracts, of course it means that they will not be forced to carry out contracts which might be contrary to the law. Will they have a claim for compensation for the amount of profit that they might have made if they had completed their contract? I believe that these whisky transactions are often stretched over a considerable period and affect the second and third year of manufacture. I want to know whether the Compensation Clause will make good to these people who have made contracts any losses they may suffer by not being allowed to carry out their contracts? I do not know how far it may be necessary to object to the Clause. I do not move the Amendment in any hostile spirit, but the Clause is quite new, and we have not had time to

    2183
    consider it. Therefore I move the Amendment for the purpose of getting information.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is practically the same Clause as was inserted in the Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Act. It is to safeguard the case of a distiller who has undertaken to deliver a certain quantity of, say, six months' old spirit, or even younger spirit, and who will now be unable to do so. He would have been liable to damages if it had not been for this Clause. Therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) was perfectly right in insisting on the same Clause being inserted here as was inserted to meet the case of engineers in the Defence of the Realm Act. So far from this increasing compensation, the effect will be to diminish any possible compensation, because there might have been a heavy claim for compensation against any particular distiller who failed to deliver the goods, and that claim might have been passed on to the Government.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the Government make good any lost profit?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, we could not do that.
    Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I spoke very strongly against this Bill last night, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appeal to me on the ground that there are now sitting two very important Committees which he has to attend. I was prepared, to make a speech occupying three-quarters of an hour in opposition to this Bill, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer assures me that there are two important Committees which in his opinion it is vital that he should attend, I do not think it would be right to prolong the discussion. I will only say that I think it very unfortunate that this Bill should have gone forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the position of being able to persuade this House to do anything which the House does not want to do. One of the leading gentlemen connected with the railway world said to me, "Mr. Lloyd George has a most wonderful voice; he can persuade me to do anything, because
    2184
    he has a voice which would make the birds in the trees sing." He can at any rate persuade the House against its better judgment to pass measures which not a single man on either side wants to see passed. If I persisted in voting against this Bill I should probably, under the circumstances, be in a minority of one; and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes an appeal to me in a time of great national danger I have nothing to do but to let him have the Bill. Therefore, I would put it to hon. Members who share my views, seeing that we can do no good for fighting the Government, as they have a majority and they have the Whips behind them, that, having made our protest in the most forcible language we can command, the only thing we can do is to let them have the Bill.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: As the hon. Baronet opposite has spoken about the persuasive tongue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish to guard myself and those who think with me against its being supposed that we have been in any way persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence. We have not at all. We remain of the opinion that we have held throughout, that this Bill will do no possible good towards increasing the output of munitions, but that it will do a very serious injustice to a considerable and important industry in which we take particular interest. This is only one more case, of which there are many, where we have entirely sunk our own views and principles in obedience to one consideration, and one consideration alone—not because we have been persuaded that the views of the right hon. Gentleman are correct, but in obedience to the appeal to the patriotism of the House and of the country. We feel that at the present time, whatever the Government say on their responsibility may be necessary for the efficient carrying on of the War, such an appeal is one which under no circumstances we would be justified in resisting. For that reason, and for that reason only, we acquiesce in the passing of this Bill.
    Mr. COWAN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words, "upon this day three months."
    My object in moving this Amendment is not to destroy the Bill—I hardly think it worth destroying; it can do no good and possibly very little harm—but in order to give the Government an opportunity of

    2185
    stating, after twenty-four hours' reflection, what the approximate amount of compensation payable under this Bill is likely to be. Many Members on both sides of the House feel that they are entitled to some indication of that sort. Is it a matter of £5,000 or of £200,000, or is it, as some fear, a matter of perhaps £5,000,000 or £10,000,000? If I believed that this Bill was going to confer any real benefit on the country or contribute in any material degree to the more rapid production of munitions, I should be the last Member even to criticise it. But knowing as I do that there is so large a quantity of immature spirits free in the country out of bond, a quantity which, beyond dispute, will supply all the munition workers at any rate for six months, I cannot regard the Bill as a real emergency Bill, nor the compensation payable under it as a legitimate item of war expenditure. Therefore, although believing in compensation wherever a legitimate interest is prejudiced for the benefit of the nation, I cannot approve of any large compensation being payable under this measure, because I do not believe that the nation will receive any value for it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I understood that until after the War no contentious measure was to be brought forward. I am at a loss to understand what is a contentious measure. If a Bill is opposed by the Front Opposition Bench, or by the Leader of the Irish Party, it becomes a contentious measure and is at once withdrawn; but if it is opposed by Members on the Back Benches on this side and by a few Members on the other side, somehow or other it ceases to be a contentious measure and is pushed forward, although many of us strongly object to it. What is the case in regard to this Bill? My right hon. Friend brings it forward and immediately the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) rises and says, "No, this is wrong. You are going to destroy the business of some of my clients, or of some of my friends. Therefore I shall oppose the Bill." A little conversation goes on across the Table, and immediately everything is smoothed. But no consideration at all is given to us on this side. A bargain is made, a promise is given, some solatium is offered by way of compensation to certain distillers in
    2186
    Ireland. That we know is at the back of this Bill, and that is really why we object to it. If this compensation was to be general, and the object to be obtained really worth it, I for one would not object. But when you come to look into the matter and see that the Bill does not touch gin, brandy, or rum, or if it does it does so very gingerly, and that it does not touch all the present stocks on the merchants' premises or in their warehouses, you find that it is of very small value and is really not worth paying compensation for. If you were going to pay compensation on a just principle there would be something to be said for it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when the point of the Irish distillers was made, immediately said, "Oh, no, there are other people. Take the case of the trawlers." He himself instanced the case of the trawlers. In their case the exigencies of the State have actually shut down a good and beneficent business, but they are being left out in the cold altogether. If you said that everybody whose business was injured to the extent of 20 per cent., 50 per cent., or 80 per cent. was to be recompensed, I could understand it; but you find that the whole of the compensation is going to be paid to two or three Irish distillers, and there the matter ends. The Financial Secretary let something out which rather confirms what I say. What these distillers want is to be able to build bonded warehouses so as to be in the same position as the distillers who already have them. The figure he gave was something like £250,000. The whole of this Bill is to give compensation to three or four men and to nobody else.
    Moreover, this Bill is not to affect the munition areas at all. The Government have already complete power to deal with those areas. This Bill is to effect a wayside temperance reform of very doubtful value, in a time of stress when we are not allowed to vote against the Government or to put pressure upon them. We are not here for the purpose of discussing a temperance measure at all. The Bill is brought forward as an emergency measure, but there is not a single element of emergency in it. My right hon. Friend rested his argument really upon the monkey case, showing that with mature spirits a man might be intoxicated and become maudlin drunk, whereas with immature spirits he would become quarrelsome drunk. I do not care whether a man is quarrelsome drunk or maudlin drunk,

    2187
    he is contemptible in either case, and it does not make much difference to the public good which it is. I do not object to compensation being paid if the object is worth it; and at this time when money is being thrown about I would not object to compensation being given to a man who lost his business, or a part of his business, because of the exigencies of the State. But when I see money going to be spent for the purpose of compensating the very people who are giving out raw spirits to the public, and compensation refused to the trawlers for the loss of their business, it seems to me so grossly unjust and inequitable, and so against all moral principles, that I shall have to vote against the Bill.
    Mr. DENMAN: Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer inform us how the compensation will be paid? Shall we in this House first have an opportunity of examining an estimate, and then, if we so desire, of voting on the amount? I quite understand that the Commission will make recommendations, and I take it that the voting of the money will still remain with the House.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the Government insist on going on with this Bill, in the beneficent effect of which hardly anyone, believes, the country must necessarily pay the piper. I have risen only to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case, as the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division suggested yesterday, that the claims for compensation will be claims which the Government may or may not, as they please, honour. I understand that there is an absolute obligation upon the Government to favourably consider every claim upon which the Compensation Committee favourably reports. As the hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to withdraw that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think it worth while even now to say that that is so. When I put a question to the Prime Minister—it was put down before the Debate yesterday, or I should have taken it off the Paper—I did so because the matter was very important. The Bill is very harsh to the trade concerned, particularly in England. It has been argued chiefly on the Irish and the Scotch case. As to the persuasive eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not regard the language of exaggeration which the right hon. Gentleman sometimes uses, when, for instance, he com-
    2188
    pares drink with the Germans and when he says that this House has quailed before the Irish, as being in any way persuasive. The truth is that the House has not thought that the measure is calculated to carry out the object in view.
    Mr. LOUGH: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) that no attention has been paid to the expostulations urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer from this side of the House. On the contrary, three or four great changes have been made in the Bill, and my right hon. Friend, in reply to a question I put to him with regard to Clause 2, said something that should, to a certain extent, comfort some of my hon. Friends who are anxious upon the question of compensation. He explained that although the men who had made contracts will be relieved from any necessity of fulfilling those contracts, yet they will not have any claim to compensation for the profits they might have made under the contracts. That relieved my anxiety about Clause 2, and tends considerably to limit the question of compensation. My right hon. Friend will, I think, feel bound to say another word on the question of compensation, and I should like very much to hear the answer to the questions which have just been put to him. I wish to call his attention particularly to something that is new in the Bill, especially at the beginning of Clause 2, where we find exempted from the restrictions all mixtures, compounds, or preparations which have been charged duty in respect of the spirit contained in them. This may lead to the growth of a great trade in mixtures, compounds, and preparations that will have all this young whisky in them, and which will be a substitute for the immature whisky that might otherwise have been distributed. Those words are now before us for the first time, owing to the hurry of the proceedings, of which I do not complain. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can reassure us as to these words because they appear to deprive the Bill of meaning. We know that the night before a fair in Ireland, mixtures, compounds, and preparations are made up containing trifling proportions of "finish," or deleterious things which would not be worth keeping. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is 'finish'?"] It is something used in connection with varnish.
    According to paragraph (b) we find that this Bill is not to apply "to other persons

    2189
    licensed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise." Who are these favoured "other persons"? The provision may be all right, but are these exemptions to be given wholesale by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise? I ask these questions in a friendly spirit. Obviously, these are new words which have been put in in order to deal with objections raised with regard to the Bill, and if my right hon. Friend could say a word about them, I should be glad to hear it. So far as I am concerned, and I believe there are other Members on this side of the House who feel as I do about it, the great point on which we are alarmed is that of compensation. We think this Bill differs from all other Bills in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has applied the principle of compensation. The other Bills only threw the onus upon the Government. The other Bills did not necessarily raise any case for compensation or the purchase of any business, but it was thought that in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, if a business was acquired, then due compensation ought to be paid. That is the only sense in which the principle of compensation has been applied under the Defence of the Realm Acts up to the present time. In regard to this Bill, what alarms us is that the moment it is passed we might have a thousand claims for compensation which would spring into existence. We may be unduly alarmed about the matter. There may also be compensation claims for rent of premises for storing this immature spirit for three years, and warehousing and casks that may be necessary to the business might have to be paid for. We may be exaggerating all that, and if we are doing so we shall all be glad to hear a statement to that effect from my right hon. Friend. If his object is merely, without damage to the State, to improve the quality of whisky, it is a curious thing that we should plunge into that matter at this time, but at the same time I suppose we must accept his assurance that he is doing it in the best interests of the country and that this is a War Emergency Bill. I think we might have one or two words about the position before we lose control of the measure.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I should like to say a word on the question of compensation, because I understood the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) to say that there had been something in the nature of a bargain
    2190
    between the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). I have been here during the whole of the Committee stage, and I do not remember anything that could be construed as being a bargain with my right hon. Friend. So far as I recollect, what occurred was simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being questioned on the point, said that compensation would be payable under this Bill just as it is under the Defence of the Realm Acts, and the question would be submitted to the Committee presided over by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). The Mover of the Amendment asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what principles would be applied by the Government in granting compensation under this Bill. As I understand it, the Government have nothing whatever to do with that. They have nothing to do with the principles of granting compensation or with the amount which may be granted for this, that, or the other claim. A large quantity of emergency legislation has been passed which must necessarily affect a great many interests in the country—a number of Acts called Defence of the Realm Acts—and this Bill will be an Act under another title, but will form part of the series. The Government have set up an independent and quasi-judicial Committee presided over by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter, and any claims which may arise under this Bill and under other Acts will be submitted to that Committee, who will be guided by the same principles in the one case as in the other. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) has suggested that compensation could be given for losses of all sorts, or for liabilities for rent, and so forth. All these dangers might just as well arise under the other Acts. We have committed ourselves, and it is an act of faith, to granting these powers to that particular Committee to deal with questions of compensation. I cannot see that any greater difficulty or danger with regard to compensation will arise under this Bill than under the other Acts, but if the right hon. Gentleman is going to say anything upon the subject I should be glad to be assured that my view of the matter is correct, because so many hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that the Government are dealing with compensation in some special way in this Bill, and it is desirable that the matter should be cleared up.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: When this Bill was introduced none of us had any idea that any question of compensation was involved in it. It came forward as the result of a case that was stated in regard to the distillers in the North of Ireland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then gave a promise or made a suggestion in response thereto. I feel very uneasy and very much alarmed about this particular compensation. I do not like leaving it to this tribunal to decide whether there should or should not be compensation. There will be very strong opposition to it in the country. An enormous number of people are suffering very seriously from this War in many ways. They are suffering by the act of the State; suffering quite as much as these distillers in the North of Ireland will be and this compensation will make them feel they suffer from an injustice because some people are being compensated and others are not. They will feel the Bill is an injustice also because they will have to pay their contribution towards the compensation paid to these other people. I ventured to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Act gave him power enough in the scheduled areas to do anything he liked with regard to spirits. In reply to that he said that once you let spirits out of bond you could not tell where they would go and that practically you could not guard against the difficulty of the use of immature spirits in those areas unless you had something like a cordon of Custom House officers round the district. That is not the case. That would he the case if you had to deal with the matter in the ordinary course of law but under the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Act the Government are given absolute power to do what they like in these districts. They could take absolute control of the trade there. I understand the proposal is to do something of the kind.
    When they have absolute control, they can determine what spirits shall or shall not be sold there. In the houses they control they can do that completely, and in regard to the houses they do not take over they have nothing to do but to issue warnings to those publicans that they have reason to believe that immature spirits are being sold in those houses, and that they will either forbid those particular houses to sell any raw spirits of any kind whatever or that they will close the houses for the period of the War. The mere holding out of that warning to these
    2192
    houses will be quite sufficient to deter them from attempting to sell these spirits. The Government have absolute control of these areas and can deal with this matter; they can prevent the sale of immature spirits in these areas. In my judgment that is a sufficient power. It is as much as they require. The Government should rely upon that and the Bill should not proceed further. That would remove all difficulty with regard to the thorny question of compensation.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) for exercising such restraint upon himself, because I have to go away. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Cowan) that this Bill will do no good. He says it cannot come into operation for six months. He must have some information about the withdrawal of spirits from bond that is not in the possession either of the Customs or of myself, because that is certainly not the view of those who advise me. He probably has taken the figures for the whole of the whisky that has been withdrawn from bond during the last six or seven months. The whisky which has been withdrawn during the last three months is not merely immature whisky but includes a vast quantity of matured whisky. I should not be surprised if the greater part of it was not matured whisky which was withdrawn because people wanted to stock their cellars. They have done it to a very large extent because they anticipated very heavy duties, and were rather frightened of actual prohibition. There has been a good deal of stocking, not of raw spirit, but of good old twenty-years' spirit. Therefore, my hon. Friend is absolutely wrong there.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You are forgetting the stocks?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not forgetting it at all. But even then, on the assumption that the War is coming to an end in six months, it would not help us much with munitions of war if they had six months' stock. My hon. Friend is very sanguine. I wish I were as sanguine as he is. But at any rate it is not our business to legislate on the assumption that all is going to be well in six months. On the contrary, I have always taken the view that the business of this House is to proceed on the assumption that it may be a

    2193
    very long business and to make preparations on this basis. The effect, undoubtedly, will be that at a period when these stocks are exhausted, you will prevent a flood of raw, fiery, cheap whisky being poured on the market. No one who knows anything at all about what is going on in the munitions areas can doubt for a moment that that is a good thing from the point of view of the health of the people, and from the point of view of keeping them at their work.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You have that power under the other Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is stating a point which has been made very much better by my right hon. Friend (Sir T. Whittaker). That is another point. Let us take one point at a time. The first is this, that if you can stop these floods of raw, cheap whisky being put on the market, in the first place you will put up the price Putting up the price always has the effect of decreasing the consumption—by putting up the duty by 3s. 9d. a gallon the consumption was depressed by over 20 per cent. in the first year, and even now, when trade is good and there has been plenty of time for recovery, the consumption of spirits has been down by about 7,000,000 gallons compared with what it was before 1909. By the Bill you are limiting the quantity that can be put upon the market to begin with, and, in the second place, you are withdrawing the cheapest form of whisky, which will have the effect of diminishing the consumption of spirits; and who can doubt that that is a good thing?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No one denies it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take my hon. Friend as a witness. I wish he had emphasised that side of the case a little more. If he had, he would have given some sort of argument which would be valuable, because he comes from a district where they are interested in stocking whisky. They are much more interested in Aberdeen in the production of barley than in the production of Indian corn. Here my hon. Friend admits that it is a good thing in itself to stop raw, crude whisky. If it is a good thing to stop raw, crude whisky, is not the Bill that does it a good thing? He said that no one in this House was in favour of a Bill to stop the selling of immature whisky. He himself is in favour of it.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I said so, but you were not here to listen to it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish that instead of reserving all the unpleasant things he said in my presence he had also repeated the very pleasant things he says now to me for the first time.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You were talking to the First Lord of the Admiralty and did not pay the slightest attention to a word I said.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend made a very big impression on me by all the things he said, but it is very odd that those things that he now emphasises, and which I have managed to get emphasised by a process of very simple and innocent cross-examination—the facts which are in favour of the Bill—they somehow seemed to escape my hearing. I do not mind saying there is not a man in the House who, hearing the speech of my hon. Friend, was under the impression that he was supporting my Bill. Now I discover that the speech which I thought was against the Bill was really intended to support it. That is a very valuable admission which escaped me during the time I was talking to my right hon. Friend the First Lord. My hon. Friend is becoming more mature. There is no doubt at all that there is a great volume of opinion that points to the conclusion that these fiery raw spirits are in themselves deleterious and unwholesome. I conclude from that that the Bill that stops them must be wholesome.
    Now I come to the second point which has been put by my right hon. Friend (Sir T. Whittaker). He and I have been so much in agreement upon the whole treatment of this question that I am very sorry to find myself for the first time slightly disagreeing with him. I do not think he need be alarmed. There is no distinction drawn between the way we have treated compensation in this Bill and the way we have treated it in regard to all the emergency Bills. There has been a good deal of emergency legislation in the past, and the question of compensation has been referred generally to a Commission, because the House of Commons could not, during the War, sit down and prepare an elaborate set of rules and principles upon which you were going to settle compensation. It would have been fatal. I doubt whether the House of Commons could give the necessary attention and concentration of mind to settling the principles

    2195
    of compensation upon which you are to take a lathe from a factory, close a shop here or a public-house in another place, cut a trench across a farm, demolish a house here and a business there. It cannot be done. Therefore, the House wisely determined that the best thing to do was to set up a Commission of fair-minded men in whose judgment and impartiality they would have confidence—for the purpose of ascertaining what would be fair to pay. When the question was put to me by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) what I thought would be fair, I stated explicitly what the view of the Government was, and I repeat it now. I do not think it would be fair for a man to come forward and say in consequence of this legislation of yours my business has been disarranged. I have sustained a certain amount of loss. I agree with my right hon. Friend that business men must put up with that sort of thing in time of war, and the publican's trade is not the only trade which must be prepared for loss of profit. But that is not the case put forward. The case my right hon. Friend put forward was, owing to a direct act of the legislature, not that they suffered inconvenience and that their dividends would practically disappear this year, but that their business would be completely destroyed. That is wholly different from the case of the distiller who says, "I have not the same number of stocks. It would be a great inconvenience to me in my business if I cannot pay the same dividends this year as last year." I say frankly I do not think that is a case for compensation, because they have to suffer like other business firms in the community. But when a man conies forward and says, "Owing to your action in the House of Commons, my business has been destroyed," then I say that seems to be a case for consideration by this Commission. But that is a totally different thing from a man saying, "Here, I am not doing as well as I did last year!" That is not a case where compensation ought to be paid. My hon. Friend has asked me if I can give an estimate. I make exactly the same answer here as though he had asked me the question when I brought in a Bill dealing with engineers shops. If he asked me now to give an estimate of what it would cost to cut trenches across the farms of the East of England, I could not possibly do it. How could I? If he asks my opinion on the subject, I think it would be a very small matter.
    Mr. COWAN: How much?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend, instead of putting a dialectical question to me, were really putting a business question, he would know perfectly well that is a question I could not possibly answer. We are simply treating the distillers here as we have been treating the brewers in the other case. Where their business is completely destroyed in consequence of our action in that particular neighbourhood, that is a case for compensation by the Commission. I think ray hon. Friends are unduly alarmed. The statement I make now is the statement I made across the floor of the House to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson).
    Mr. DENMAN: Will the House of Commons have an ultimate say? When the Commission reports, will it be for us to vote the money and say what the amount is to be?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the sum of money to be given as compensation, not merely for this but for other purposes, will have to be voted by the House of Commons, and then my hon. Friend and those interested can discuss the general question, but I should have thought the question of compensation would not arise for a very long time, because I cannot see how any distiller can be in a position to say now what the effect will be. My own opinion is that these gentlemen are exaggerating the damage which will be done to their business. They think it will be destroyed altogether. I do not think so. I do not blame them for thinking so, and I am sure they are quite honest in thinking that. Here is a very serious interference with the business which they have conducted, and when a man has devoted his life to building up a great business and finds a blow like this coming he is naturally disposed to exaggerate the effect of it. I feel confident, that the amount of damage done to their trade will be considerably less than they seem to imagine now. At any rate, the question of compensation cannot arise for some time. They must await developments. You cannot estimate at present what the injury will be.
    Mr. CURRIE: How do you propose to deal with the position of working men and barmaids, for instance, who might be thrown out of employment at once? Do you propose to include or exclude them?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very remote case. Take the Defence of the Realm Act, where we propose to close public-houses. There, by the direct action of the State, men are thrown out of work, and I imagine compensation will have to be paid, but this is a very remote case.
    Mr. CURRIE: However remote it may be, if it arises, will it be excluded or will it be fairly considered by the Commission?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The first point I want to ask is with regard to Clause 4 which we were discussing last night, and the meaning of the words,
    "Shall be delivered for home consumption."
    I understood from the Attorney-General that he would put in an Amendment to meet that point. No Amendment has appeared up to the present time. Therefore, if I call his attention to it now, he may attend to the matter. Coming to the main question, I may say that nobody doubts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer means well by this Bill, and I think very few of us doubt that immature spirits taken in the morning are a bad thing. It is not often that I support the teetotal party here, but I will now say, and they may accept it for what it is worth, that I think drinking raw whisky in the morning is deleterious under any circumstances. The object of this Bill apparently is to prevent the workers getting immature spirits whilst they are preparing munitions of war. It does not propose to prevent them getting mature spirit during that period, and it does not prevent them getting immature spirit so long as the existing stock lasts, but whether that will last another two, three, or six months, apparently no one knows. One wants to know before we pass this Bill, which will cause considerable inconvenience and will cost a considerable sum of money, what exactly is the amount we have got to pay for it. The good we are going to get from it, so far as whisky drinking is concerned, is very nearly infinitesimal, because, as I said before, you can drink a certain amount of whisky in the morning, even if it is matured, with great harm to yourself. As to the rise in the price which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made so much about, you must remember that these men are earning double wages, and therefore the rise in price is not going to be a bar to their getting refreshments.
    2198
    The object of the Bill may be good, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "If that is so, you must support my Bill." That is where the fallacy in his argument comes, in assuming that because the object of a Bill is wholesome, therefore the Bill itself is wholesome. The view of the people who have been criticising this Bill is that it is a Bill hastily constructed, badly put together, and not really thought out, although the object is an excellent one, namely, to prevent people from getting immature spirit. We think that this Bill does not carry out its object, and many of us object very strongly to this somewhat loose way of doing business, saying, "Compensation is to be paid, but we can give you no estimate. Compensation is to be paid supposing a person's business is entirely ruined in that neighbourhood." My hon. Friend behind me thinks there is no difficulty in applying that principle, and that any tribunal could apply it to any measure of damage. I think he is exceedingly hopeful. What does "entirely ruined" mean? If it is a tied house in a particular neighbourhood and immature spirits are prevented from being sold there, is that a complete ruin of the business in that particular neighbourhood, and is compensation to be given in such a case as that? One might multiply instances of this sort. I do submit that it is a very loose way of doing business, and to pass Bills in this way really means that the House of Commons are abrogating a very large part of their function. This Bill is marvellously different from what it was twenty-four hours ago. Though I was here practically the whole of last night attending very closely to the Bill, I say frankly—I do not know whether other hon. Members are in the same position—that I do not understand the real effect of a large number of the alterations made last night from Amendments not upon the Paper, but handed in by the Government, and without our having an opportunity of considering them at all. Such Amendments as Clause 2, a new Clause in regard to existing contracts, which says:—
    "When any existing contracts are interfered with by this Act, the contractors, to the extent of interference, can be released therefrom."
    That is a pretty sweeping matter, and there are other Amendments in the Bill which certainly alter it very much. I do not protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that because you approve of the object of the Bill therefore

    2199
    you must necessarily say that the Bill, which is brought in with these good intentions, is perfect. To say that, is a complete fallacy. The Government, however, is responsible for the Bill, and naturally I do not oppose it, but at the same time, I think it is the very worst way of carrying legislation to pass it through this House in a great hurry, without giving us proper opportunity of considering the effect of the Government Amendments from day to day.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not want to detain the House from getting the third reading of the Bill, but I want to say a few words in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech about compensation. Certainly he did not dispose of any misgivings which I feel in regard to that matter. He says compensation is going to be paid in the case of a business which is absolutely destroyed by this Bill, but if compensation is payable at all, surely it is payable also in the case of a business partially destroyed. There is surely nothing in the argument which says: "If you do a man £1,000 worth of damage you shall give him compensation, but if you only do him £100 worth of damage, you shall not give him compensation." That is an argument that I cannot follow in the least, and I cannot imagine that any tribunal set up will agree to such a principle. It is clear that compensation is going to be paid for any proved damage under the Bill. I think most people will feel that this Bill is an alternative to taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in most drastic taxation in regard to spirits. So drastic that it was obviously prohibitive taxation. No compensation would have been paid if these taxes had been proceeded with. No compensation would have been payable if the Government had lowered the taxes to shall I say, a more reasonable figure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has stated that the proper way to deal with this problem was by way of a Sur-tax on the raw spirit, and a less tax on the matured spirit. There would have been no compensation payable in such a case. Instead of that you have a Bill brought in which is to achieve some of the objects which would have been achieved by taxation, and you have the whole question of compensation raised, and we are told that we ought to pay compensation to the people injured by this Bill. I think the
    2200
    House will agree that that is a very unreasonable way of dealing with the problem.
    I am not greatly enamoured of this Bill. I think it may do some little good. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says raw spirits are deleterious in the morning. Of course they are, and so are any other form of spirits Seven-year-old whisky drunk at seven o'clock in the morning will not help a workman in his work. This is a pretty illustration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's persuasive ways. He says: "My Bill goes to prohibit raw spirits, therefore my Bill is good." That does not necessarily follow. I take it that the Bill will do some little good. Hon. Members around me protest that mature whisky does less harm than raw whisky. The Commission is against them, but they say the Commission know nothing about it. The evidence is that it produces these effects upon monkeys. That may be so, but I think the evidence is very doubtful. Assuming that it is so, this Bill may do a little good. Nobody thinks the Bill will do very much. Nobody thinks that it is going to help in the munition areas problem which is the immediate problem before the country. I believe the whole House feels that they might have let the Bill pass without protest if we were going to get it for nothing, but if we are to pay for it an unknown sum, and if we are to incur an unknown liability, I think it is not treating the House of Commons fairly for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his responsibility as a great Minister in time of war to come here and say, "We must have this Bill. I can hardly tell you why, but we must have it, and we appeal to the House to give it to us and not to hamper us." We yield under protest, and I think the protest is made in every quarter of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in spite of his persuasiveness, has not convinced us that he has done well in substituting this for the taxation which he proposed.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): I do not rise to renew the general Debate. My hon. Friend who has just spoken and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rawlinson) to some extent were speaking on the general question which was dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is, however, a question which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to which I do not wish to be overlooked. It is quite true, as he says, that in the Committee stage he

    2201
    drew attention to these words in the first line of the Bill,
    "No British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption."
    and he suggested that that might be misunderstood, and be supposed to be some prohibition on the retailing of spirit by the publican or other retailer. I told him then, and I know he accepted it at once, not only as putting forward the common-sense point of view but after examination of the Statute, that really that is not the intention and it is not the effect of the words. I thought, however, it was desirable to see whether we could use language which would be more obviously understood on the face of it. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman there is nobody in this House who is more anxious to use plain language in order to express precisely in popular terms what is wanted than I am. I have the greatest possible dislike for what is sometimes called "lawyers' technical English." But the House will appreciate that this really is a Bill that is grafted on to a great body of legislation. The Spirit Act of 1880 is an enormous Act. It is a tremendous code, and it deals with all kinds of things, and this expression about being "delivered for home consumption" is an expression which is perfectly familiar to the authorities and is to be found again and again in the Spirit Act. With the best will in the world I have not been able to suggest a form of words which does not lead to the obvious inconvenience that the main Act uses one set of expressions while the amending Act uses another. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for not having had the opportunity of speaking to him on the matter, but I have been engaged on public duties elsewhere until the last few minutes. I had not in any way overlooked the point. I am sorry I am not able to suggest an improved form of words. If, however, after the Third Reading is carried, anything occurs to me that really can be used, and which I consider to be a better form of words, I shall be quite willing to see that the matter is considered in another place. There is just this other point which arises at the end of the proviso (a) in lines 12 and 15, which stipulates that the restriction shall not apply to
    "mixtures, compounds or preparations which have been charged to duty in respect of the spirit contained in them or used in their preparation or manufacture."
    2202
    These words are extracted from the definition of "spirit" in the Spirit Act in order to make it quite plain that medicines which contain some preparation of spirit should not be affected by the first words of Clause I dealing with "British and foreign spirits." That is the only reason for putting these words in. If it is the pleasure of the House I hope that we may now get the Third Reading, because I know that arrangements have been made in another place to receive the Bill there, and I think it will be agreed on all sides that whatever may be our views as to the expediency or the effect which these proposals are likely to have, they have received what all emergency legislation has not received, and that is very considerable discussion of the many points of view raised in the course of the Debates.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: I think as a matter of fact the whole House is against this Bill altogether. It is so-called emergency legislation which has been recommended on the ground that it is going to do good in the future as well as the present. The point I wish to make deals with a remark made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that to advance the price of whisky will lessen the consumption, and that lessening the consumption will be a very good thing. He also said that by the prohibition of the sale of raw spirits the price of mature spirits would be raised by 3s. 6d. per gallon. If he is going to raise the price of mature spirits by 3s. 6d. per gallon, then the people who at present have the mature spirit are going to get all the advantage. I think myself that, if compensation is to be paid to those who at present sell the immature spirit, then we should tax the mature spirit and let the tax come out of the pockets of these people. Instead of that, by this Bill enormous sums are going into the pockets of those people who have the mature spirit, and the taxpayers are to pay the compensation to those who sell the immature spirit.
    Mr. COWAN: My object in moving my Amendment has been to some extent obtained by the discussion which ensued, and by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is one point, however, with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal, though it was raised repeatedly in the course of the Debate yesterday, if not to-day. Some answer I think should be given, though I suppose no answer can be given. Before asking

    2203
    the House for leave to withdraw my Amendment, I desire to call attention to this point. The House agrees that raw spirit contains a rank and dangerous poison. The House also agrees that age removes the poison, and that in three years this particular poison is practically eliminated. The people who have been selling spirit containing rank poison, which they could have removed by the mere process of keeping in bond for three years, have been committing a moral crime against the community. Why should they be paid any compensation at all, merely for ceasing to do something which they had never any right to do? We have never had an answer to that question. The question of compensation in relation to this Bill is in an entirely different position from the question of compensation in relation to the other Defence of the Realm Acts. I think that I could answer successfully some of the points which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made against myself, but I do not think it necessary to do so, and I am not going to take up time in doing so. But I do say that this proposal to compensate persons for selling a poison when, if they would, they could sell what would be pure and comparatively harmless, is a proposal of a most dangerous character. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS [29TH APRIL].— REPORT.
Order read for further consideration of Postponed Resolutions.
Resolution reported,

WAYS AND MEANS [29TH APRIL].— REPORT.

  SPIRITS (CUSTOMS).
  1. "That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

  0

  14

  9

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  1

  3

  7

  2204

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  1

  0

  0

  And 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."
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Resolution which is now reported."
  This Resolution, and that which follows it on the Paper, relate to the extra 14s. 9d. duty, which was part of the original scheme for taxation of spirits. The Bill which this House has just read for the third time will be brought a further stage forthwith in another place, and we desire at once to get the small duties of 1s. and 1s. 6d. imposed by the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means In order to clear the way for that, I think that the proper course is to move that the House doth disagree with the Resolution now reported. Then we shall be able, in the Committee of Ways and Means, to impose the new duties.
  Mr. BOOTH: I understood that part of this plan was to allow the sale of spirits at a greater dilution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing these duties, mentioned that as an integral part of his plan. The duties are now being abandoned, and I would like to ask whether that part of the scheme, allowing spirits to be sold at a greater dilution, is also withdrawn?
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution" put, and negatived.
  Resolution reported,

  SPIRITS (EXCISE).
  2. "That, in addition to the duty of Excise now payable, for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  0

  14

  9

  and so on in proportion for any less quantity.
  "And 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."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and negatived.

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

WAYS AND MEANS.

  SPIRITS (CUSTOMS)
  Resolved,
  "That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the eighteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duties on spirits which are permitted to be delivered for home consumption without having been warehoused for a period of three years (that is to say):—

  —

  Where the Spirits have been warehoused for a period of two years.

  Where the Spirits have not been warehoused, or have been warehoused for a period of less than two years.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon computed at proof of sprits of any description except perfumed spirits

  1

  0

  1

  6

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  1

  7

  2

  5

  For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  1

  4

  2

  0

  And 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."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday).

  SPIRITS (EXCISE).
  Resolved,
  "That, in addition to the duty of Excise now payable, for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom, there shall, on and after the eighteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duty on spirits which are permitted to be delivered for home consumption without having been warehoused for a period of three years (that is to say):—

  —

  Where the Spirits have been ware-housed for a period of two years and less than three years.

  Where the Spirits have not been warehoused, or have been warehoused for a period of less than two years.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  1

  0

  1

  6

  and so on in proportion for any less quantity.
  And 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."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee to sit again To-morrow.

HOUSING (ROSYTH DOCKYARD) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

HOUSING (ROSYTH DOCKYARD) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of Local Government Board for Scotland to Facilitate Immediate Erection of Houses for Dockyard Employés. 4 and 5 Geo. 5., c. 31.)
  1. If the Local Government Board for Scotland in the exercise of their powers under the Housing Act, 1914, make arrangements with any authorised society in connection with the provision of dwellings and gardens and other works and buildings for, or for the convenience of, persons employed by or on behalf of the Admiralty at or in the neighbourhood of Rosyth Dockyard, it shall be lawful for the society on obtaining the approval of the Board thereto, and without any other sanction, to carry into operation within the area to which the arrangements relate

  2207
  any scheme or schemes of the society for such provision as aforesaid, including all necessary preparation or adaptation of the land, such as the making of roads, streets, and open spaces, and the execution of all works of whatever description subsidiary or incidental to such dwellings and buildings or the erection thereof, or to the provision of drainage, water supply, and other services in connection therewith, and, if necessary, the utilisation of facilities for such services whether under existing powers or under powers to be conferred on any authority by the scheme. So far as necessary for the proper carrying out of any such scheme, the Board may suspend any statutory enactments, bye-laws, regulations, or other provisions, under whatever authority made, which are in operation in the area included in the scheme.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I beg to move, after the word "dockyards," to insert the words "pending the approval of a town-planning scheme for the area to which the arrangements relate."
  I sent in a series of Amendments to the Table, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain that they all hang together, and are the result of a conference with the Secretary for Scotland. I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for having acceded to my request to postpone the further stage of this Bill until to-day, but also for having met a deputation from the Dunfermline Town Council in a very conciliatory spirit, and acceded to their request. The Amendments which I put down secure the recognition of the local authorities, which would have been superseded entirely by the Bill as originally drafted, after the heavy expenditure which they have already incurred, and which they would have to incur in future. The Bill will now be operative for a period until the town-planning scheme is approved, which I hope will be in a very short time, and then it can be modified and adapted in such a way as to fit in with the actual building that has taken place in the interval in this area. In general, the Bill as amended will be for the convenience of the public, and is very much welcomed by the Dunfermline Town Council, who will now be able to get to work at a scheme which they have had so much at heart for so long, and will be able to co-operate with the Government in the primary object of the Bill, which is the immediate erection of dwelling-houses in this area.
  Sir H. CRAIK: In listening to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, one would have supposed that this Bill related only to some small local interest, in which the primary object was to see that there was adequate representation of that local interest and that the local board should have a sufficient amount of power. This is one of those emergency Bills for which immediate necessity is claimed. One has only to glance at it to see its infinite importance in regard to the question of the Navy. Surely the principal point in this Bill is not how it affects the town of Rosyth, but how it affects the naval base at Rosyth, and how it fits in with the plans of the Admiralty generally. Is it convenient that a Bill of this sort should be laid before the House with a whole series of Amendments relating to the very principle of the Bill—
  Mr. PONSONBY: No.
  Sir H. CRAIK: And that these should be introduced suddenly and not placed on the Table of the House, and that this should be done by some arrangement made in the Scottish Office between the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs and the Secretary for Scotland? The principle of this Bill is perfectly clear. It leaves the matter in the hands of the Admiralty, and not of a single small local body, but of the Local Government Board for Scotland. This morning I received a paper, which I suppose was received by most Members, on behalf of the opponents of the Bill, the Dunfermline Town Council. This paper embodies every sort of principle with regard to legislation which I most detest when put forward by a very small local body for the purpose of setting aside the larger Imperial interests connected with this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: You only represent a university.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I do not think that will be regarded as a witticism by the House. It is said that there are no precedents for the conditions prevailing at the present time, and every possible excuse for delay is put forward. There have been arrangements with the town council about roadways and tramways, and all those things are excuses for delay. And now there is a further delay of this large Imperial scheme by this little local council, which thinks its interests, its arrangements, its private bargains as to railways, as to tramways,

  2209
  and as to the erection of dwellings, ought to come before the larger interests involved in this Bill. I object to Amendments of this kind being brought in upon a Bill which, presumably, was carefully considered by the Government and put forward by them in its original form because they thought it was necessary, for special reasons, to confine the jurisdiction to the Admiralty and the Local Government Board of Scotland. I object to the Bill being fundamentally altered by bringing in, on the authority of a small local council, Amendments which have never been put on the Paper, and which we have only had casually supplied to us, as the result of an agreement with the Scottish Minister. I wonder whether the Admiralty have considered it, and whether their representative is prepared to accept it. If a new principle is introduced into the Bill, if the local body is to be master of the situation, why was that not considered when the Bill was first brought before the House? Why, when this emergency Bill was presented by the Secretary for Scotland and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, was it put into its original and special form, and why is it now to be changed? It is clearly a transaction between the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs and the Secretary for Scotland. I wish to know what was the reason—if the Bill was to be altered by Amendments not on the Paper—for putting it in a form and based on a principle entirely opposed to the present position, the local body not then being the authority, as now proposed?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Nine-tenths of the questions put by the hon. Member who has just spoken would not have been submitted by him had he been present at the Second Reading Debate last night. It will be in the recollection of the House that the representation was made by hon. Members that this was a matter capable of accommodation with the Dunfermline authority, and I willingly foil into the suggestion. It is not a bargain between the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs and myself; it is a bargain between the local authority and myself. I really see no occasion for the profound contempt which the hon. Gentleman pours upon the local authority. I am bound to say that throughout I consider that the Dunfermline authority has shown an excellent public spirit, and I am only too glad that I have been able through a reasonable compromise with them—"compromise" is hardly the right word: a
  2210
  reasonable arrangement of terms—to attain an object essential to the Government, and at the same time recognising the spirit in which this body has performed its duty.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Why did you exclude them in the first instance?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not going back on the question, which has already been discussed. The whole trouble arose from the fact of a certain decision by the Commission in Scotland giving new powers to tramway companies in connection with the laying down of roads, thus altering the whole scheme of our control, and rendering it necessary to bring in a Bill safeguarding the Admiralty workers. I am not going back on all that. These proposed Amendments do not at all prevent or delay the progress of the building of cottages; on the contrary, they will assist the progress of the building of cottages. The town of Dunfermline has not only spent £100,000 upon the drainage of this area, but it is willing to assist with money the provision of these houses; and I am really bound to stand up for the town of Dunfermline against the utterly uninformed strictures of the hon. Member. I am perfectly certain that he would not have made them had he been acquainted with the circumstances. The only difference between the Bill we introduced and this Bill is, not that the power of the Local Government Board for Scotland to sanction the carrying out of this work is done away with, but that we have allowed the local authority to consider the scheme and to pass it through the ordinary procedure. Surely it is much better if you can arrange matters by consultation, and by the consultation we have had to day we have been able to arrive at a procedure that, without doing away with the purpose of the original Bill, will save the position of the local authority. Surely it is desirable we should do that.
  I have been asked whether we obtained the opinion of the Admiralty. We had a representative of the Admiralty at the conference to-day, and he entirely agreed with these Amendments. As they come up without notice—it could not be otherwise—I think I ought to explain their object. The first Amendment, as the hon. Member for Sterling Burghs explained, is to insert the words, "Pending the approval of the town planning scheme for the area to which the arrangement relates." That is very little more than a drafting Amend-

  2211
  ment, and it only means that if the borough is able to carry a town planning scheme, with some modifications, this provisional arrangement shall only apply during the intervening period. All the other Amendments amount to nothing more than this, that these plans shall come before the Guild Court of the borough of Dunfermline, and if the town council should refuse or unduly delay the granting of authority, such authority may be forthwith granted by the Board—meaning the Local Government Board in Scotland. All the objects which the hon. Gentleman rightly thinks should be achieved are achieved, while giving that recognition to the public authority which they well deserve.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend was not here on the Second Reading, that he would not repeat what he had said on the Second Reading, that my hon. Friend did not know in the least what he was talking about, and that the Amendments were of the very slightest description. That may possibly be true, but at any rate that is not the way in which to deal with the matter. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman never answered the question why it was necessary to alter the Government Bill. I myself went away yesterday evening at getting on for half-past ten o'clock after having read this Bill. I did not very much approve of it, but I did not see anything which, at the first moment, I objected to. I had not any idea that it was going to be altered because one particular Member said that his particular town council wanted it altered. I do not think amendments and alterations of that sort should be moved in manuscript. Nobody knew that there were to be Amendments at all; we had no means of knowing they were not on the Paper. You have been waiting ten months for this Bill; why should you not wait two or three days when you can have the Amendments put down. You might even take them tomorrow.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. Baronet explain what he means by ten months?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The War has been going on for ten months; the work at Rosyth has been going on for ten years, and the question of housing has been brought up during the last four or five years.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The circumstances which necessitated this Bill have not existed for ten months or ten weeks. But all this was explained on the Second Reading last night.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This Bill is to provide houses at Rosyth for workmen engaged in the work which is going on there; it is not work required for the War; and under those circumstances I certainly object to the course which is now proposed. No Bill ought to be brought forward now unless it is required for war purposes.
  The CHAIRMAN: The House has passed the Second Reading of the Bill, and sent it to the Committee for consideration of detail.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I can object to the Third Reading, if necessary, and in view of the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken I shall certainly do so, reserving my remarks for the Third Reading. It does seem to me that my hon. Friend made a very strong case. Why are these Amendments necessary? Surely the Government must have known what to do when they brought forward a Bill of this sort; we are entitled to suppose that it was after due consideration. Yet it would appear to have been necessary, at the last moment, and without any Amendments having been put upon the Paper, to come forward with these alterations, without our possibly being able to know what they mean. The least the right hon. Gentleman could have done would have been to apologise that the Government did not know their own business, to have said that that it put the Committee to considerable inconvenience not having the Amendments upon the Paper, and that it was hopeless for us under the circumstances to allow the Amendments to go on. Instead of that, he practically said to my hon. Friend, "You have no business to interfere at all; it is a settled matter between me and a supporter behind me, and that is sufficient for all of us."
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I am surprised the hon. Baronet has waxed so eloquent about this arrangement. He said he objected to manuscript Amendments, but I am quite sure that it must be within his recollection that he is the very Member of the House who on one occasion handed a written Amendment to the Speaker which had the effect of putting the present Government into a minority, and that was thought a tremendous event.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that I brought in an Amendment to a Bill introduced by the present Government? The Secretary for Scotland has brought in his Bill, and he has consented to Amendments of his own Bill, which is quite a different thing.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRICE: My sole point is that the hon. Baronet was, on that occasion, very successful with a manuscript Amendment. Surely, at a time like this, when there is no question of the Government being at stake, he will not persist in his opposition to this Bill! I sincerely trust that he will not do so. I confess I had a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Glasgow University, as there were certain things in the Bill which I do not like. It proposed to give to authorities outside the town council a very great deal of power. That has been changed, and I am very glad that an arrangement has been come to and that these Amendments have been accepted.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "any authorised society" [make arrangements with any authorised society"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the Town Council of Dunfermline."
  I think the hon. Member for Glasgow University is a little bit unfair on the Dunfermline Town Council. They are not bringing in Amendments with a view to any profit or advantage to themselves. Their desire is to work the scheme in the best possible method, and that is also the desire of the Government. The Government inserted in the original Bill the authorised society as the authority through which to work it, but on consideration and after meeting the local authority, they came to the conclusion that the Dunfermline Town Council would be the far better authority. Both the town council and the Government are doing their utmost to see that this scheme is put into practice at once, and in the best possible way. I trust that the hon. Baronet will not think it desirable to oppose either these Amendments or the Third Reading.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and without any other sanction," and to insert instead thereof the words "to grant authority to the society."
  Sir H. CRAIK: There is not a word about a society in the Bill as now drafted. What is the society?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Member showed considerable ignorance of the geography of the locality in his speech, and he is now showing ignorance of the Bill as drafted, because he will see in line 7 "authorised society."
  Sir H. CRAIK: "Any authorized society." I want to know what is the society?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The original idea of the Government was to work through a building society. They are now prepared to substitute for that society by these Amendments the Town Council of Dunfermline.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I make a point of attending here like my hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). I ask what is the meaning of this Amendment? Last night it was to be a society and now the town council. Surely we are entitled to have an explanation of this sudden change of front? The hon. Member (Mr. Ponsonby) is really no better than his Leader in conciliating any opposition in order to get the Bill through. The way to do that is not to say that an hon. Member like my hon. Friend here is ignorant of the Bill. I daresay I could show that he was ignorant of the effects of some of these Amendments if I had the opportunity of seeing them on the Paper. It requires a very good deal of skill to understand the effect of Amendments pitchforked into a Bill after being read from the Chair. It is certainly not the way to treat the House of Commons. Some hon. Members seem to think that if the Government come down and make a speech and say the Bill is desirable that that should be an end of it. Apparently a deputation from the Dunfermline Town Council met the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and the Bill is changed. The Government is distinctly to blame for not having seen those people before. They ought not to bring in a Bill of this kind unless they have satisfied themselves that the local authority has been fairly and properly dealt with. I feel very strongly that the Committee has not been fairly treated in this matter. The House of Commons has the duty, as well as the right, to see that they understand legislation before it goes through.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do know the geography of the country at Rosyth. I think that a very large change has been made in the matter of principle. Am I right in supposing that the original Bill intended to fulfil a purely national purpose? That is to say, that the Admiralty was to hand over to an association of a purely national character and without any local interests this housing question, and that that nationally organised association, in conjunction with the Government and their representatives, was to carry out a necessary national work without being hampered by any local by-laws whatever. Are the Government now, without notice and by manuscript Amendments, proposing to alter the whole character of this Bill from a national proposal to a proposal in which local interests will be consulted? And instead of an association ad hoc with the Government, it is to be the Dunfermline Local Council with the Government. I understand that the powers given to the association are now to be given instead to the Dunfermline Town Council.
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): That is not so.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it is better I should explain the whole situation. I must point out that on the Amendment I was not entitled to do it, but it was done to a very large extent last night on the Second Reading. I am sure that such a stickler for order as the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will agree that I should be quite out of Order in going into the matter fully on the Amendment. The position is this. Everybody in the House is agreed that it is very urgent to provide cottages for the workmen at Rosyth. Some months ago a Bill was introduced and passed through the House, with general consent, making arrangements for that housing. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) for helping me by his question. It is, as he said, the fact that the Government proposed to take power to deal through a public utility society with this housing question. The Local Government Board for Scotland has taken a great deal of trouble and has got together this public utility society to deal with the housing. This Bill has nothing to do with all that ancient history, except in this respect. It so happens that a few months ago a Committee on Private Bill legislation sat in Scotland, and had to deal with an application of a tramway
  2216
  company. This thing is really an exceedingly small thing—a very small thing indeed—but it is very important, and very urgent, because it is very necessary that those houses should be provided. There was a tramway company which had power to proceed along a certain road with its trams. I must recognise that the town of Dunfermline have shown great public spirit and has spent a great deal of money in connection with this scheme, and I really must defend them against unfair attacks.
  The town of Dunfermline made a town planning scheme, which is now before the Local Government Board. The Committee that sat in Scotland a month ago heard an application from the tramway company to bring their tramway down another road. I am not now going into any question as to whether the decision arrived at was right or was wrong—that is not the point. That decision altered the town planning scheme. The tramway company got permission to go down that other road, and now it is understood that the tramway company will take the last power and not act on the first power at present. And that has altered the town planning scheme and has caused great inconvenience to Dunfermline. There is a provision in the Town Planning Act that after a town planning scheme is prepared with the sanction of the Local Government Board any person who builds in contravention of the town planning scheme may be called upon to remove his buildings without compensation. You cannot expect a public utility company to build with the danger of having to take away their buildings without compensation. That is the whole necessity for this Bill. I explained it all last night very carefully on the proper occasion to do so—that is, on the Second Reading. We had a discussion, and this Bill was the result. Last night an appeal was made to me to see the Burgh of Dunfermline. I have seen them, and they have suggested certain amendments. What do they amount to? Under the Bill, the Local Government Board for Scotland could give permission to the public utility society to proceed with their scheme. The town council came to me to-day and said, "We still hope, notwithstanding this trouble over the tramway, to get over the difficulty, and, with some mortification, still to proceed with our scheme. Will you therefore put in the words, 'pending approval of the town planning scheme.'" Those are the words upon which discussion

  2217
  has arisen. There cannot be any harm in them. The position stands thus: If this trouble had not arisen we should have adopted the town planning scheme of Dunfermline and built in accordance with it. Owing to the urgency, we thought it necessary to give the Local Government Board power to protect the public utility society against forfeiture and to sanction the scheme. Surely there is no harm—indeed, it is only reasonable if you can do it while achieving that object—in letting the Burgh of Dunfermline express an opinion upon the matter and in letting the plans be recorded in the Dean of Guild Court. That is all that the Amendment does; because the Burgh Council of Dunfermline have agreed that if they do not pass the scheme the Local Government Board shall have power to pass it. So that the scheme is essentially the Bill of last night, with certain concessions to the Burgh of Dunfermline—concessions which were rather urged upon me by Members of the House on Second Reading. That is the whole story. It has all arisen out of a decision of the Commission—I do not say an unfortunate decision, except in the sense that it upset the town planning scheme. The Burgh of Dunfermline gets no more power than it would have had but for this proposal; in fact, it has rather less power, because it may be overruled.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have now got a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading. After saying what he had just told us about the tramway, he proceeds:—
  "The House will appreciate that it is quite unreasonable to expect this company to find this money to build and run the risk of having their buildings removed without compensation. We must, therefore, bring in a provision to protect them against that risk. That is the whole object of this Bill. The model upon which it is based is the Clause in the Housing Act of 1909, Section 55, Sub-section (2). I am very sorry for the Town Council for Dumfermline that their plans have been disarranged in this way. They have my heartiest sympathy, but I am sure that when they come to consider it they will not desire to interfere with the provisions of the housing of workmen at Rosyth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 17th May 1915, col. 2092.]
  That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman about ten o'clock last night. Now he has changed it all. He has seen the Rosyth people, and he is no longer sorry for them; he is going to do something for them. It is evident that when the right hon. Gentleman brought in the Bill yesterday he knew all about this Dunfermline question, but he did not intend to deal with it, and he did not put it in the Bill. It is only at the last moment,
  2218
  under the pressure of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he has changed his mind and put down Amendments, the object of which nobody knows. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in replying on the discussion last night, used these words:—
  "The Commission which sat duly considered the case of Dunfermline and the case put before it against the tramways by the town of Dunfermline, and it was decided that this was the proper line. It is not my duty to argue about that matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 17th May, 1915, col. 2098.]
  If the right hon. Gentleman had only stuck to the position which he announced yesterday, we should have had none of this trouble; but he has given way, and he has not given us the reasons that actuated him. This Debate ought really to be adjourned, so that we might see the Amendments on the Paper and know what we are doing.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "area to which the arrangements relate," and insert the words "aforesaid area."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]
  Mr. PONSONBY: I beg to move, after the words "scheme" ["under powers to be conferred on any authority by the scheme"], to insert the words "and the Dean of Guild Court of the Burgh of Dunfermline shall forthwith approve any plans submitted to the Court in pursuance of any such scheme."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I really think it would have been far better to have left the Bill in its original form, especially when the Government put forward the plea of urgency. As far as I understand the matter, the original Bill simply gave the Local Government Board for Scotland power to pass these plans irrespective of the town planning scheme. What the Government now propose is, at the instance of the Burgh of Dunfermline, to say that the Local Government Board will only come in after the society have been through the mill of the Burgh of Dunfermline. They have to go to the Burgh of Dunfermline, and it is only if the Burgh refuse their sanction they have to go to the Local Government Board. I do not want to delay this Bill; I only want to get the necessary business through and not make unnecessary trouble in the future. Both sides of the House are anxious to get the Bill through. If the right hon. Gentleman, in order to please the Burgh of Dunfermline, sticks in this unnecessary link

  2219
  in the chain, is that going to help the national object? If this unnecessary obstruction is inserted in the Bill, what will you do when the Burgh of Dunfermline comes to loggerheads with the society? The right hon. Gentleman does not think that that will happen, but it is possible. To which party will the Local Government Board listen then—the society or the Burgh of Dunfermline? I really think that as a matter of plain business it would have been far better from a national point of view to have left the Bill as it was. We are not here to consider the wishes of this burgh or of that, or of this individual or of that; we are here to get the national business done in the best possible way. My hon. Friends are right in suggesting that if this delay is inserted we are perfectly justified in saying that we ought to have time to consider the Amendments, and that the Bill ought to be held over for that purpose.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think I shall satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman when I point out that if this circumstance had not happened all this procedure would have taken place. They would have had to submit to the Dean of Guild Court, and they would have had to submit to the town planning scheme. We are not introducing a new power for the burgh, but are taking away a power which they have. I never want to take away unnecessarily powers from local authorities, and we cannot, in time of war, interfere with the progress of necessary business. I can assure my hon. Friend that I found the burgh representatives to-day extremely anxious to further this scheme and to get the cottages erected. They are very much interested in the matter, and I do not think there is any ground for the suspicion that they will delay it. They have given us the most ample security, because, if they do delay it, the Local Government Board can step in and deal with the matter. The burgh council can be of very great assistance to us in dealing with this matter; they are willing to be of such assistance, and I hope that the Committee will not, for a reason I really cannot follow, prevent the matter from going through. We do not ask that a discretion should be given to the Dean of Guild Court, but simply that they shall place the matter on their records.
  Mr. CURRIE: I am as anxious as anyone that these houses should be built. I have always thought that the conditions at Rosyth were far from creditable. The
  2220
  right hon. Gentleman was quite entitled to listen to the representations of the Burgh of Dunfermline; but, before the Bill goes through, I hope he will amplify the statement he has made. By so doing he would make smoother the remaining stages of the Bill. When the inquiry was being conducted at Edinburgh we had before us parties other than the Corporation of Dunfermline. The Parliamentary Secretary assured me that no prejudice was being done to the tramway company, who hold a Parliamentary title. I would like to know whether the other parties concerned—Lord Elgin and other proprietors—have had the same opportunity as the Dunfermline Burgh Council of considering this Bill, and to be assured that no prejudice is being worked to them. It is due to them and to the Committee that that explanation should be given.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it is a question of consulting Lord Elgin at all; it is not his land, it is Admiralty land.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment, as I understand it, proposes that the matter shall go before a certain tribunal for purposes of registration. Is not that different from the previous Amendment, "pending the approval of a town planning scheme"? Will not that cause delay? As the Bill came in last night you could carry matters through without any delay at all. Will not the effect of this Amendment be that you will have, first of all, to wait for the approval of the town planning scheme, and then—
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The object of this Bill is to prevent our having to wait for the approval of the town planning scheme. It is only pending the approval that we go on without paying any regard to the town planning scheme.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We do not want to delay the Bill. Supposing it were put down for first Order to-morrow?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is the other place; we shall lose a month.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Could it not be arranged? I think arrangements could be made perfectly well, and we should then see the Amendments in print.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend means that the Committee stage should be completed to-day, and then, if the alterations were printed, the Bill could be put

  2221
  down as first Order, and we could have the Third Reading in plenty of time to enable the Bill to go to another place. We should then know what we were doing.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I apologise for having put the Amendments in this way, but there was no other course open to me. I understood that the final stages were to be taken to-day, and that the only method open to me was to hand in the Amendments at the Table. I quite appreciate the difficulty that hon. Members are in through not having seen the Amendments. But I could mot see what other course I could have followed in view of the fact that the Bill has to be got through to-day.
  Mr. LAMBERT: May I make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and also to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London? I am sure what we want is more houses built at the earliest possible moment on the Admiralty land at Rosyth, and unless we can act on this Bill, through the public utility society, the Government will have to build themselves. This is a thing I have worked very hard for for two years, or at any rate twelve months, to avoid, and at last we have the public utility society formed, they will undertake the construction of these houses. For reasons which have been explained clearly by my right hon. Friend, from the fact that the town planning scheme had grown up around the tramway route, which was approved in 1910, and from the fact that the Commission the other day in Edinburgh upset that scheme or modified it, the whole town planning has to be done over again. That being so, we want now, without reference to this town planning, to authorise the public utility society to build a certain number of houses for the workmen at Rosyth. If we do not do that, then the Government has to build, and I am perfectly certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Baronet will agree with me that it is far better that this work should be done through a public utility society than that the Admiralty should undertake it.
  I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that in this matter the borough of Dunfermline has been very patriotic and spent a very large sum of money. It has taken a lot of trouble in regard to town planning, and naturally it is a little upset that the scheme of town planning has been, so to
  2222
  speak, almost wrecked because the Parliamentary Committee—I do not say for or against, whether they were right or wrong, I do not argue—but the Parliamentary Committee have given powers for an alternative route, and that has destroyed, or at any rate put back, the town planning scheme upon which the town of Dunfermline spent so much money. My right hon. Friend has endeavoured to bring everybody in, and to keep everybody, if I may say so, sweet, including the town council of Dunfermline. If we get what we desire it would not lead to any delay. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Admiralty will see that there is no undue delay. I do ask them, since I am perfectly certain that this Bill is carrying out a policy that they would approve, to trust us in this matter, and let us get the Bill at the earliest possible moment. A month's delay is a very serious matter at this time of the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "One day!"] I am afraid the Bill could not be got through to-morrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, I am informed not.
  I cannot speak for the Government, but I have no objection to one day's delay, provided it does not wreck or prevent the Bill going through. All we want is to get the Bill. May I make a suggestion to hon. Gentlemen opposite? Suppose these Amendments are on the Paper to-morrow morning, and there are any that can be legitimately objected to, they may, if they do not make the Bill impossible, be taken in the other House. I only want to get the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get the Committee stage to-night!"] I am informed we will not get through if we do not get beyond that. If the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will guarantee that the Bill shall be got through to-morrow, on that condition we shall be pleased to fall in with any arrangement that he suggests. I am sure the hon. Members opposite, like us, want to get the Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's plans will work; if the Amendments are reserved for the Lords and come back here the Bill would obviously be delayed for a month.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I do not think so.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We are all agreed on the main issue, but I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman, in his sweetening process, has forgotten the House of Commons.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am sure he did not.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: After all, the House of Commons is responsible. Bills are brought in and amended out of all recognition by manuscript Amendments, and surely it is not out of reason to ask for one day's delay in order to have the Amendments printed, and to take the responsibility which is ours! That is really the whole point. The Bill can perfectly well be passed through to-morrow. All that we ask is that we shall see the Bill in print to-morrow: we shall see the Amendments, and, as we hope, we shall not be merely repeating ourselves. My hon. Friend proposes to conclude the Committee stage and take Report as the first order to-morrow; then if we find, as we hope we may find, these Amendments can be dealt with, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will get the Report stage and the Third Reading, and the Bill can then go through with the consent of the House.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman really misunderstands our position on this side. We are all agreed on the main principle of this Bill as it stands now, and we are anxious to expedite the Bill. What the right hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that while we do not object to the principle of the Bill, we object to the alterations now introduced, and introduced without being put on the Paper—without our being able to understand or grasp fully their meaning. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty explained the object of the Bill to us. We are anxious to see the Bill passed in the form it was explained, but it has been altered so largely that it is no longer a matter between the Local Government Board for Scotland, the public utility society, and the Admiralty. There has been brought in a new possibility, a new element. It is on these points that I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we need elucidation and explanation. We have no desire to delay the Bill, but surely, under all the circumstances, it would be better to follow the course suggested and finish the Bill tomorrow, because it could be got through its necessary stages before the Adjournment.
  Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend and I are extremely anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are all agreed upon the principle of this Bill. May I take it that if the Committee stage is finished to-night, that unless there is some very serious objection, the Report
  2224
  stage and the Third Reading shall be taken to-morrow, practically sub silentio. May I take it that that will be so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (1) add the words:—
  "If, on the application of the society, the town council still refuse or, in the opinion of the board, unduly delay to grant authority as aforesaid, such authority may forthwith be granted by the board."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill, as amended, reported, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).

NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES.

  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move: "That this House approves of the Reports of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants)."
  In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has asked me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I desire to recommend this course to the House. The first report of the Committee was presented as far back as 2nd February. The second report was presented on 15th April. In order that the House may have a fair view of the scope and purpose of these reports it is necessary to remind the House, briefly, of the situation in relation to allowances and pensions as it stood at the outbreak of the War, and up to the time of the appointment of a Select Committee. At the outbreak of the War separation allowance was limited in the Army to those men married on the strength. I understand that those married on the strength amounted in the Infantry to about 3 per cent. of the whole. The rate in the lowest ranks was 7s. 7d. per week and 1s. 2d. for each child, to which the soldier had to add 3s. 6d. and 7d. respectively, making a total of 11s. 1d. for the wife and 1s. 9d. for each child. In the Navy there were no separation allowances given at all. As regards dependants, otherwise than wives and children, there was no allowance either to them in the

  2225
  Navy or in the Army. Pensions existed, but they were on a very small scale.
  In both the Army and the Navy the pension in the lowest rank was 5s. per week for the widow and 1s. 6d. for each child. Disability pensions were 10s. 6d. to 17s. 6d. for total disablement and 3s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. a week for partial disablement. The whole scale, both of pensions and allowances, was obviously quite inadequate for the conditions of a war such as the present. We have to remember that the men are recruited at the present time from all parts of the country, and from all classes, rural, commercial, and industrial. The Army, moreover, now is in very large proportion constituted of men who have not adopted a military life as a career, but who will return to civil life after the War, and who have only temporarily left their homes, which have to be kept up during their absence. The inadequacy of the old rules as to pensions and allowances was recognised immediately on the outbreak of the War, and considerable steps were taken administratively forthwith. The distinction between married on the strength and married off the strength was abolished, thereby extending the separation allowance to all married soldiers. As the result of departmental action, increases were made in the separation rates, particularly by the abolition of extra allotments for children; allowances for dependants were introduced as from 1st October; separation allowance was given in the Navy; and both widows and disability pensions were increased.
  The resulting scheme was shown in the White Paper with which, I think, both in its contents and in its name the House is now very familiar, and which was presented on 9th November. The scheme, as proposed in the White Paper, was discussed in this House on 18th November last, and there was no doubt that the sentiment of hon. Members in every quarter of the House was that, while it was recognised that some considerable advance had been made in the allowances and pensions given to the dependants of soldiers and sailors, something more ought to be done, having regard to the very special circumstances in this War, to which I have already alluded, and a Select Committee was appointed—
  "to consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present war, and for the widows, orphans and dependants of officers and men who have lost their lives, and whether the existing scheme of separation allowances to wives, children and dependants should be amended."
  2226
  The Select Committee met on 23rd November. Numerous sittings were held, both to receive evidence and for the purposes of consultation. In the report of the evidence twenty-five sittings are mentioned, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—who, if he will allow me to say so, was perhaps the most assiduous attendant, at any rate with one or two of us—knows, several other meetings were held which are not included in the report, and, as the result of their labours, which might be described not unfairly as considerable, the first report was presented on 2nd February, and recommended increased separation allowances and pensions. The increased separation allowances took effect from 1st March last, and I would have the House to note this point, because there has been a good deal of anxiety expressed with regard to it, that from that same date, 1st March last, the new scale for widows and for disability pensions will also run. It is quite true that the new scale has not yet been paid for disability pensions, but that has been owing to unavoidable delays of Departmental action, but it is now finally agreed, and the arrears will be paid on the higher scale as from 1st March last, so that it may be said that the report of the Committee presented to the House on 2nd February was made the basis of complete Departmental action, and the findings of the Committee have already been carried into effect.
  It is not necessary for me now to go into detail into the new scale which was recommended by the Committee. I believe every Member of the House is quite familiar with it, and it has been circulated to the House. I believe I shall be justified—at least I hope so—in saying that the House as a whole accepted the scale recommended by the Committee, and that the scale has been considered by the country as fair and reasonable. I may say, indeed, that the rates paid are far in excess of any rates hitherto paid in this country, and are very much in excess of any rates now paid by any of the great combatant countries in this war. We stand, in fact, a long way ahead in the recognition of the pecuniary claims that the dependants of soldiers and sailors have upon the State whilst they are absent from their homes fighting in the cause of their country.
  The Committee, after a very full consideration, decided upon the principle

  2227
  that grants made by the State out of public funds must be on a flat rate, and that the scale should bear some relation to the standard of living in the country. We felt—I am sure the principle will recommend itself to the House—that as a soldier every man was to be treated alike—[An HON. MEMBER: "Of the same rank"]—that every man of the same rank was to be treated alike. Every man offers the same services, and runs the same risks. It was felt, moreover—I am looking at the employment of the man as a soldier or sailor from the point of view of the State—that administrative simplicity is essential in order to minimise delay. That was the ground, put very shortly, on which the Committee determined that, so far as public funds were concerned, we ought to recommend to this House a flat rate both for allowances and pensions.
  But it was impossible for the Committee to disregard a very large body of evidence that was brought before it, that the sacrifice which enlistment entailed upon the family which was left at home varied very much in degree. The absence, the incapacity, the death of the bread-winner might bring far more havoc and suffering to the family in one case than in another, and we thought that it would be right and proper that a formal recognition should be made by the Committee of the existence of this different degree of sacrifice upon the family by the absence of the bread-winner, and that we should recommend to this House that out of the funds not voted by this House but of a public nature, or by new voluntary subscription, an effort should be made to equalise, so far as it was possible, the degree of sacrifice which was entailed upon every family. Of course, there were obvious limits to the distance to which you could go. Everybody will agree that the wife and family of an agricultural labourer who receives as much in the way of separation allowance as they enjoy, perhaps, as the total family income—
  Mr. HOGGE: And more!
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member may take a strong case; I take a moderate case. In such a case there is not the same sacrifice made by the family as in the case of a workman, who may be a highly-skilled workman, hitherto earning three, four, or five pounds a week, or a clerk whose salary may be as much, or more, who leave their families behind receiving what, for them, is only a comparatively poor pittance.
  2228
  The Committee, holding these views, accordingly in their second Report, presented on 15th April, made their recommendations for the constitution of the body which, with the assistance of local committees, should administer these supplementary Grants, to be made, so far as funds are available, out of voluntary funds of a national character in cases where special circumstances demand such treatment. I should like to say here that the constitution of a new body, which was to have devolved upon it, on the recommendation of Parliament, duties of this kind, was a matter which presented very great difficulty. We had the greatest assistance in coming to a conclusion upon this matter from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). He not only addressed to the Committee some very interesting and forcible verbal evidence upon the subject, but we also had the advantage of receiving from him a wholly detailed scheme, from which I think the Committee may justly and properly admit that they have largely borrowed in their own proposals to this House. The object which the Committee had in view, generally speaking, was this: we sought to build up a new body out of many constituent parts, the principal one of which is the Royal Patriotic Corporation. We had in that corporation the example of an excellent institution which has done a great deal of public work with the approval of the country, and we thought that we could not do better than look in the main to the constitution of the Royal Patriotic Corporation. We have, therefore, recommended that a special body shall be constituted which should be called the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Corporation. We do not suggest that this body in the least should interfere with the existing duties of the Patriotic Corporation, but we merely suggest that out of that corporation a new statutory Committee should be formed, and to that Committee we suggest that the special duties of which I have just spoken should be assigned. We look not only to the Patriotic Corporation. I hope my colleagues on the Committee will not object to me revealing this secret, but I confess that we had our eye on the money, and we looked to the possibility of some financial assistance being obtained from the National Relief Fund, and we provided in our proposals that representatives of the National Relief Fund should

  2229
  be included in this new statutory Committee. I would like to say here on behalf of the whole Committee, and I wish to be perfectly frank on the subject, that we have no right and we do not make any claim upon the National Relief Fund, and I mention the matter first in the House of Commons in order to explain our full proposals to this House, whose Committee we are. We should not make any requests to the National Relief Fund until we have formally presented the whole of our proposals to that body, and then we shall invite their co-operation in the great work we have in hand.
  We looked also to another body which has done very good work in connection with these matters, and that is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and we propose to have two members of that body as members of the statutory Committee. We have provided also for the representation of two women on the Committee and two representatives of labour. We think this is a proper body to administer the functions of which I have spoken. What we ask for now is the approval of the House to the general principles. It cannot be expected for a moment that all the details of this scheme will commend themselves to every hon. Member of the House. The new Statutory Committee cannot, however, be set up except by a Bill, and if the House approves of the report, when we get to the Committee stage of the Bill I would suggest that that would be the right time for considering the details of the opposition to this body. The House will recognise that in framing a scheme of this kind, we have largely to draw upon such evidence as we can obtain and the experience of such bodies already in existence. There is no great Department of State with a long experience and a long history behind it, able to bring out from its pigeon-holes proposals which have received the consideration of successive Ministers of State, as is the case in an ordinary Departmental matter. In a proposal of this kind we have to look to the collective wisdom of the House, and we shall expect, when we are in Committee on the Bill, to receive amending proposals, and we shall welcome suggestions of every kind which may be made. We do not put this forward as the last word of wisdom in dealing with this proposal, but we do ask the House to give a general assent to the principle of our proposals. So much for the constitution
  2230
  of the new body which we propose to set up for the purpose of preparing schemes laying down general principles upon which additional grants should be made in individual cases over and above the flat-rate paid by the State. We also propose, if a body of this kind commends itself to the House, that certain other functions should be handed over to it which, in ordinary circumstances, might be administered by the War Office and the Admiralty. We propose that the statutory Committee should decide questions of fact with regard to pensions payable out of the public funds to dependants other than wives and children. The decision of questions of fact will be given only by the statutory body, and once that decision is given on the question of fact, the War Office will pay automatically the rate which is due upon that finding of fact out of public funds. All payments out of public funds will be paid out by a public authority, but questions of fact which will determine the rates of pensions will be decided by this statutory body. Local committees may be asked to recommend and inquire upon the state of facts as brought before them, but the responsibility for making the decision will be placed upon the statutory Committee.
  Mr. WARDLE: Will the questions of fact only apply to the extra allowance, and not to the recommendations of the ordinary Grants due from the State?
  Mr. McKENNA: That will depend upon circumstances. I am now dealing with the case in which the Statutory Committee will be making decisions with regard to public money.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Are these decisions in the nature of a general rule, or individual cases?
  Mr. McKENNA: They are decisions in each individual case of dependants other than the wife and child, and the decision on questions of fact will be given by this statutory Committee. This committee may use the local committees for the purpose of obtaining information, but not for the purpose of giving a decision. We next suggest, apart from making supplementary Grants in proper cases, that the statutory Committee should decide in a judicial capacity questions relating to forfeiture and claims to pensions and separation allowances which are in dispute between two or more claimants. I hope that the House will accept the proposal

  2231
  that these quasi-judicial functions should be exercised by an independent body like this statutory body rather than the War Office or the Admiralty. It is most undesirable that a public Department should be subjected to continual pressure with regard to cases of this kind, I do not say from Members of Parliament, but pressure from constituents and others interested parties which make it always extremely difficult not only for hon. Members but those who have charge of this matter to deal with. It is clearly better that these quasi-judicial decisions should be handed over to an independent body of this kind. In the main, those will be the functions which we propose for the Statutory Committee.
  With regard to local committees or local advisory bodies as determined here, we recommend that they should be created. I know that in this matter there will be a good deal—I will not say of controversy—but discussion as to whether we should, or should not, use existing committees, such as the pensions committees. Very authoritative bodies representing county councils and borough councils have already brought this matter to our notice, and they have urged that the Pension Committees would be the most desirable bodies to use for this purpose. We have discussed this matter, and in our report we have not excluded the possibility of the Pension Committee being deputed to do this work. It will not, however, do it in its capacity as a Pension Committee, and we ask the local Committee to frame a scheme for the constitution of the Committee. Every scheme has to be submitted for the approval of the statutory Committee, and should provide that the chairman and one half of the remaining members of the Committee should be appointed by the county borough or district council. They need not necessarily be members of any one of those local authorities, but we secure public interest and ultimately public control of the work of these Committees by the fact that the local authority must be responsible for the appointment of the chairman and one half of the members of the Committee. We think, also, that the scheme should provide for the appointment of two members by the statutory Committee on every local Committee, and that provision should be made for the appointment of not less than two women. I do not think that it is possible to lay
  2232
  down in advance any precise rules as to what the functions of the local Committees should be. In regard to this question of pensions and allowances, the history of the War has been very different in different localities. Most of the localities have sent up large subscriptions to the National Relief Fund, and not unnaturally they look to that Fund for a return to their own districts of a fair proportion of the appropriate expenditure out of the Fund. Other districts, on the other hand, adopted an independent policy, and said from the first, "We will subscribe nothing to the National Relief Fund; we have our own local fund." It would be impossible to lay down the same rule of conduct for districts whose circumstances are so dissimilar as those I have described. In one case the local authority have the right to look to the central authority for financial assistance; in the other case the local Committee must provide its own financial assistance. Therefore, we do not go beyond suggesting that local Committees may be set up, and, if they are set up, they must be set up in accordance with the scheme, and that scheme must have the approval of the statutory Committee.
  Sir R. ADKINS: We recommend further that local advisory bodies or Committees should be created.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, we approve of that. We do not go further than that in the report, but, of course, when we get to the Bill we shall have to ask the assistance of the House in considering the great variety of cases which will arise all over the country, and when we get into Committee on the Bill we shall welcome, as I have said before now in the case of the statutory Committee, all the proposals for the consideration of the question as to what the functions and the limit of the functions of these local Committees should be.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether there will be representatives of soldiers and sailors on the local Committees?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be quite possible and I should say even probable, but we do not make that essential.
  Colonel YATE: You provide for women; would it not be necessary to provide for representatives of the Army and Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can say that would be so. Every scheme submitted to the

  2233
  statutory Committee would contain proposals of the kind, and, no doubt, in every locality in which there was a Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, members of that association would be included in the committee. But they do not exist universally. These are all questions which are appropriate to the Committee stage of the Bill, and are quite inappropriate to a discussion on a general report which does not raise the points at all. I am only forecasting to the House something which the Bill will necessarily contain in order to satisfy the whole of the requirements of the subject. I believe that I have now covered the whole ground as to the principles upon which we ask the judgment of the House, and I hope that the Motion which I now formally make will receive the general acceptance of hon. Members.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is a little difficult to approve the portrait the Home Secretary has given of the new body which is to be set up to work the two reports issued from this Committee, to whom we all owe our thanks for the great amount of labour and skill with which they have worked out a very difficult problem. If you see a portrait perhaps after the third or fourth sitting, you are inclined to say that it is a very promising portrait and looks as if it were going to turn out an admirable portrait. That is exactly what I would say of these two schemes. After all, there is another report to me. We have yet to see the Bill which is to carry out the scheme, and until we do see the Bill we are hardly in a position to say whether we can approve of the two reports or whether we would like to make some reservations. I would like to make one or two reservations to-night. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that these pensions are a very great improvement on any pensions that have hitherto existed in this or any other country, possibly the Dominions excepted, for the reward of those who have given their services and to the widows of those who have given up their lives to their country. That is undoubtedly so, but let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were no pensions at all before the Transvaal War. We are going through a process of evolution; everything, of course, is getting better, and ought to get better and to improve, and I think we may fairly say that the Government have really adopted a liberal and generous scale of pensions, looking to the fact of the enormous burden which the taxpayers of this country will
  2234
  have to bear after this War is over. It is, on the whole, a really generous scale of pensions. It is a great improvement on the old White Paper. Certain defects were pointed out in the pensions as delineated in the White Paper, and those defects have now disappeared.
  I will only make one or two comments on the scale of pensions. I will only make one on the pensions for those partially disabled and possibly permanently disabled. There, whether your pension is adequate or not, will largely depend upon whether the local bodies, which I hope are to be set up all over the country, are dovetailed into your pension system so that they will do their utmost to use their funds for those partially disabled. Everything will depend upon whether or not the man is able to get the right kind of job when possibly he has lost one arm or leg. Perhaps the greatest reservation I want to make is with regard to the question of the pensions to widows. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I think very rightly said, that the Committee was bound to adopt a flat rate of pension. He said that, after all, every man who gave his services took the same risks and made the same sacrifice. Yes, but the widow who is left is called upon to make a great variety in degree of self-sacrifice. The self-sacrifice in the home after the man has gone very much depends on what the income was and what the social condition of the woman was when her husband was alive. I said that I was only going to give my own adhesion to a flat rate of 10s. if a large supplementary sum of money was set aside out of which that flat rate could be very considerably increased in such cases as many of us have in mind, where the man who has died sacrificed an income of £3, £4, £5, and even £6 per week. It is all very well to give the widow of an agricultural labourer or a man who was in the position of an agricultural labourer, or a man earning under possibly 20s. per week, 10s. per week, increasing at thirty-five to 12s. 6d. per week and at forty-five to 15s. per week. When she gets her 15s. per week she is possibly better off than she was in her husband's lifetime. But to offer that 10s., 12s. 6d., and 15s. per week to widows—of whom there are already many hundreds—who are living in houses which would absorb the whole of that money in rent, is indeed to call upon them to make a most unequal sacrifice, and to bring them down from the position which they

  2235
  very rightly occupied through the whole of their married lives. Therefore I say that, to my mind, the weak spot here is that there is no large supplementary sum set aside by which these low pensions can be increased where they ought to be increased.
  The Report points out to the new body that one of its duties is to increase these pensions wherever it is proper to increase them, but when we come to the resources out of which the new body is to find the increase, what does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that these resources are not to be derived from moneys voted by Parliament, but from the National Relief Fund or from new subscriptions. I am a member of the National Relief Fund, and I am quite ready to vote a sum of money for the purpose of supplementing pensions, although I do not think that we can vote enough; but I do not know, and I have no right to say, whether the National Relief Fund will be willing to part with a large sum for the purpose. They have never been approached, and I do not know what their decision would be. Supposing it refuses to vote any sum, or only votes a moderate sum, what will be the condition of those on this new body? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that at the end of the War, when so many financial needs will have to be met, and when so many subscriptions will have to be paid, there will be a large surplus of money out of which that new body will be likely to draw new subscriptions? I very much doubt it; and when the right hon. Gentleman thanks me for my evidence, may I remind him that there is one piece of evidence which I gave? I said that if I gave my adhesion to a flat rate of 10s. I should expect the Government to place at the disposal of somebody or other a capital sum of something like £5,000,000. I put it at first at £2,000,000, but I increase it to £5,000,000, which I think will be absolutely necessary to meet the enormous demands that will be made if we are to satisfy people that we have treated them generously, and if we are to remove the discontent which will undoubtedly exist if there are thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of people who have been brought down from a very high position solely by the fact that their husbands have given their lives in the services of the country. I think, therefore, that I must reserve my opinion as to this flat rate of 10s. until I know a little more as
  2236
  to whether the Government are likely or not likely to produce a considerable sum of money for this new body to utilise for the purpose of supplementing these pensions. I do not say £5,000,000 a year; but £5,000,000 in a capital sum. I have dared to say, and I say again, that I believe if that sum were placed at the disposal of some body, drawn on something like the lines suggested in this Report, a judicious use of the money on the whole would be able to satisfy the country that all really deserving cases had been awarded adequate pensions, particularly in the case of the widow where the husband had given up his life for his country.
  I was asked: "At what would you put the maximum pension?" I think that it was a very fair question. I said that I would put the maximum pension at £2 per week, or £100 a year. I would not give a higher pension. If you did your system of pensions for the widows of a private and non-commissioned officers would conflict with your ideas of pensions for officers themselves. I think that £100 a year is a very fair pension. Then I was asked: "On what general principles would you settle whether a person should have a certain pension or not?" I should look to these circumstances: First, to the kind of house in which she had been in the habit of living, to the amount of money which her husband earned, to her own state of health, to her ability and capacity to earn, and whether or not she was a woman who had ever been called upon to earn her living. I should also look a little bit to her relations to see whether they would be able to help her, and whether she had any sons who could assist her. All these circumstances would have to be taken into consideration, and these principles would have to be first settled by this new body or some other body, because it is perfectly obvious that the new body will be pulled in different directions by different people. It must first settle the conditions of eligibility for the new pensions before dealing with the cases themselves. Having settled those principles it will not be very difficult to apply the conditions of eligibility to all new cases that come before the body.
  I attach enormous importance to the question whether or not the Government are willing to place a considerable sum of money at the disposal of this body for supplementing pensions. The right hon. Gentleman complimented me on the evidence

  2237
  I gave and on the scheme which I proposed. He said they had borrowed very largely from the scheme. I wish they had borrowed the whole of it, because I believe the whole of it would be much more palatable to the House, and much more acceptable, than the part of it. I wish to restate what I said on a previous occasion. Personally, having watched and carefully studied this question for years, both as a Commissioner for Chelsea Hospital, as Chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and as vice-chairman of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, I came to the conclusion, years ago, that all pensions together with the whole system ought to be removed from the War Office and the Admiralty, and put under one pension body with one pension board, so that everybody should know who wanted to do anything for either a disabled soldier or sailor, so that every soldier or sailor who had a pension because of wounds or disease, or any wife who had a separation allowance, or any widow who had a pension through the death of her husband, so that in fact everybody should know there was one body to which they could go, one body which had made the decision. It would also be one body to whom we could look in Parliament and which would be answerable to Parliament for the decisions at which it had arrived.
  Personally, I wish that all these bodies which exist now, too many of them overlapping each other, should be absorbed in one body, and that body should be governed by a corporation, and then by an executive chosen by that corporation. I would make members of that corporation all chairmen of county councils, all mayors of towns, and all lord-provosts, or their nominees, and I would have that body meet four times a year, in order to get from the representatives of the people themselves their views as to the general conditions under which pensions should be given. Out of that body I would form an executive committee, such as there is in connection with the Royal Patriotic Fund, which would decide practically the main conditions of eligibility, and deal with all the different cases that come before it. That scheme I think would be a popular scheme and a democratic scheme. It would be one in every way satisfactory to the country. At the same time, having some recollections of Treasury experience, I would take care that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the process of nomination, and particu-
  2238
  larly by the process of nominating a paid chairman and vice-chairman, should have considerable control over the money involved in the decisions come to by that body.
  That, apparently, was too big a scheme for the Government to take on at the present time. I am obliged to them for having taken part of it, and for thinking of setting up this statutory Committee. I shall be curious to see what relationship this statutory Committee is to occupy to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. We must wait for that until we see the Bill. But I want to say of this statutory body that it is extremely important how you choose it. I hope we shall get on that body men and women who have leisure enough to give to this work. That is where, I am afraid, the scheme will break down. I know what the work of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is; it takes one day a week. But that is nothing—it will be a joke to the work that will have to be done by this new body, which, I believe, will have to sit every day in the week for the next two or three years. I am certain it will not get through its work unless you have a paid chairman and also a paid vice-chairman. Both those offices must be paid offices. I believe this body will have to break itself into two Courts, one to deal with Army cases and one with Navy cases, for these cases do not run on the same lines. I am absolutely convinced that this body will at first require to do an enormous amount of detailed work—work which will necessitate an enormous amount of attention, and I do not think you can well ask any man to give up the whole of his time to this work unless you pay him well and make it a single job for a single man. Personally, I repeat, I think you will have to have both a paid chairman and a paid vice-chairman.
  The right hon. Gentleman asks the House to approve the principle but to wait for details. I am perfectly ready to give him my approval of the principle. I would naturally have liked the larger scheme, but I look on this scheme as something better than anything we have got at present, and I believe if you get the right men and right women on this body it will be found to be a workable scheme. But only on this condition, that that body immediately brings into being strong local bodies all over the country, not only in every large town but in almost every small town. I hope that when these bodies are brought into being they will be brought

  2239
  into being for all purposes connected with the soldier's and the sailor's life. I observe the Report has just been issued of the Committee set up by the Local Government Board to inquire into the question of finding employment for disabled and wounded soldiers and sailors. That Committee has recommended that local bodies shall be brought into being all over the country for the single purpose of finding employment for wounded, diseased, and disabled soldiers and sailors. We have not material enough in the country for many of these committees. You must get the right people to act in large towns, such as Manchester, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Edinburgh—you want a committee composed of all those who really take an interest in the lives of soldiers and sailors, who have had great experience in dealing with them, who are in touch with the regimental authorities, who are in touch also with employers of labour, and you want the kind of people, too, who can benefit the wives of the soldiers and sailors. These committees should form subcommittees such as they have in Glasgow and we have in London, and on those committees you should put all those who have really shown an eager desire to help soldiers and sailors by their work during this War.
  I heartily congratulate the Select Committee that they have not attempted to frame one scheme by which these local bodies may be formed. It is infinitely better to let Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Norwich, Glasgow, and Edinburgh frame their own schemes. Let us have a variety of schemes. They are working at the present time very differently in Glasgow, in Liverpool, and in London. All these places have different ways of working, and therefore I say let us have a variety of schemes; let us put the right people on the committees, and not necessarily borough councillors, who, perhaps, have never done this particular sort of work. I do not think the pension committees are the right people; neither do I think the pension officers are the right persons to go into houses to make these inquiries. They are estimable people for dealing with old age pensions and with civil pensions, and matters of that kind, but I do not think they have exactly the right touch or the right knowledge with which to adjudicate on the pensions that ought to be given to the wives and families or the widows and orphans of soldiers
  2240
  and sailors. There may be some towns that would employ them very largely. That would be possible. But under this proposal every town would be able to make its own scheme.
  The scheme will depend enormously for its success on the way in which local bodies go to work. I should like to see one of these committees for soldiers and sailors in every county and in every large town. I should like to see them vie with one another, and I believe they will compete with one another as to which can do the best for the disabled soldiers and sailors, or for the widows and orphans of those who have given up their lives for their country. I think you may get some help if you stimulate this kind of competition between counties and boroughs as to which can do the best for those who have served the nation so well. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, might then hope to get some money from local resources in order to supplement the pensions which the State gives. Whatever pension the State gives, whatever the conditions of eligibility, I can say from long experience there will always be very hard cases that will not come within the conditions laid down by the State, and until some such body as you are proposing is set up, with a human element and a human touch in it, you will not be able to do the amount of work that ought to be done if we are to remove the discontent which is likely to arise.
  This body is to have enormous powers; it is to decide on the facts upon which a dependant other than a wife or child will get a pension. This is very important, because it will be deciding whether or not the State will give a pension. The body will, therefore, control State funds as well as voluntary funds. It is going to have the power of saying whether or not any single pension shall be supplemented. It is to have other powers; it will deal with the question of the remarriage of the widow, and it will have the power to say whether a lump sum shall be given or whether it shall be spread over a number of instalments. It will have to make some very delicate inquiries before it can arrive at a conclusion on that very difficult matter. It will have other enormous powers entrusted to it—powers which are not mentioned in either of these Reports. It will be entrusted as a body with the power of deciding whether or not a soldier or sailor died from wounds or disease contracted in the Service. That is not at all an easy matter.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): That will be decided by the Department.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am sorry if it is to be left to the Department. Everything will depend on what view the Department takes, and who knows who the Department is? If you have a statutory body set up, such as is going to be set up here, a body partly elected and partly representative, everybody will know on what lines its decisions are made; they will know the evidence placed before that body, and the decisions at which it arrives; and I believe they will be far more content with decisions made by some such body as that than they will be with decisions which they may think emanate from some official either at the War Office or at the Admiralty, and which absolutely settles the fate of the unfortunate widow or children for the rest of their lives. There is another difficult question to be decided, and that is when the seven years is to come to an end. Who is to decide this? After the Transvaal War we discovered hundreds and hundreds of cases where men had lived more than seven years, and yet their death was due to disease contracted in the war or aggravated by the War. Again, that is a very difficult question to decide. We take immense pains on the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation in deciding it on medical evidence and so on. Is that to be left to the Department or to the new body?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Department.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am very sorry to hear it. I find that the Royal Patriotic Fund takes a more generous view of this question than the Government Department; at any rate, it is more responsible and it is easier to arrive at the reasons which it gives for its decisions. All these great powers and many more that I might mention are to be left to this voluntary body. It will have enormous powers and it will require great care and attention and very great labour if these functions are to be adequately performed. I will end, perhaps, on a Treasury note. I hope that this body will contain, from the Treasury point of view, some persons who are fairly stiff in the back, because it is no good blinking the fact that at the present moment there is a good deal of—I do not like to say fraud—but a good deal of "trying it on" on the Treasury and the funds at the present moment. Where there are large public funds going, some people
  2242
  think they have a perfect right to have them whether they are eligible or not. We want on this body one or two persons who will have their eye on the Treasury, that is, on the taxpayer, because, while we want to be most generous and liberal to the soldiers and sailors who have suffered in our cause and to the widows and the orphans, we also want to be just to the taxpayers who have to find the money. Those taxpayers who will have to find the money are mostly people who will get nothing like these pensions for themselves; they will have to endure many a hardship, and when their time comes to die there will be no such pensions for their widows or orphans. We want both elements on this Committee—the element that looks with generosity and liberality on those who are seeking the pension and the element that will be just to the taxpayers of this country who have to find the money.
  Mr. WARDLE: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in all the details into which he entered with regard to the statutory body; indeed, much of what he has said on that matter would have been better reserved until we had the Bill before us. There are, however, one or two things I should like to say on the question of the statutory body. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to see one authority for dealing with the whole question of pensions throughout the country, but I do not think that that body should have the power of spending public money, unless that public money is put aside in such form as a capital fund strictly limited in the sense he suggested. I do not think it would be the proper thing that they should have the power to make grants out of public money beyond that limited fund. As to the local committee, I do not think any local committee ought to have the power to settle any question of fact, or any question dealing with the amount of the pension which is to be paid. In any powers which may be given to any local committees, those questions should be strictly reserved, and the local committees should not be allowed to interfere in them.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the Committee's Report?
  Mr. WARDLE: I did not read it in that way, and the Home Secretary did not make it quite clear in replying to my question.
  Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman mean pensions paid out of public money or from private subscriptions?
  Mr. WARDLE: Out of public money.
  Mr. McKENNA: They will have nothing to do with that.
  Mr. WARDLE: That was the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman, and his reply was not quite clear to me. Coming back to the question of the Report and speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, who had a representative on the Committee, I desire to say that we feel bound by the action of our representative on that Committee, in a general way, to support the Report which is now before the House. We might possibly individually, and even collectively, differ from some small parts of the Report, and have criticisms to make upon it, if we ourselves had to judge the matter, but as our representative sat upon the Committee, and as he came to the decisions with the other Members, we shall abide loyally by the decisions to which the Committee came. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says there has never been in the history of this country, or of any Continental country, so generous a measure of pensions or allowances, but there has never been, so far as this country is concerned, a war like this, which has drawn into the Army members of all classes, and men who have willingly—and we have helped to persuade them to do it—given up situations in which they were earning good money in order that they might serve their country. Therefore we feel that in this great question there is a necessity to rise far above anything that has ever been done before in order that the sacrifices which the men, and particularly the women, are making should be adequately recognised.
  There are one or two small points in regard to the Report I desire to raise. I do not know whether this is the right time to raise them. For instance, I want to know whether this new statutory body will have the right to determine such a case as this. At the present moment the War Office have put it on one side and have not faced it. They have brought soldiers' wives back from India. The wife has settled in London, but because she has come back from India she is not allowed the London allowance, which is 3s. 6d. extra. In the case of a woman who has come up from the country voluntarily
  2244
  to live in London, we can understand their refusal to give the London allowance, but in the case Of women who have been brought back from India, and who have taken up their residence in London because it was the only convenient place where they could take it up, and because their relatives live there and they obtained their living there—in a case like that we ought to know whether the War Office intends to be responsible, or whether this new statutory body is to have the right to say that the extra 3s. 6d. should be given from public funds. That is a point that ought to be brought out, and we ought to know who is to have the decision in the matter. If the War Office is to have the decision, then they ought to come to a decision now, and let us know how the matter stands. There is another point of a similar character in regard to Indian reservists, men who have been in the Service a long time, and who were just on the point of leaving the Army, when they were called up on mobilisation. Those men are not being dealt with in the same manner as the rest of the Forces in regard to separation allowance, and they do not know how they stand with regard to pensions. That is a case which ought to be dealt with by the War Office, rather than that it should be left to the statutory body.
  With regard to the whole question of the statutory body, and how it is to be set up, the Home Secretary has rightly said that the proper time to discuss that is when the Bill is before the House. It is a very big question indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just down has given us a variety of questions with which we shall have to deal. I hope that great care will be exercised in setting up any body of this kind, in order that no power is taken from Parliament which rightly belongs to Parliament with regard to the spending of public funds, and also that whatever decisions to which this statutory body may have to come shall only be decisions of fact, and that such allowances as it may have to make shall be made either out of the capital sum, or out of a voluntary funds, and shall not be a Grant out of public funds. These reservations with regard to this statutory body ought to be made by everyone who is jealous of the powers of Parliament.
  Mr. BONAR LAW(indistinctly heard): I am not going to occupy the attention of the House for many minutes, because the whole subject which is being dealt with

  2245
  this afternoon has, from the time that the Report was issued, been in the minds, and I believe in the hearts of Members of the House of Commons. They have carefully considered it, and the speeches which have already been made show that on the whole the House has recognised what is a fact, that every Member of the Committee desired to approach this subject with one object only, namely, that of dealing fairly and generously with the men who are making these terrible sacrifices on behalf of their country. Nobody who did not go through all the discussions which took place in the Committee and all the thought we gave to the subject between the meetings of the Committee, could realise how great were the difficulties in many directions, some of which have already been mentioned. I was very pleased indeed to hear what the last speaker said about the spirit in which the party for which he speaks accepts the report. I am most sorry that the hon. Member who belonged to his party, who was a member of that Committee, is not present. Really, there were no parties at all on this Committee. We all had one object in view, and if it is true that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) did not get his own way completely in every detail, neither did any of us, but the result in the end was that a scheme was presented to the House of Commons which we all felt was as good as it could be, considering the time and care we were able to give to it, and that it was beyond our power to do more.
  8.0 P.M.
  Difficulties like those mentioned by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) were present to all our minds. For example, there was the hardest case in the whole of this War, the case of the widows of men who had been making very large incomes and who had gone to the front, and of whom so many have died. It means, in their case, that their dependants have had to fall to a lower scale of living than that to which they were accustomed. No sacrifices have been greater than theirs. We in the House of Commons felt the hardship, and before this Committee was set up I myself suggested the idea that there should be a sliding scale instead of a flat rate. I went into the Committee recognising the difficulties of the question, but still determined not to accept the position that it was impossible to carry out a proposition of that kind. The House has to remember that, not only was all this work being
  2246
  done while the War was going on, but that machinery was already in operation. Therefore, very reluctantly, I came to the conclusion that we should cause some confusion by attempting to upset the general principles upon which the whole thing was being worked. That was what we felt, but I felt strongly that that did not satisfy us and would not satisfy the public mind. We were very anxious that in some other way special cases should be dealt with. How is that to be done? I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last about the difficulty of dealing with particular cases. The view is clearly expressed in our report, and which was entertained by the whole committee, that out of voluntary funds very large relief should be given to exceptional cases. My right hon. Friend made to us in the Committee the suggestion that particular grants should be made from Parliament for that purpose. I wish the House to realise that we did not put that aside without consideration and to realise something else, that the moment a grant is made from public funds, that moment all private subscriptions will dry up. That is the fact. At this moment I believe it is right that private funds should contribute to this object, and I can think of nothing more deserving—that is, for meeting exceptional cases—and I know that all over the country this is being done. While, of course, we had no power to say that the Prince of Wales' Fund should be devoted to this purpose, it is our recommendation that it should be done, and it is my hope that that object will be carried out, and I believe also that once you have set up, as we have done in this statutory Committee, a body in which the public has confidence, cases will be carefully, systematically, and generously considered, and once you have done that there will be a great amount of private subscriptions made available for this purpose. I am sure that is so, but I must say frankly that if it were found that that does not happen, I for one would certainly not be content to accept as universal the flat-system which has always been recommended by the Government. I think we must realise, all of us, that on the whole allowances of all kinds which are made by the State are made in this spirit, which was the spirit of every member of the Committee, and which represents the spirit of the House of Commons and of the country, that however great may be the demands

  2247
  caused by the War on the financial resources of the country, the men who are giving up their lives in her service and their dependants come first, and that in what we give to them there must be no suggestion that we are not treating them really in a way that the heart and conscience of the country will regard as just and generous.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I am sure the House is grateful to the Government and to this Committee for presenting this Report, and I desire especially to thank the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) for what he has said with regard to supplementing the flat rate, if possible, from voluntary sources, and, if not, then in the last resort by further Parliamentary aid. For this scale, as put forward in the first Report, has been welcomed in all parts of the country as a great advance on the scale in the White Paper, while at the same time, realising as we do the great arguments for a flat rate, one knows that in some parts of the country the flat rate here proposed may not, by itself, be adequate. You have in parts of Lancashire, with which I am well acquainted, persons earning far higher wages than in the Midlands and the South who have gone to the War, and whose dependants will really be put in a worse position than would be the case in other parts of the country, and I welcome what has fallen both from the Home Secretary and from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) in regard to these matters. There are two or three points which seem to me to arise out of these two Reports. In the first Report it was mentioned that the procedure for the lodging of appeals in these cases would be announced immediately, and we know what the so-called system of appeal is at present. I was told very frankly by the Secretary to the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the War Office what the present system of appeal is. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether, under the new system of the statutory Committee, the present system of so-called appeals is not done away with altogether? In my opinion this is the weakest part of the existing system. It is an appeal to the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson), whose competence we all acknowledge—an appeal not from a person who is going to get the benefit, but from an official or a committee against the committee or against the official. That is not an appeal in the sense of a person
  2248
  who is asking for an allowance and for support as being the wife or a child or dependant of a man at the front. It is an appeal from a local decision to a higher authority. It is an appeal between a public body and a public official as to which is right. I know well that very great dissatisfaction is felt as to the use of pension officers generally, and the feeling in some parts of Lancashire is very strong on this, and I have found grounds for quite as strong feeling in rural villages in Northamptonshire; and that being the case, to say that the only appeal shall be when such an official differs from a pension committee is not to give the people really concerned that right of appeal which I am confident must and ought to be given in a much more decisive and much better form.
  With that I pass to one or two matters in regard to the second Report. I should like to know whether, when this is called the statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Corporation, it means that all the persons put on this must previously be members of the Royal Patriotic Corporation?
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I did not really think it could mean it, but the words themselves convey that impression if they are read independently of the speeches in this House, One will have opportunities, one hopes, when the Bill is brought in, of discussing this in detail. I hope this statutory Committee will not be made more complicated in its composition than is necessary. The more complicated and elaborate and complex you make it, the more difficult it is to fix responsibility and the more confused the public are liable to become as to its character and its influence. I hope, also, there will be some means of making the Committee in some form or other responsible to Parliament. There is great benefit to be obtained, as we know, from executive committees such as the Development Commissioners and the Road Board. It is very desirable that there should be some Minister in Parliament who speaks for these authorities, and who can be subject to Parliamentary criticism and even censure, if occasion should arise.
  There is another point which arises here. My right hon. Friend tells me that all cases of fact are to be decided by the statutory Committee, and I think I understand what my hon. Friend below the

  2249
  Gangway had in mind when he asked that no decision should be taken by a local committee, but that this decision should be taken by the central committee. Yet you may have hundreds and thousands of decisions to take, and if they are taken by a committee meeting in London it may often be very difficult indeed for the person most concerned, living in a remote part of the country, to have his or her case promptly and equitably dealt with. I do not presume to say that I could lay down a system which would meet that. It is difficult, and yet it is imperative, to combine local knowledge, local recommendation, and, to a certain extent, local judgment with giving the real decision to an authoritative committee which will command universal respect and adherence. In all other forms of justice we do all we can to bring justice to the door of the poorest—perhaps not as much as we ought to do, but that is our ideal. Here, when you are having to make a decision which may effect the comfort or even the life of persons who are most of all to be pitied, it is very desirable that your machinery should be so constructed as to combine that easiness of access, that swiftness of application, and that fullness of local knowledge with the authoritative character of the tribunal which gives the final decision.
  With regard to the question of these local committees, it is true that the County Councils Association have passed a resolution suggesting that such committees as local pensions committees now in existence might be used for this. At any rate in the rural parts of England it is putting a great burden on people, and on willing people, if you create a fresh committee. Problems of committee work in rural England are even more difficult, because of geographical and other conditions, than in great cities, and without presuming to say definitely or with any dogmatism as to what particular committee ought always to be be used, I ask the Government to consider what I think is the overwhelming, if not the unanimous, wish of the county authorities that some existing committee, if possible, should be made at least the basis of the local committee which is to act in this case. It is not because we want to shirk the work at all, or because we do not want to help in every way in this most important matter, but because of the actual difficulties of putting up yet one more composite committee when we have already more in some parts of England
  2250
  than we can efficiently staff. These appear to be practical matters which I might be allowed to mention now.
  I attach the greatest importance to the system of appeal which is to be brought in in connection with this Report, and in common with every Member of the House we shall look forward with the greatest interest to the production of this Bill. I hope it may be read the first time and printed as soon after the resumption of Parliament after the Whitsuntide Recess as can possibly be done, and that a reasonable interval be given to consider the Bill before we are asked to deal with the Second Reading, especially in view of what my right hon. Friend has said that he welcomes suggestions from all parts of the House, and I can assure him one cannot imagine any part of the House in which suggestions would not come in the spirit of wishing to help in what is not only one of the most pressing duties of the Government and the House, but one of the matters which touches most nearly our sympathies and our affections.
  It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House approves of the Reports of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants)."
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have no desire to speak in this Debate, but as a Member of the Committee it has been represented to me that I should express my entire adhesion to the Report. I can fully confirm the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in saying that all party feeling was excluded from the Committee, and although

  2251
  I am a strong party man, I had almost wished we could regulate a good many things in this House with a similar absence of such feeling. I must thank the House and the country generally for the favour with which our Report has been received. I would only say one thing in reply to my learned Friend opposite (Sir Ryland Adkins). Our idea with regard to the local committees was that they should keep in constant touch with the families of soldiers. I am sure, in reply to an observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the gangway (Colonel Yate), that in many parts the admirable advice of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association will be called into co-operation, but we left that to the local committees. The local committees, I hope and think, will consist in the future, as in the past, of men and women who make it their duty to pay visits to the homes of these people, to watch them, and bring their cases before the statutory Committee which, of course, is the Committee that must ultimately decide.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The subjects which have been mentioned so far in the Debate have dealt with a general, and if I may say so, a very large question; perhaps the country has as yet hardly realised how large it is, if one can judge by the politics of the United States after the Great Civil War. One, therefore, hesitates to raise a question of detail, but I see no other opportunity of raising that question except in this Debate, and after all the question of detail I want to raise does involve the general question. I want to refer, not to pensions, but to separation allowances and their relation to the supplementary grants which are referred to on page eleven of the first Report. We find it stated there, as the view of the Committee, that they suggest the Prince of Wales' Fund and other funds should be invited to supplement the Government rates of allowances and pensions, when it appears desirable to do so. I think in certain parts of the country, and I know in the west of Scotland, there is a good deal of criticism of the way in which that function of supplementing the general Grant of the State is being fulfilled, and the matter to which I want to refer arises on one particular point in the scale. There is at the present time a 12s. 6d. weekly payment to the wife without children. In the case of London, I believe, there is a supplementary payment—I forget whether it is half-a-crown or three
  2252
  and six. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three and six."] Three and sixpence, then, paid because, I think, it is considered rents in London run higher than in the remainder of the country.
  Some little time ago in Glasgow it was felt that this inequality ought not to be, in that in certain of the great urban districts of the country the cost of living is practically as great as it is in London. The practice, therefore, grew up that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association did pay a supplementary grant to cover that additional rent in desirable cases, precisely as is contemplated by this Report. But they were pulled up by the Central Association in London, acting, I believe—it is not too hard a word to use—at the dictation of the committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund, and were told they must not make these grants. That is, there was to be a flat rate, not only in the families concerned, but in the localities involved, although, as has been pointed out, conditions are very different in different parts of the country. After a good deal of remonstrance they were allowed to continue for one month in the payment of these supplementary sums in the case of those women with 12s. 6d. Then they were pulled up sharp, and the result was that there was a very considerable agitation in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. The result of the fund since the Committee pulled up, as rigidly as any Government Department—and it is obvious if you are going to have the supplementary grants there must be a give and take policy, and we should expect it in the voluntary body rather than in the Government Department, though in this case we have it as rigid in the one as in the other—is that there has been a revolt in the West of Scotland against the formation of a separate fund, and a diversion of a very considerable sum from that rich community which, I think most desirably, would have gone to the national centre.
  I venture to ask that this matter should be reconsidered, and that not only London but other great urban districts in which the cost of living is abnormally high should be allowed to share in the supplementary grants from the State, inasmuch as these great funds are not administered in a sufficiently flexible way as I have shown in the case I have described. The case is that these women are entitled to keep together the home which the man left, and to which he is to come back. It

  2253
  is impossible that out of the 12s. 6d. they could pay the rent which was paid, in many cases, when the man was home and earning on a much bigger scale than 12s. 6d. Facing that fact, and the fact that the country intended that the home should be kept together, and the man able to come back to that which he left, the local branch of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association did pay the rents or did supplement the separation allowances for the purposes of paying the rent in cases which they thought desirable. I think it would be a cheaper method of arriving at the end we have in view because, in many cases, it is not necessary to supplement the separation allowance. There are other resources in some cases. The rent is not so large, and therefore selection is possible when you administer through the society, but as soon as the society is rigidly controlled here in London, too rigidly it seems to me, we have no control over it. I do appeal to the War Office. I am dealing with the soldiers. I am not aware there is an exactly parallel case with the sailor.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They get the London allowance.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Yes, they get another allowance. I do appeal to the Government to consider this in one way or another, either by putting pressure on the administration of the Prince of Wales' Fund to be a little more flexible and reasonable in meeting these cases, or, on the other hand, extending the allowance which is made to London to the other great urban communities. I cannot see any possible reason why they should be excluded from that favour.
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: It is scarcely necessary, I think, to make a speech on this subject after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), whose knowledge of it is unique. I should like, however, to express my gratification at the fact that the Government have found time to bring this all-important question before the notice of the House, and I hope that now we shall have some more logical and consistent policy of dealing with the question of dependants' allowances than we have had in the past. Speaking from a certain amount of experience of running one of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association committees in London, I can only say that it is almost impossible to
  2254
  understand the principle upon which these dependants' allowances have been granted. The instructions given to old age pension officers have been far too meagre. I think that has had a great deal to do with the case. Then there was the fact that these men were suddenly called upon to deal with extremely complicated questions, with which none of them had ever been called upon to deal before. That fact makes me think that the proposition that the old age pension committee should be used in future is certainly wrong, and that the local committees which have been proposed are far better. What has taken place in the past is something like this: The old age pension officer went into the room of the dependant and practically made a bargain with him or her as to what was the amount of loss which he or she suffered through the absence of the soldier. In nine cases out of ten this was simply confirmed without any further questions being asked by the old age pension committee. Consequently there were all sorts of absurdities with regard to allowances, the greater part of which probably were based solely on guesswork.
  There is some chance of producing order out of all this muddle through the statutory Committee. As I understand it, it will have to have some discretion as to the amount of pension to be given in these cases. You must deal with individuals. You cannot deal with these people in classes. They all differ one from the other in an extraordinary way, and extreme care will have to be taken that justice should be done in the inquiries which have got to be made in each of these cases. On the one hand, you have got to be very careful not to be too inquisitorial; on the other hand, you have got to see that no fraud is allowed to creep in. It is a very common thing in this House to resent any queries being made before assistance is given. At the commencement of the War I remember a very violent attack being made on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association because it was said to be too inquisitorial. I rather think that nobody would dream for a moment of making such an accusation against the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association now. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult to imagine what would have happened in London if this great society had not been in existence and been able to call upon a very large band of volunteer workers to help them through.

  2255
  Careful inquiry will have to be made if fraud is to be prevented. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one or two cases that came under my notice quite recently. There was a woman who was drawing a separation allowance which, during her illness, was brought to her house. When called upon by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association visitor she insisted that she was receiving nothing at all, and, technically, she was not, as it was brought by a friend. In this way she was able to draw a second separation allowance, until through the means of this association this fraud was discovered. I have also come across a case of a woman who was drawing three separation allowances, and the fraud was only discovered through the fact that she was not satisfied with that and was trying to get a fourth. There is a man wandering about London now dressed in khaki, and masquerading as a member of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who has already approached three Members of this House and succeeded in drawing a certain amount of money out of two. In the case of the third I am glad to say that he was not successful. His case has now been put into the hands of Scotland Yard, and I hope that he will be removed from the list of beggars. It is quite certain that if due care were not taken in this direction the springs of voluntary charity would undoubtedly dry up. There is another point. It seems to me that the representation of women, both on the statutory Committee and the local committee, is probably not nearly enough. Nine-tenths of the people to be dealt with will be women and children, and if their needs are to be properly attended to it is essential that the representation of women should be considerably increased.
  Another and far more important matter is this: The whole question as to how the allowances to the families of our soldiers and sailors are going to be made is being dealt with in a piecemeal way. In the first place, you have got pensions to widows and orphans with which the statutory Committee is not interfering. I regret that a flat rate has been adopted. It is a plan against which we were very strongly cautioned by the Prime Minister at the commencement of the War. The scale which is now in existence, which undoubtedly places some families in a very much better position than ever they were in their lives, certainly would not be sufficient to meet the necessities of those who
  2256
  have been earning a higher rate of wage than the agricultural labourer. To my mind there is only one possible way of meeting the situation fairly—that is, to lay down a minimum scale below which no allowance was to be granted, and the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham would have come in here. The Government would place at the disposal of the statutory Committee a sum of money and trust to the sense of the Committee as to the amount of the allowance to be granted, and if that was not sufficient to cover these expenses, then they would undertake to foot the bill. But to leave all increase of allowance to be provided out of voluntary charity was absolutely unworthy of the country. After all, this is a national obligation, and I am quite certain that the nation would refuse to disown it.
  If confusion and overlapping are to be avoided, it seems essential that all the various bodies at present dealing with these questions should be brought together, as it were, under one roof. I have here a letter from my Constituency pointing out very strongly the necessity of this. There is an old age pensions committee which is called upon to decide what is the amount of the allowance to be given. They make up their mind and recommend a certain amount. Whether that amount is given or not is never brought to their notice at all. On this Old Age Pension Committee there sit the representatives of collieries and the charities which they control. These people very naturally say, "These funds are placed at our disposal to make any supplementary grants that may be necessary for these cases; unless we know what allowance the State is giving to these people, how are we to know whether these grants should be supplemented or not?" The answer to that, I am told, is that paymasters have far too much in their hands at the present time. But it does not alter the fact that, if there is to be a consistent way of dealing with these people, full information ought to be at the disposal of the persons who have these funds to administer. If these differently constituted bodies or charities have all got to be under the one roof there is no necessity for them to sink their ideas. All that matters is that they should be in absolutely close touch with one another so that they may carry out all their work with expedition and completion. It seems to me essential that every sailor and soldier, or the widow or

  2257
  dependant of every soldier or sailor, should know that there is one office where all claims will be dealt with, and it is equally necessary that the general public should know the same thing.
  I would have every pension, whether it is payable to a widow or a dependant, paid out by the local committee, or according to the order issued by the local committee, the amount being forwarded by the statutory Committee, who would receive the amount in bulk from the Admiralty or the War Office. If the amount was too small it could be supplemented by the statutory Committee. In the same way I would have all disablement allowances passed through the books of the statutory Committee. It is obvious that in many of these cases the allowance will have to be supplemented. There is a great deal of difference between the case of a man who is a bachelor and who on the allowance might be able to get along, but in the case of the married man with dependants it is obvious that he would not be able to get along.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That would be allowed for.
  Sir C. NICHOLSON: It would be allowed for, but only half a crown, I believe. I do not think it is a case that ought to be left to casual charity. Therefore I would bring into as close touch as possible this statutory Committee with all the authorities dealing with these matters. Only in this way, I think, can the matter be dealt with. When wounded and disabled men are seen wandering about unprovided for, I think the nation would only be too willing to supply the funds from which genuine claims could be expeditiously and satisfactorily dealt with. Apart from those principles I, in common with everybody else, welcome the Report of the Committee. It is a step undoubtedly in the right direction, and I am quite sure that with a central body we should have these cases treated, both from the soldiers' and sailors' point of view, and the point of view of the general public.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Members of this Committee for the great care that they have taken in sifting the evidence brought before them, and in coming to conclusions with which I think every Member of this House will agree. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] I am speaking of the conclusions. With regard
  2258
  to the principle of the Report, whatever hon Members below the Gangway opposite may say, there can be no objection. As to a flat rate, the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think it was wrong. I am not in agreement with him on that point, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) that a proper flat rate would mean, of course, the expenditure of a very large sum of money, and I therefore accept his suggestion that there should be a considerable amount of money set aside, out of public funds, which would be available for supplementing the present rate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham mentioned a sum of five millions. Five million pounds is not, in my opinion, at all too much, and I certainly do not think that we shall be able to raise that sum after the War from voluntary funds. I do not quite understand what voluntary funds are expected to supply the money. I see in the first Report that it is suggested that the Prince of Wales' Fund and other local funds should be invited to supplement the Government rates. In the second Report, we are told that in proper cases this body will supplement allowances out of voluntary funds of a national character. What funds are of national character it is difficult to state. Of course the Prince of Wales' Fund is a fund of a national character, but I do not know why the Prince of Wales' Fund should subscribe five millions. I imagined that the Prince of Wales' Fund was collected for the specific purposes of assisting people during the War, and not to assist them after the War. That, of course, was my impression; I may be wrong. If we are to rely upon voluntary funds to supplement the allowances and pensions, those voluntary funds will have to be very large indeed.
  I am sorry that we have not got the officers' report to-night, because I think that would have enabled us to go more deeply into the whole question. If the Committee are to decide certain questions in a judicial capacity, I think we should have upon it a certain number of men, certainly the Chairman or vice-Chairman, with some legal knowledge. In the matter of the representation of women on the Committee, certainly I think that at present it is far too small; there should be at least four women on that body. I should also like to know what Department of the State will be able to answer in this House on behalf of the Committee. That is an essential matter, because we have had

  2259
  very great difficulty, very often, in getting answers to questions with regard to the Prince of Wales' Fund. I should be glad, therefore, before we adjourn, to have the views of the Government upon that question. Then, again, with regard to voluntary funds, have the Government considered the different kinds of matters which will come before the Committee, requiring money to be set apart from those voluntary funds. Take, for example, the case of blind men of whom I do not see any mention in this Report. Some time ago I asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a question with regard to the position of blind men, and I was told that they would be awarded the highest pension that could be given.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Total disablement!
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Under the present scale, that is something like 2s. 6d. a day, and I doubt whether that covers children. No doubt when the new scale comes into operation the amount will be very much higher. At the same time, it should be remembered that blind men require attendants. There is no provision made in the report for attendants on blind men. I suppose that will come out of the voluntary fund. There is a number of cases of a similar character for which we shall have to call upon the voluntary fund for the money. In reference to the question of mothers, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new body will be in a position to consider the question of allowances paid to the mothers of the men. At the present moment the allowance to the mother practically depends upon what the pensions committee officer chooses to say it ought to be. That, I think, is a very great mistake. The allowance to the mother, especially if she is a widow, or if her husband is unable to work, should not in any way fall below the allowance given to a wife without children. That ought to be the lowest. I should like to bring before the House another omission in the report. There is no reference to the wives of warrant officers. I believe I am correct in stating that wives of warrant officers, serving in the Royal Navy, are not eligible at present for separation allowances, whereas the wives of warrant officers in the Royal Marines are eligible. That difference is causing very much dissatisfaction. The wives of warrant officers are generally women of a class who cannot
  2260
  afford to do without separation allowances, and these women have suffered very great hardships in many cases. A man writes to me:—
  "We know of two cases where wives of members of our rank have received replies to personal application for separation allowances from the Admiralty informing them that they would not be granted. In one case application was made to the honorary secretary of an Officers' Family Fund for assistance, and she was informed that the rank of her husband debarred her from assistance, and the honorary secretary much regretted it."
  These men are in one case considered as officers, and in the other case they are not so considered, but in no case do they get separation allowances, or any help from public funds. Their pay is comparatively small. A boatswain who has attained the rank of warrant officer gets, I think, 6s. per day. He has to pay from 30s. to £2 for messing and washing, and makes an allowance of £6 per month to his wife, who has to support herself and her children out of 30s. per week. That obviously is a very great hardship. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has not something which he can tell us to-night which will be very acceptable to the wives of those warrant officers. I have brought the matter before him on several occasions, going back as far as October of last year; and on each occasion he told me that the matter was under consideration. We have now the Report of the Committee, and I see nothing about this matter in it. I should like to ask him whether the subject has now been considered, and what is the result.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am quite sure it will be recognised in all parts of the House that these reports mark a very real advance in this matter. In the past this country, like other countries, has not always been very generous towards those who have gone through wars, or towards those dependant upon those people. It is to be hoped that these reports mark the development of a new conscience in that regard. I desire to refer to one or two points of detail, which I hope will be taken into account when the Bill comes to be drafted, and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing them on another occasion. First of all let me mention the position of dependants of soldiers and sailors other than the wives of soldiers and sailors. The hon. Gentleman who spoke I last referred to this matter. In my opinion a great deal of hardship would be avoided, and also a great deal of dissatisfaction, if, say in the case of mothers of

  2261
  soldiers there was an attempt to simplify the method by which it is decided how much she ought to have. The present method works out badly. And I think it lergely puts a premium on dishonesty. I say that without any hesitation, because I know that an attempt is made to ascertain the precise degree of dependence of a mother upon her boy who has joined the Colours. That means very often something in the nature of inquisitorial methods, and it means in many cases that the woman who can tell the best story is the woman who can draw the largest amount of allowance. There is no doubt on that point at all. Too much also, in my opinion, is loft to the discretion of the pension officer. The pension officer, if he is a good-hearted man, as he very often is, will stretch a point, and the woman gets more; while if he takes a more strictly official view of his duties he does not stretch a point, and the woman gets less. I do not think that is a very satisfactory method by which to decide this matter. Therefore I think as the method does lead to deception, and very often delays in payment, it would be far better if a more simplified method could be adopted, by which you could decide whether a mother was wholly or partially dependent upon the boy and settle the matter very largely from that point of view.
  I wish also to call attention to the case of the partially disabled soldier. It is proposed that the partially disabled soldier shall secure a sufficient pension to bring his earnings, with what he may earn in some labour capacity, up to 25s. per week. I am not quarrelling with that. I think the provision for giving the disabled soldiers 25s. per week is a tremendous advance on anything that has gone before, but I think there should be certain safeguards, and that as far as possible we ought to avoid throwing the partially disabled soldier to take his chance in the rough and tumble of the ordinary labour market. I think he ought to be protected from ordinary labour and that special work ought to be provided for him, and that he should receive extra care and attention from the State. I put that forward both from the standpoint of the partially disabled soldier and also of the ordinary workers, on the ground that the conditions of employment ought not to be beaten down by the competition of partially disabled men. I come to another point, and I am very glad the Financial Secretary is present, because I
  2262
  have had correspondence with him on this matter, and that is as to the wife of the sailor, in regard to which I am not satisfied. Under this arrangement it is stated that the wife of the sailor without children is to receive 6s. per week, and this 6s. is contingent upon an allotment from the sailor himself. I do not object to that, but how does it work out? Unless the sailor makes an allotment to his wife, she is not eligible to receive separation allowance. Following that up, the Admiralty has no power to compel an allotment, and therefore any man who cares to do so is allowed to deprive his wife both of a separation allowance and of an allotment, so far as the Admiralty is concerned.
  I will give a concrete instance of how this works out. I know a case of a man belonging to Newcastle, who is a first-class stoker in the Navy, earning good wages at this moment, and his wife is the recipient of charity through the Lord Mayor's Fund in Newcastle. As far back as May, 1913, the man in question was ordered by the magistrate to pay his wife 7s. 6d. per week. He disappeared; he has not paid a penny, and a warrant for his apprehension is in the hands of the Newcastle police. He went, I believe, as a Naval Reserve man. He has been approached on behalf of his wife, but he simply refused to do anything, and the Admiralty say that as he refuses to do anything they are not in a position to do anything either. They are not in a position to make a man's wife a separation allowance unless in the first instance they can get an allotment from the man himself. That is not a good position. Where a man shirks his family obligations, as very few men would do, the Admiralty ought to be in a position to say, "You are going to be compelled to carry out your family obligations." It is entirely wrong that a man earning good wages should have his wife on local charitable funds. I believe that the method of the Admiralty is different from that of the War Office. The War Office, I believe, has compulsory allotment, and I fail to understand why in this matter one policy should be pursued by the Admiralty and another by the War Office. It is certainly a point which ought to receive attention. I come now to the special body which is to settle these particular claims. It is to be a statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Corporation. The criticism has already been made that on this Committee women

  2263
  are not sufficiently represented. I entirely endorse that criticism. There are two women on a committee of twenty-five members. Considering that these claims and conditions affect so many working women, it is very important indeed that the number of women on the Committee should be larger. It is also inadequate to propose that there should be two representatives of labour on a committee of twenty-five. On a committee dealing with so many claims of working people labour ought to be much more adequately represented.
  9.0 P.M.
  It is suggested that on the proposed Committee there should be two members from the governing body of the National Relief Fund. What is to be the relation of the National Relief Fund to this question of military and naval pensions? We know that from the National Relief Fund many advances have already been made, especially in the earlier stages of the War. It was very right and proper that advances should be made if money was necessary in order to tide the nation over a difficulty of that kind, or to get matters into order. But I suggest that the National Relief Fund, whatever its purpose, was not organised from the point of view of view of relieving the Government of its own obligations and responsibilities towards soldiers and sailors. Therefore, in so far as grants and advances that are a legitimate charge on the Treasury have been made, in my opinion the money ought to be repaid to the National Relief Fund; and for the future any money from that fund should be in the nature of supplementary grants to give the soldier or sailor something extra, and not from the standpoint of relieving the nation of its own responsibilities. We have to remember in this connection that there will almost certainly be at the end of the War very severe civil distress, and probably a good deal of unemployment. This fund was largely got together from the standpoint of relieving distress, and it would be wrong merely to allow the Government to shirk any obligations which it has in this matter, and to take the whole of the money from the National Relief Fund, as later on that money will be very urgently needed. I think it right to utter that word of warning. I see in the Report of a Committee, set up by the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the employment of soldiers
  2264
  and sailors disabled in the War, a suggestion that there should be one great organisation to take in hand all these questions: first, the dealing with disabled soldiers; then the tackling of the whole question of demobilisation after the War; and, thirdly, the question of pensions and separation allowances. Here is an extract from the Report:—
  "It seems to us almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations, one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied soldiers and sailors. We observe, moreover, that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to deal with the pensions, separation allowances, and supplementary grants payable to soldiers and sailors and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body charged with all the functions to which we have alluded, and that the one great elaborate local organisation which we have recommended for the purpose in the Report might be justified."
  I have no doubt that that is intended to avoid over-lapping, and so far as over-lapping can be avoided it is a good thing that it should be. On the other hand, there is a danger of jumping to the other extreme. It will be impossible to take in hand the questions of the disabled soldier, of the demobilisation of the soldiers, involving two or three million men, as well as the question of pensions. If too much is put on one committee it will break down, and the work will be inadequately done. There is the civil problem of getting the ordinary man back to work at the end of the War; there is the military problem, and there is the pensions problem. I do not believe that any one committee, however able or well-constituted, could tackle efficiently all these various questions. I have made these points in the hope that they may be looked into when the matter comes up in the form of a Bill. Despite all criticism which we may hope to offer on points of detail, we welcome these Reports as a real advance upon anything that has gone before.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to join in what has been said by previous speakers on behalf of disabled soldiers and sailors. If there was one thing more apparent than another throughout the country at the beginning of the War it was the stern resolve of the people that never again in the country should be seen the disabled soldier or sailor begging at the street corner as was witnessed in the old days after the Crimean and other wars. The country looks for sufficient and adequate provision to be made for the men who comeback from the front. I understand that

  2265
  the whole of the provisions of the first Report have been put into force, except the one with regard to disabled soldiers and sailors. They are the only people who are not as yet getting the full allowances recommended in that Report. I hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to tell us that those allowances will be given in full. I hope also that the allowances to disabled soldiers and sailors will be granted with a generous interpretation of the rules, and that these men will not be left to depend in any way upon voluntary charity. I do not quite understand the reference in the Report to voluntary funds. My belief is that as £5,000,000 have been subscribed to the Prince of Wales' Fund, further voluntary funds will be uncertain. The provision made by the Government ought to be adequate to meet the needs of these men without any reliance whatsoever upon voluntary funds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us assurances on that point.
  With regard to the committees of which he spoke, I should like to join with the other Members who brought to notice the shortness of the representation of women. I think that in all these questions women members of the committees, either statutory or local, are of the greatest use. Where provision has been made for two women representatives, I think provision should be made for four. I would also specially press the proper representation of the Services, both for the Army and Navy, of men who have been accustomed to deal with soldiers and sailors. Such representation is certainly necessary on the statutory and local Committees, and I trust that provision will be made for this. The only other subject I should like to refer to deals with Section 23 of the first Report, and refers to the employment of old soldiers and sailors. The Section recommends that where it may be possible to employ old soldiers and sailors in the Government service, this should be done, and that in such circumstances their remuneration should be fixed without regard to any pension of which they may be in receipt. I entirely agree with that, and I hope that the recommendation will be thoroughly carried out.
  The other day, when this question came up for consideration in the House, I asked the Prime Minister if he would give an assurance on behalf of the Government that at least 75 per cent. of the ordinary subordinate appointments in Government offices would be reserved for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors at the termina-
  2266
  tion of the War. I also asked him to be good enough to press the same consideration on all the municipal and public bodies throughout the country. I had the opportunity a day or two afterwards of putting a question to him in relation to this matter, and the answer that he gave was that they proposed to put this matter before the municipal and public bodies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to tell us that this promise of the Prime Minister is being thoroughly carried out. On this question of the employment of old soldiers we must have a regular lead from the Government, a strong and decided lead. The matter cannot be left to chance. Disabled soldiers and sailors, I hope, will be looked up by these two Committees which are being set up, so that in the case of the man with one leg or with one eye it will be seen what employment they are fitted for.
  On this matter of employment of ex-soldiers, I hope we shall have a strong lead from the Government, and that the Prime Minister will speak in the name of the whole of the Government, not in the name of one Department; for this matter cannot be attended to by one or the other Departments, but by the Government as a whole. I trust we shall have the distinct order that at least three-quarters of the suitable appointments in Government offices shall be reserved for ex-soldiers, and that the same course will be followed by the municipal and public bodies throughout the whole country. Unless something of the sort is done, we shall have terrible distress in the case of our soldiers at the end of this War. I hope sincerely that the recommendations of this Committee will be carried out, that the authorities will see that full consideration is given to the recommendations of the Committee, and that the remuneration for ex-soldier's work will be fixed without regard to any pension of which he may be in receipt.
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like, first of all, to thank whoever represents the Government at the moment for the response which was made to my request that we should have a day to discuss this Pensions Committee's Report. Possibly a good deal of the criticism that I may desire to direct against the two Reports which have been submitted to the House, has to a large extent been covered by the preceding speeches which I have not heard. Therefore, I shall be glad to be pulled up if I indulge in repetition. There are one or

  2267
  two preliminary points that I want to put to the Government. I am not yet satisfied that the Government have really grasped some of the real human difficulties which have arisen in respect to separation allowances. May I take one example of what I consider those difficulties to be? Take the case of a man who has joined what we now know as the New Army. His father and mother are in quite good circumstances, and on account of that the son who joins has no need to make application for separation allowance to be paid either to his father or mother. The father and mother give not only the boy to the service of their country, but they relieve the country from any support that that son had been in the habit of contributing towards the home. In the course of the War, which has now extended from eight to ten months, the father dies from an illness at home, and the son who is in the Army becomes the sole support of his mother, and probably his younger brothers and sisters. It is impossible, at the moment, for that young soldier to secure a separation allowance for his mother. I do want the Government to consider that point again. After all, there are not a very large number of cases. They cannot run into thousands. It is not casualties in the field; it is casualties from sickness at home. I do submit that surely in that case of the mother who has lost her husband, and who previously had given her son to the service of his country, that she should be entitled to draw separation allowance. The only thing that prevents him doing that at present is that the Government will not allow that soldier to make an allotment. Therefore the mother cannot draw any separation allowance. I think that a most extraordinarily hard case.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: He can send a remittance if he wishes.
  Mr. HOGGE: Excuse me, my right hon. Friend, after all, is only at the Admiralty; he is not at the War Office. There is nobody, in fact, at the moment who can answer for the War Office, but if my right hon. Friend will convey to his colleagues at the War Office what I have been saying, he will find that my position is right. I know I am right for this reason: I have been refused so often from the Front Bench. If a soldier has not originally made an allotment when he joins, and his father dies while he is with
  2268
  the Army in Flanders, he is not then allowed to make that allotment so as to secure separation allowance for his mother who is then a widow. That, I think, is extraordinarily hard. There is a double sacrifice. I do wish the Government would look into this point a little more sympathetically than they have done up to the present moment. There is another point in regard to the details of this Report that I do not quite like. The amount of the pension and the amount of the allowance for the wives or the widows of our soldiers and sailors is definitely settled in the Report, and the figures are set out for each of them, but the question of how much is to be allotted in the case of a dependant who is a mother or a sister is left to a body which is to be set up and which we are criticising to-night. That raises, again, the point which I have been making with regard to this particular case. Why was it not possible for this Select Committee of the House of Commons to determine that amount? After all, this was supposed to be a Committee of the House of Commons.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It was.
  Mr. HOGGE: I prefer to suggest it was supposed to be a Committee of the House of Commons, and the reason I say that is that it was composed of six of the busiest men in the House of Commons, absolutely the men who had the least time of all men in the House of Commons to attend to it, and therefore these points might obviously get overlooked. I do not make any complaint about that, except that it might have been possible for the Government to put men on that Committee who were equally interested and might have more leisure to go into details. I do not, however, complain about that. My point is surely it was as easy for that Committee to suggest what ought to be the standard in the case of a mother or sister as it was to suggest in black and white, as they did, the standard for a wife.
  There is another class of allowance which I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and that is the allowances of apprentices. I do hope that he, or some of his colleagues, will say something about this question. There, again, is an extraordinarily hard case. You get lads who were on the way to complete their own trade or profession, but give up, for the purposes of the country and for the need of the country, an apprenticeship which means that, however long the

  2269
  War may be, by that length their apprenticeship will be drawn out, and by that length their earning capacity, so far as their family is concerned, will be diminished for some considerable time. I have nothing to complain about with regard to the pension officer, who, after all, is very much like any other Government official. He has his routine-minded way of looking at things, and there is very little of the milk of human kindness in any of your pension officers, or any Government official, so far as my experience has gone. A lad who has given all this up is only considered to have made a monetary sacrifice, and nothing else is considered; and because that lad, in the course of his apprenticeship, happens to be earning, say, 3s. 6d. or 5s. a week—it depends on the year of his apprenticeship—the amount which he contributes to the household is determined by that. Obviously, if the lad had been at his business, his contribution to the household would be an increasing quantity, and at the close of his apprenticeship would be a very substantial amount; but, because he has made the extra sacrifice of giving that up and serving his country, down come the Government Pension Committee and make it harder for him and his people. I do think that is the kind of thing that ought to be avoided. There are a great many other cases of this kind which one could raise, but which I refrain from doing at the moment because there are other points I want to raise.
  I never have agreed, and, despite all that has been said so far in the discussion that I have heard, I do not agree with the fixing of a flat-money rate, either for the payment of separation allowances or for pensions, and I want to put again with what arguments I can adduce, and with what force is possible, this point, and I should like a reply to it—at least I should like to know the view of the Government with regard to it. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are three classes of pensioners who will be affected by the proposals of this Committee. There are the widows and dependants of our soldiers in the great Metropolis of London, which is treated particularly on account of the fact that rent is so much higher in London than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That separates the rest of the country into the provinces and the country districts.
  I want to put this point, and I think there is some considerable force in it. You could have adopted another flat rate
  2270
  than a purely money flat rate, and the flat rate I suggest you could have adopted would be, what I would prefer to call, a subsistence value flat rate. It has been done, as a matter of fact, by writers interested in this question all over the country. It has been calculated what is required to keep a family in physical efficiency under a roof, and those figures can be stated with a certain amount of agreement among all people who are interested in the question. The figures, roughly, are these—I do not think they are sufficient; I would not like to be put through the experiment myself of having to get along with them, but they are the accepted minimum figures, and they have not been challenged by any authority worth mentioning. The amount of food required is valued at 5s. Rent in the country is usually put at 2s. per week; in the provinces at 4s. a week; and in London at 5s. 6d. per week. For fuel and lighting 1s. 6d. is allowed; for clothes, 1s.; and for sundries, 1s. That is altogether, 10s. 6d. in the country, 12s. 6d. in the provinces, and 14s. in London. I will not elaborate this point, because, as I say, everybody who has written upon this with authority, the Local Government Board officials and our own Blue Books upon the subject from time to time, agree that those are figures which may generally be accepted.
  Look what happened. Take, for example, as you may take, the case of a widow left with three children, or a wife with three children and her husband at the front, if she happens to be living in London she gets 23s.; if she happens to be living anywhere in the provinces—Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and so on—she gets 21s. 6d., and if she is in the country she gets 19s. 6d. I mean that is what it costs her in the physical efficiency figures I have given. It would cost a family of a wife and three children 23s., 21s. 6d., or 19s. 6d., according to the district, to live on the basis of physical efficiency. According to the Government's proposals it is proposed to give the family in London on that basis 22s. 6d., in the provinces 23s., and in the country districts 23s. People say that you cannot make fish of one and fowl of the other, but I respectfully submit that in the country, where you have a woman with three children just now separated from her husband because of the War she is in receipt of 23s., which is infinitely more than the woman was receiving when

  2271
  her husband was at work; therefore you get an allowance in the country districts of 3s. 6d. more than what is required for physical efficiency, whereas in the provinces, in such a Constituency as my own, we only get 1s. 6d., which, in a sentence, means that every person in receipt of a separation allowance anywhere in the provinces is 2s. worse off than anybody in London or in the country. That is a point which really requires consideration from the Government. Where are the bulk of these separation allowances paid? Not in London or in the country. It is perfectly obvious that the bulk of them are paid in the big provincial towns.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: London has its due proportion.
  Mr. HOGGE: But the mass of the money is paid in the provinces. The reason I make that point is that with the increased rise in food prices it is infinitely harder for the women in the provinces to meet the circumstances of a rise than it is for the woman in the country. I draw this conclusion, and it seems not only ironical, but rather sad, that, as a matter of fact, it is going to pay in hard cash the wife of any agricultural labourer in Great Britain to have her husband killed in this War.
  Dr. MACNAMARAindicated dissent.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. My contention is that you are going to give this woman, as a result of her husband being killed in this way, several shillings more, up to 4s., than the woman was enjoying when her husband was alive, and that is being done at the expense of the great mass of the population in the provinces. Points of that sort make me regret that when this Committee of the House of Commons was sitting so few of us had an opportunity of putting our views before it. I notice from the Blue Book, consisting of nearly 300 pages, that the people who have given evidence included among others the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and he was the only Member of this House.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I gave evidence.
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes, but you are a Member of the Government. There are a great many men in the country with great experience in the administration of old age pensions and the poor law who have never been given an opportunity of putting
  2272
  their views before the Committee. I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should give his colleagues a hint that if we had got proper opportunities at those times we should not require to take these opportunities of expressing our views. I am very concerned about the casualties in the present War and the class of society among which those casualties are occurring. It has been said from the Treasury Bench to-day, by the Home Secretary, that the Government have borne in mind the fact that our soldiers in the New Army are drawn from all classes of society, and I think he said that they had decided upon a flat rate because they were all doing the same kind of work. You have to bear in mind that the sacrifice in many cases is very different. I hope I am not a snob, and I am not going to say anything snobbish, but I hope the House will excuse me when I say that many a man has gone from a home where a certain standard of conduct has been kept up, who has sacrificed the salary that made that possible, and who has been killed. Whatever position his people have been in, the widow and the children of that man possibly find themselves in a house with a standard of comfort to maintain without the wherewithal to maintain it. That seems a very serious problem, and I want to suggest to the Government that in addition to what they have already done, they might reasonably consider the question whether or not for the lifetime of those widows at any rate—I do not say the dependants—they could not make some sort of arrangement for buying the house in which those people reside and securing it to them for the rest of their life. I think my right hon. Friend has been through the same kind of experience as I have, and he will recognise that the great sheet anchor of respectability is a shelter over the wife and family, and if that is secured their native ingenuity and devices will often enable them to weather the storm under the new conditions if they know that there is not the landlord always at the back looming as a threatening influence behind them, possibly with the idea of putting them out of house and home. That is one consideration and I hope it will receive attention.
  Let me turn for a moment to the new body which is going to be set up. I have read very carefully the evidence which was given before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham. I may say that I was rather astonished to find the very Radical views he expressed

  2273
  in his evidence, and I was also astonished at the stress he laid upon the Committee being much more representative than any other committee which existed at the moment, and at the stress he laid upon the fact that it should in some way be brought under the review of Members of this House. I hope the House will agree with me when I say that I recognise that in the immediate past there has been far too much devolving of responsibility from this House upon outside bodies, over which we have no control. I say frankly that I hate that system, and I presume other people besides the Germans may hate. I hate such bodies as the Roads Board and the Development Commissioners which have public money to spend outside the House of Commons, and which we cannot criticise here. I do not mind whether our criticism is foolish or wise, but we have such a right and we ought to maintain it, and it will be a thousand pities if the new body administering pensions should be an authority outside the House of Commons, and that we should allow for a moment our right to criticise and review the doings of that body, at least once a year, to be taken away from us. I do not like the body that it is proposed to set up. It is like all such bodies. You sit round a table and you say, "let us have two of this and two of that," just like reading a recipe for some fancy cake. You do not want to go upon the idea that unless you have somebody from here and there that you will offend this or that interest. You want to make the body sufficiently representative and secure that it shall retain the confidence of the community. What is the use of setting up a new body with a new chairman and vice-chairman with salaries—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Only a salary for the chairman.
  Mr. HOGGE: We are always setting up these bodies. You are only proposing a salary for the chairman, but the House of Commons knows that very soon we shall have a vice-chairman, also with a salary. Well, let us say a chairman. What is the use of appointing a new committee with a chairman with a salary? We are told by the Front Bench every day of our lives that we ought to save and not to spend money. You have got a body in existence which can do this work better than any body I know, and which is efficiently officered. I refer to the insurance committee. I want to put that suggestion with all seriousness to my Friends on the
  2274
  Front Bench. There are several advantages in handing over the administration of this money to the insurance committees. First of all, the bulk of the people to whom it will be paid are the wives and children of men who are already insured, and there is no body in the United Kingdom to-day which has more information, and more accurate information, about the conditions of the people than the insurance committees.
  There is another point which will appeal at any rate to the Patronage Secretary. It will meet the national point. You have separate Insurance Commissioners for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. These are efficient men. Talking of our own Commissioners in Scotland, I do not suppose that there are any more efficient officers in the service of the Government. What is to hinder them administering these pensions for Scotland without setting up this new central body? I am talking without any consultation with my colleagues, but there are some of them here and they will say whether they disagree, and so far as we in Scotland are concerned we are against the centralisation of anything which can be well done in Scotland. We put up a fight long ago for a separate Insurance Commission in Scotland, and we got it. I suggest, instead of creating a new chairman with a salary, that you have already got the chairman here with a good salary and with an efficient staff. These committees are spread over the length and breadth of all the important component parts of the country, and they could do this work effectively.
  I had a Motion down on the Paper—I do not know whether it has gone—to call attention to this Report, and to move, instead of the Committee which it is proposed to set up, that the matter should be administered by a Committee of the House. I meant that we should do as we do in our great municipalities, and have these pensions administered by a Committee formed of Members of this House, who would report from time to time, so that we should hear about their doings; but I think that my other scheme is better. You have got the machinery to your hand in the insurance committees, and you certainly have got efficient officers. I wish, instead of accepting this Report of these very distinguished Members of the House of Commons, you would attempt to find the real mind of the House of Commons and put that into operation. I think I can almost forgive my right hon. Friend

  2275
  anything if he will undertake to put right the case of the man who is now compelled to support his mother because his father has died since he joined, and if he can add the insurance committee instead of this Committee I shall be delighted.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I rise to emphasise one practical appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins). The Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear that all we do tonight is to confirm the principle of the Report, and that all details may be left for full consideration until we have the Bill which the Government will present. My hon. Friend urged, and I would also urge, that the Government should produce that Bill at the earliest possible moment. We want to see the details which carry out the principle comprised in this proposal. We want it early, especially for this reason: Those of us who are associated with local authorities desire to submit the proposals to them for detailed consideration. The successful working of this scheme will manifestly ultimately devolve upon the constitution both of the central and of the local committees, and in reference to the local committees it is of the utmost importance, if they are to work thoroughly and practically, that we should have the assistance of our local authorities in any recommendations which we make. The Home Secretary said that there would not only be full opportunity of considering details, but that he would welcome recommendations in reference to them. We desire to make those recommendations practical, and I therefore strongly urge that the Bill be produced at the earliest possible moment, so that we may have the fullest opportunity of considering the proposals between the First and Second Readings.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I wish to mention one point in regard to the recommendation of the Committee that wherever it may be possible to employ old sailors or soldiers or their widows in Government service it should be done, and that their remuneration should be fixed without regard to any pension they may receive. That point will have to be very carefully covered in the drafting of the Bill now under consideration. Those soldiers and sailors who have already come back from the War and have begun to receive their pensions, find themselves in a difficulty. I have in mind particularly the case of a
  2276
  man who has lost one arm and for whom we got work at 7s. 6d. per week. He seemed grateful, but two days afterwards he came back and said that he was sorry he could not take the appointment. He gave no reason. We got him another appointment for a similar sum, and he then replied that he could not take it because he would lose 2s. 6d. per week, as under the Insurance Act he was entitled to 10s. per week.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Sick pay.
  Mr. BIGLAND: He is entitled under the Insurance Act to 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks. It will be quite easy for the Government to put in a Clause providing that the man shall keep his 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks, and what money he can make, but that if he makes more than 5s. per week, then the National Insurance Fund shall to some extent be relieved. Supposing a man got employment bringing him in 12s. 6d. per week, then in the ordinary way for the first twenty-six weeks he would only make 2s. 6d. per week. If the Government were careful to draft a reasonable scheme by which the Approved Society would be relieved to a certain extent, and by which the man by his extra work would get a little more luxury in his life, I think the difficulty would be met. What I do not understand is the Clause that has already been drafted—Clause 15. It seems to cover in some way that point, but it does not make it clear to my mind. I understand the Insurance Fund would be relieved to the extent of 5s. a week, but it does not say how much the men would have to earn in order to relieve the Insurance Fund to that extent. I desire to call attention to this point, because it is quite certain to crop up in every direction.
  Another point I wish to discuss is in regard to the local committees. It seems to me that the central committee will, to a large extent, depend upon the judgment and report of the local committee. I quite agree that the local committee should not be the final arbiters on these matters, but the way it will work out will be that the local committee will practically assess the amount. There are men in every large town and in every county who will be only too anxious and willing to assist the Government, by giving the best of their time and service to this matter. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that there are a certain number of people who, in making their claims,

  2277
  do not disclose all the facts, it is the local committee that will be able to ascertain the facts, and they will guide the judgment of the central committee. Personally I wish to thank the members of the Committee who have drafted this Report, because it is excellent in every way. It only needs some slight amendment and improvement to make it an excellent working scheme.
  Mr. DICKINSON: There have been two points raised on these Benches, as to which I would like to say a word or two. The first is the position of the people whose circumstances have changed since they enlisted. The reason why no allowance is given at the present moment in cases where a soldier's father dies and a soldier becomes the support of his mother, is that the War Office has laid down a regulation that, in assessing dependants, you must take into consideration alone the circumstances that held good at the time of enlistment. This was the suggestion of the War Office and of the Admiralty, and it was approved of by the Select Committee. There is no doubt it does on occasion work harshly, and I think that both in that case, and also in the case where an apprentice enlists at a moment when he can be no support, and when, in fact, he gives up all chance of becoming a support of his parents, the War Office and the Admiralty would do well to reconsider their decision. This Report is in itself a very valuable document, but it does not exhaust by any means the subject of pensions. In the first place, as my right hon. Friend knows, the Report dealt ostensibly with only Class 5 of the men. It raised the pension of the wife without a child from 7s. 6d. to 10s. and increased the amount for children. But the Report says nothing about the other classes. I presume that those other classes will receive the same pension as the lower ranks. I want a definite statement as to that. The Report leaves it to be assumed that the other ranks are to receive the same pensions as before. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will state definitely what is the position in regard to that. Another question which is not dealt with in the Report is the position of persons in London who are pensioners. There is an extra allowance of 3s. 6d. in regard to persons in London in receipt of the separation allowance, but there is no proposal to make a like addition to the pensions of Londoners, and I should like the right hon.
  2278
  Gentleman to say, when he replies, whether or not it is intended that the same addition shall be made to the sum paid to pensioners in London as is given to those in receipt of separation allowances?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I assume there is no London allowance in the case of pensions, but a good many people imagine that that arrangement is to hold good for pensioners as well as for separation allowances. If it does not, of course the result will be that when a woman living in London loses her husband the payment she will receive as a pensioner will be considerably less than her separation allowance. Now I come to the general question. I hope no time will be lost in bringing in the Bill to carry out these proposals. We have suffered a very great deal by delay up to the present, and many poor people are suffering hardships. It has been understood that a woman who loses her husband is to go on receiving her separation allowance for twenty-six weeks, by which time her pension should be settled. As a matter of fact the War has now lasted forty weeks, and a great many women have come into the category of pensioners, and it seems to me very important that the proposals with regard to pensions should be settled as quickly as possible in justice to these people. At the present moment they lose some of their income when they become pensioners—they receive less than they received in the form of separation allowance.
  If we are going to have a system under which, as the Report recommends, there will not be merely a flat scale, but there will be additional allowances made in cases of hardship, it will be very hard upon those persons who have already lost their husbands and sons in the War that they should not have the advantage, as soon as possible, of the proposals that are going to be made. With regard to dependants the case is still more pressing. The Government have extended the time during which a dependant receives a separation allowance from twenty-six weeks to three months, but even that three months will very soon expire, and, in the meantime the new body, as the Report suggests, is to frame a scheme for the payment of allowances to dependants. This is a far more difficult question than that of payment of pensions to widows, because the amount depends upon the consideration of

  2279
  each individual case. That consideration has to be given under some scheme which is to be provided by the new authority, and, so far as I can see, the new authority will not be set up and in working order for weeks or months at the present rate of progress. It is of great importance that this problem of how to deal with dependants, as pensioners, should be settled very soon. The Report lays down no particular rule, but suggests that the scheme should be such as will secure to the dependants, so far as may be possible, the benefits they have received from the deceased soldier or sailor during his life. That problem is causing the utmost difficulty at the present moment. I can very well foresee that the question of payments of pensions to dependants is one which will be open to a great deal of discussion before it can be settled satisfactorily.
  With regard to the general question of the authority, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) in his advocacy—I am glad he succeeded in making it good—of some authority who shall be able to add to the amount of the pension over and above the flat rate. I do not agree with him as to the actual constitution of the authority. This matter is one that can only be dealt with by the Government. It cannot be dealt with satisfactorily unless it is treated on some single system which will hold good all over the country. The question of awarding the proper amount of pension to dependants is one which requires to be dealt with in a uniform fashion. From my own experience, I do not think the system which has been followed up to the present of leaving it to the pension officers and pension committees is at all satisfactory. Their methods of approaching cases differ in every part of the country, and the results are sometimes quite anomalous. The question can only be dealt with satisfactorily by some system of Government control, so that the same investigation shall take place in every case, and, when the facts are ascertained, the amount shall be adjudicated upon under one system. I am very doubtful, indeed, whether you will gain anything by bringing in local committees. The problem will be one to a great extent that will soon be over. No doubt in a year or two, after the conclusion of the War, the great mass of these questions will be settled. The question of the amount of the pension will be settled in each case. There will be no great amount
  2280
  of investigation of a local character required after that. You would do better if you established a separate Government Department to deal with this question, and if you allowed the Government Department additional money for the purpose of supplementing the amounts in those cases where justice requires it. By that means you would ensure uniform, administration and you would maintain the authority of this House in all questions of the administration of public money.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRICE: My sole reason for interfering in this Debate is because I was a member of a Committee dealing with disabled soldiers and sailors. That Committee has made its Report to the House. I regret I did not hear the statement of the Home Secretary, but I understand this Debate is preliminary to the introduction of a Bill embodying the principles of this Report. It would be a great pity if a Committee were set up for this purpose alone. It would be going in the teeth of the recommendation made to the House by the Disabled Soldiers and Sailors Committee. In paragraph 26 these words occur:—
  "We observe, moreover, that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pension and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to deal with the pensions, separation allowances and supplementary grants payable to soldiers and sailors and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body, charged with all the functions to which we have alluded. In this way a more elaborate organisation than we have recommended for the purposes of this Report might be justified."
  The Committee went into this matter very carefully, and they felt that if you create a committee for dealing with pensions and allowances alone and another committee dealing with disabled soldiers and sailors you will not get people to serve upon these local committees. I have already heard complaints from several Members of the difficulty in dealing with this matter; therefore, if the Government are going to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject alone and then another Bill dealing with the employment not of disabled soldiers and sailors, but of ordinary soldiers and sailors, we shall have an abundance of committees that will cause a great deal of overlapping. Everyone knows that associated with the question of pensions is the question which you at once have to consider of what shall be done with a disabled man. I saw a man here to-day who had his eye taken out. It has

  2281
  not yet healed, but the War Office are told that he will never be competent to serve as a soldier again; accordingly the moment he is discharged he comes into a disablement pension which is considerably below the pay he was getting while under treatment. These subjects so overlap that it would be deplorable if the Government brought in a Bill dealing with this question of pensions alone. I suppose it is accounted for by the fact that separate Committees were appointed to report to different Departments of the State. The Committee upon which I sat was appointed by the Local Government Board, and that is the reason why it is not being considered by itself. I trust some effort will be made, when the Government bring in a Bill, to co-ordinate the work which has been suggested by these different Committees, so that we shall not have overlapping, and, as I am afraid, a multiplication of paid officials.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have listened to the Debate with the greatest interest, and I am not saying more than is true when I say I have been touched by the most kindly and sympathetic spirit which has pervaded all the speeches. Everyone agrees that the provision now made for the soldier and sailor incapacitated during the War, and their wives, children and dependants, is far more adequate than this country has previously made, and away and beyond anything in any other European system. As regards the Navy, separation allowances were made for the first time from 1st October last. Prior to that date the sailor's dependants relied solely on the allotments and the remittances which he voluntarily made from his pay. The introduction of the allowance as from 1st October, it is only fair to say, has certainly not diminished the sailor's sense of personal responsibility to those dependent upon him, and I feel bound to quote these figures. I omit the commissioned officers and take the others—bluejackets, warrant officers and chief petty officers. On 1st August last 54,000 allotments were paid to wives and dependants and 14,000 payments were made into the Naval Savings Bank, and 1,800 remittances had been paid from time to time during the month of July. The total amount involved in these allotments, payments into the savings bank and remittances, was £148,000. That is last July's contribution and investment by the sailor from his pay. Of that, £127,000 went to wives and dependants and £21,000 to the
  2282
  Naval Savings Banks. Look at the facts to-day. Again omitting commissioned officers, on 1st May there were 170,000 allotments to wives and dependants, 40,000 payments into the Naval Savings Banks, and during April 12,500 remittances. The total involved in what I may call April's contributions and savings by the bluejacket from his pay is £537,000, and of that £492,000 were allotments to wives and dependants and £45,000 payments into the Naval Savings Banks. Of course it is true that the number of men embodied has been largely increased, and there are not so many opportunities of spending the pay as in ordinary circumstances. But these figures show that allotments and remittances are practically four times as great as before the War and savings bank investments twice as great.
  The hon. Member (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) raised a point with which I must at once deal. The new Navy separation allowance brought in on 1st October stopped at chief petty officer and marine warrant officer on ships books. It was not carried upwards beyond chief petty officer and marine warrant officers on ships books. That meant that the naval warrant officer and the marine gunner, with their wives and children, with pay only, compared with pay and allowance in the case of the chief petty officer and marine warrant officer on ships books, and their wives and children, were not so well off. That is the point the hon. Gentleman put to me. We shall, therefore, extend the separation allowance in the case of naval warrant officers and marine gunners, and the rate will be: Wife, 8s. per week; first child, 4s.; second child, 3s.; third child, 2s.; and each succeeding child, 1s. That is the ordinary allowance for children, 4s., 3s., 2s., and 1s., and 1s. for each succeeding child. In these cases the allowance for other dependants will be under the same conditions as for the men. That is the case of the naval warrant officer and marine gunner. But that does not extend the scheme to the commissioned warrant rank. Let me make that quite clear. Neither can I hold out any prospect to any further extension. Now I come back to my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson). It is quite true that there is no legal compulsion on the sailor to contribute to the maintenance of his dependants. What we have said to the sailor is this: "If you want your wife and children to get the separation allowance you must make a

  2283
  minimum allotment allowance of 5s. a week." And notwithstanding the voluntary character of this arrangement the vast majority of sailors do fulfil their obligations honourably.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I said I did not bring any sort of general charge. I referred to very exceptional cases.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I must not be supposed to suggest that the hon. Gentleman did other than refer to particular cases. That is quite true, and he will endorse all I say. I want to lead up to the position in which we find ourselves in regard to these very few cases. The figures I have given as to allotments and remittances do show, and the House will agree with me, that the bluejacket does fulfil his obligations honourably. The number of cases where there is refusal to allot is extremely small, and the reasons given are not such as can be lightly disregarded in most cases. My hon. Friend took particularly the case where a magistrate's order had been made. It is quite true there have been a few, a very few, magistrates affiliation and separation orders against sailors—so far as I know the number is very small. It is quite true that in the case of those orders, the Admiralty has no power, as the hon. Gentleman stated, to enforce the order by compulsory stoppage from pay. It is quite true, as he said, the War Office have the power and we have not. There have been only two cases—one of which I think he had in mind—recently brought to my notice for consideration. Our policy here is in these cases as well as in any case of refusal to make allotment to call the attention of the man's commanding officer to the case, and ask him to put the matter to the man. As a rule our representation is successful. I confess in view of the extremely small number of cases involved I have hesitated to come to the House for new legislative compulsory power. I thought it ungracious to come for powers and by coming seeming to cast a reflection—and a most undeserved reflection—on the vast majority of bluejackets who as I have said do carry out their obligations most honourably. I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to leave it at that, and to trust to the commanding officer's representation, as we invariably put it to the commanding officer, to secure due recognition of responsibility where responsibility exists.
  2284
  Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), raised the question of other dependant relatives, and the amount of allowance paid to them, and I take two cases which he stated as being very hard. He took the case of a young fellow, of a young soldier or sailor, who never contributed to the home much, if anything at all, as his father was alive. But while he is away, soldiering or sailoring, the father died, and the mother is left. The hon. Gentleman said there is a case where surely you ought to make an allowance. He also put the case of a lad who was an apprentice and only able as an apprentice to contribute a small sum before he went soldiering or sailoring. It was determined by the Administration that the amount of allowance his mother should get should be based on what he was able to contribute before the War as apprentice although if he had not been patriotic enough to join the Colours and had waited until he was a journeyman, he would have been able to pay more towards the home. That was the decision of the Select Committee. There are hard cases such as the two, and I admit they are hard.
  Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the House has already gone beyond the recommendation of the Select Committee in paying arrears during February. The terms start on the 1st March, and we have already gone back a month.
  Dr. MACNAMARA. The House is, of course, master of itself. I only take care that the strong representation made to-night shall be put before those who have the matter in hand. That is the Select Committee's decision, and the Select Committee's view was that in hard cases of that sort they should be referred to the supplementing body for consideration, and for assistance from the funds which might be placed at their disposal. As regards wives and orphans, the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) asked whether a widow, whether her husband was a seaman or of a higher rating, would get the 10s. rate. If he will look at page 4, paragraph 20, of the First Report of the Select Committee, he will see that consequential alterations will be required throughout in the rates for higher rank. In the White Paper the ranks went up by 6d. in each case, and the same applies here, as the ranks go higher the wives get proportionately higher

  2285
  money. Not the children, because the payments for children throughout are the same.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) with regard to the allowances now made to widows and orphans, and I rather think he used the phrase that the pension is a low pension. Everybody knows that the Boer war pension for the lowest grade in the Army and Navy was 5s., and that the children's pension was 1s. 6d. a week, and that only those women who had been married on the strength prior to the husband's death were eligible for Boer war pensions. Comment is made again and again at this being a flat rate. Not quite as flat as all that. It is varied according to age as Members will know who have studied the Reports. Taking the lowest rank in the service, in the case of the widow of the sailor or of the soldier who happens to fall, the pension of 10s. a week will be increased to 12s. 6d. a week at the age of thirty-five, and to 15s. at the age of forty-five. The Select Committee's view was that if there were cases where more than that was properly demanded it would be for the supplementing body, the central body, acting on the advice of the local committee to make contributions from the funds at their disposal other than those voted by Parliament. I need not go into the provisions for the orphans of this War, except to say that they are far and away above the provisions for orphans made in the case of the Boer War.
  One or two words about disablement pensions, both partial and total, because there seems to be a considerable amount of doubt. The total disablement proposal of the Select Committee having been discussed by the Board of Admiralty, the War Office and the Treasury, presently will be presented for the approval of His Majesty in Council, when we hope that we may have the proposal for partial disablement ready for presentation. For totally disablement the new rate is 25s. a week, with an allowance of 2s. 6d. a week for each child. That will apply to all cases of totally disabled men: All cases of men who are invalided for any kind of injury received, or for disease contracted directly on account of service since the beginning of the War will be treated as totally disabled, and the man who loses his sight, both eyes, or two limbs, will be treated as totally disabled, though he may be specially trained, as we hope he will be, to contribute something to his own support. In the case of men pensioned prior to the 1st of March at the old rate,
  2286
  the new rate will only take effect as from the 1st of March, and they will be brought up to the new rate as from that date. The new awards for total disablement mark a distinct advance on those allowable under existing regulations. In addition to the 25s. and the 2s. 6d. for each child additions will be made, as under the existing regulations, in respect of good conduct badges and medals. The War Office will administer a scheme, rather different in character but substantially coming to the same effect, and certain additions will be made for certain considerations which will be set out.
  In reference to partial disablement, I confess that after very close study and consultation the proposals of the Select Committee appear to be more difficult to put into practice than the recommendations in regard to total disablement. They are still under consideration by the Board of Admiralty, who hope to reach a definite issue shortly. Of course they will naturally consult with the War Office, so that our administrations may run harmoniously. The scheme of the Select Committee is to award each man such proportion of 25s. a week as, together with the wages which he may be deemed to be capable of earning, will amount to 25s. a week, although in no case is it proposed that a man should get less than 10s. 6d. a week for the loss of an eye or a limb. Temporary allowance will be given in the case of temporary disablement, and will be subject to revision as time goes on, and in these cases it will be competent to make an allowance not exceeding 2s, 6d. a week for each child. That would dale from the same date as total disablement allowance, and there would be additions for ranks above the lowest ranks of the Army and Navy corresponding to those mentioned.
  There has been only one reference to commissioned officers during the course of the Debate, and it has not been very prominently marked. The proposals with regards to wounds and disability pensions for officers have been drawn up by the War Office for the consideration of a Select Committee. These proposals are now being examined by the Admiralty with a view to the preparation of a scheme for naval officers. The proposals with regard to pensions and compassionate allowances for widows and children of officers who have died during the War are now before the Select Committee, and I understand that the question is now approaching settlement, and that the decision of the Committee will be announced

  2287
  shortly. I think I have now covered as well as I could most of the points which have been made. I want, finally, to say this—and I am really referring to a note which has been struck again and again in this Debate—in days gone by it has often been a reproach levelled at the Governments of the day, whether Liberal or Tory, without discrimination, that in this country we did not make due provision for those who fight our battles, and for those whom they may leave behind if they sacrifice their lives on our behalf. Such a reproach is no longer possible as a result of the provisions now made; and the crippled old soldier, with his row of medals, sweeping the crossing for a copper; the shattered veteran of bygone fights spending his declining years in the workhouse; the widow and orphans of the fighting man seeking the charity of the sympathetic are sad spectacles that ought not in future to be any longer possible because of these provisions. It would be quite impossible for me, filled as I am with deep affection and regard for those amongst whom I spent my early days and from whom I sprang, to sufficiently express my full sense of gratitude for the generosity of the provision now made, and for the care, sympathy, and solicitude shown by Members in all parts of this House in the task of making provision for the soldier and sailor and those who are dependent upon them.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is one point to which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a little further consideration—that is the case made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh of a woman whose husband, a civilian, died shortly after the War, and whose son, on whom she became dependent, has joined the Army. I have a case in my own mind of a woman whose husband was earning quite sufficient wages to keep himself and wife, and whose son, who was just going to start business at home, was under no need to contribute to his father's or mother's upkeep. The son joined the Army; the father died almost immediately afterwards, and the mother was left absolutely destitute. If the son had not done his duty and had not joined the Army, he would have been in a position to earn quite enough money to keep his mother and himself perfectly comfortably. The right hon. Gentleman defends the decision of the Committee by saying that they must draw
  2288
  a hard and fast line in regard to pre-War dependence in connection with the conditions of any Government allowance.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the Select Committee's condition, in regard to pre-War dependence, for the determination of the amount.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman does not defend it. You will see from No. 6, page 3, of the first Report that no difference should be made between wives married before the War or after enlistment. I understood the Committee's decision was that pre-War dependence was to be the condition of any allowance.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In these cases of dependant relatives.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then I say there is no consistency whatever in their decisions, since they are different. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to see that this case is put right in the Bill when it comes before us. It is a very simple question. I know that those who disagree with me say that it is a very difficult question, because it creates a precedent, and will allow some men who never meant to support their families to do it at the last moment and claim the Government allowance. It is perfectly easy to differentiate between the genuine and the bogus cases. If the moment a mother becomes for the first time dependent upon her son, the son makes an allotment, that is sufficient evidence that it is a genuine case. If the son is a person who ought to have been supporting his mother before the War, and has not done so, it is perfectly easy to prove it. If the son is a person who has no necessity to support his mother until the death of the father, and then goes as far as possible to support her out of his pay by making an allotment, that is a guide by which you can go, and not by any hard and fast rules.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will certainly represent the views of the hon. Gentleman. The decision of the Select Committee is that pre-War dependence must be the standard on which this matter is based, but I will, as I say, certainly communicate the views of the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House approves of the Reports of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants)."

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Ordered, "That the Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords on Consolidation Bills have leave to sit during the Recess, notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House."—[Mr. Walter Sea.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PROMOTION OF OFFICERS.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir H. CRAIK: I wish to call attention to a matter which was raised at Question Time to-day, and which is of very considerable importance, not only to those who are personally concerned, but to the Army at large. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War will not think that I am raising this question in any controversial or critical spirit, and that he will listen with that courtesy and that attention which he has always shown in the Debates and criticisms we bring before him. I have never personally brought forward any case without finding that he has treated it with great consideration, and, as far as possible, favourably. I think when I have shown the circumstances of the case which were referred to to-day, he will admit that there is something which requires investigation, consideration, and, if possible, alteration. I refer to the question of promotion amongst officers of different classes of the Reserve, and the young officers who join the Army from Sandhurst. There is considerable objection on the part of those older officers. I do not think that the question relates simply to their case alone, and I think I shall be able to show that the evils extend somewhat further, and attach to the whole Army. I want, first of all, to explain exactly the circumstances which we think call for some reconsideration. There are three classes of the Reserve—the General Reserve, the Special Reserve attached to particular regiments, and the Special Reserve No. 2, consisting of men of more advanced age, of experience in
2290
other ranks of life, and who, since the War, have joined the Army, trained with assiduity and care, and attained a good deal of efficiency.
In regard to the General Reserve, I have in mind the case of a man who left the Army in 1909, having four years' experience, and rejoined immediately on the outbreak of War. He has been to the front, and has had no promotion. The second case is that of officers attached to the Special Reserve of particular regiments. I have in mind the case of a man of well-known position, of considerable knowledge of the world, of special capacity, who had been trained in the Special Reserve, and had been several times in the annual training; he has indeed been at the front with his regiment since November, but has not been promoted from the rank of second lieutenant, although it has been repeatedly asked for by his brigadier and officer commanding. This case itself would be a complete disproof of any allegation that social influence has anything to do with the matter, as this is a man of considerable social influence, and yet he has been passed over in consequence of this hard-and-fast rule. The third class are officers who also have gone through assiduous training, have been at the front, and have found themselves in the question of promotion set behind young officers coming fresh from Sandhurst. I would not say one word against these young officers coming from Sandhurst. I know the excellence of their training, I know how promising they are, and I have every confidence that they will make excellent officers. I have the best means of judging, because for a long series of years I have sat on the Selection Committee. Since the opening of the War we have selected, not by dozens, but by hundreds. They have been excellent young men, and I have the greatest hope of what they will become as officers in the future. But I have myself frequently successfully urged on that Selection Board the selection of promising young fellows who were scarcely seventeen years of age. They left the room in which the Selection Board sat, perhaps at seven o'clock at night, they joined Sandhurst at nine or ten o'clock the next morning, and then they had three or four months' training. They have not the full training at Sandhurst, which is in ordinary times extended to two years, and they have not passed any examination of the kind to

2291
which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not see that that changes them, although I have had to do with education all my life I have no very great trust in competitive examinations.
They are excellent men I have no doubt, and in good time, after they have had experience, they will make as good officers on the whole as those who have passed through the position. We have seen that they are. We have talked to them. We have seen their physique. We have had the reports of their school-masters and the reports of the commanders-in-chief of their training corps, and I am sure they will in future years, if they are spared through the terrible ordeal which we have now with us, made an admirable body of officers in the Army. I want to compare the two cases, and show the wrong done to the older men who have had experience, it may be, of some years in their regiments. Though they left them for the moment, since the War begun they have been going there training with their regiments, and have been at the front. The older men who relinquished business, with full experience of the world, and with the ability to handle men, are the proper persons to be taken. Is it not rather hard that when there is a vacancy for them to find a young man from Sandhurst who has been admitted at seventeen years of age, a few months later finding himself a second lieutenant—for these older men to find these boys preferred before them?
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am speaking in no captious spirit, and that this is a very considerable grievance of the older men; that it is a grievance also of the young men themselves, for could anything be worse than that these promising, excellent boys fresh from school should find themselves suddenly put into a position of responsibility where they cannot be held in that proper respect which is due from experienced non-commissioned officers? It is like a boy from the lower school at Eton who suddenly finds himself elected to be captain of the school. It is utterly absurd that this should be done. You do a wrong to the young men, because they begin their career in the wrong way by facing a responsibility before they have the power to accept that responsibility. Coming especially in the terrible crisis in which we are now, a wrong is done to both old and to young men, and the wrong rankles
2292
in the breasts of the older men. All this is done merely because of a hard and fast rule which somebody in some department of the War Office considers should be carried out. A wrong is done to the regiment in which these ill-judged promotions occur. The men of the rank and file feel the matter too, and it is after their interests that are to be looked after more than the interests of the others. They cannot believe that the promotion of these young boys, their untimely promotion, is a good thing, and a wrong is done to the company too, by placing this heavy responsibility on these young men. The danger it incurs is one the extent of which we can hardly measure, where you find those boys put in charge over the heads of older and more experienced men who have been serving at the front.
I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will believe me that I am speaking in all sincerity when I say that I do not believe this to be any part of the policy of the War Office. I believe this somewhat hard and fast rule has got to prevail in some little section of the War Office. Some person who sits in a little room, perhaps shut up by himself, administering some petty code of rules which he thinks he only can interpret, has put upon it a dry, hard, and narrow interpretation, and has not looked at it in the light of common sense and knowledge of the world. I myself have a good deal of experience as an old official with some of the officials of the War Office. I have the greatest respect for the military officials of the War Office, but they have one weakness, and that is that they are more easily dominated by red-tape and rules than the ordinary civilian in the rest of the public offices. They are not accustomed to it, and the moment they get a rule they interpret it with a rigidity and a complete superstition which would very soon be got rid of in the ordinary civil Departments of the State.
I believe the right hon. Gentleman would not interpret the spirit of the rule in this way, but it prevails in some sections of the Department. It has been administered until a widespread discontent—I can vouch for it—has been caused, and considerable uneasiness has been created—not only the personal feeling of wrong by the older officers, but the feeling amongst the general rank and file that the safety and interest of the regiment are not properly safeguarded by the administration of such a rule. I believe it has

2293
caused this ill-will and ill-feeling, and I am quite sure it will be considered by the right hon. Gentleman and by his official colleagues, with their wide outlook, and that they will relieve us of this hard and fast, rigid, and narrow interpretation of the rule, and will see that a man of older years and larger and more mature experience, and who has really had the best of all experience in serving for many months, is a more fit person to promote to a position of responsibility than one of these lads, however promising, who has been selected for Sandhurst, been kept there for four or five months, and has spent the rest of his time over here at the depot, and finds himself gazetted for first lieutenant, while these older men remain in the position of second lieutenants. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think I have pressed this upon him in anything but a fair and reasonable manner, and I would leave it to him and his colleagues at the War Office to try and reconsider the position and introduce a better state of things.
Colonel WHITE: There are just one or two remarks I should like to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend, and they are in respect of the position of those officers who joined at the beginning of the War and are termed Special Reserve officers. I think it was rather unfortunate that the same name was taken for the officers who joined at the commencement of the War and those who were Special Reserve officers before the War. It leads to a certain amount of confusion. But, with regard to these officers who joined at the beginning of the War and are called Special Reserve officers, they were not told at that time they would never get promotion. So far as I can see, if the War goes on for ten years, these officers will remain second-lieutenants. Many come from the Stock Exchange and other walks of life, and at the beginning had no idea perhaps of continuing to remain in the Service. But since then they have got bitten with the life, and a great many are desirous, if allowed to do so, after the War, of remaining in the profession of arms; but they will not stay on after the War if still second-lieutenants, and if boys who had not gone to Sandhurst at the time they joined have been put over their heads. These are points which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will consider, because it is very vital that these officers should not be discouraged after the War from continuing in the Service.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I should like to answer these questions before my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Booth) raises a new point—
Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in Order, but no doubt the House would give the right hon. Gentleman leave to divide his speech.
Mr. TENNANT: I recognise the authority with which the hon. Gentleman for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) brings before us this interesting and important question of the promotion of officers, and I take this opportunity of thanking him for the admirable work he has done for the nation by his services on the Selection Board. I need hardly say that he and I are one in being anxious only for the efficiency of the units in the field and of giving such satisfaction and security to the officers themselves as will ensure the efficiency which I am sure the House desires. I am glad to be able to announce that there is an alteration in policy with regard to this question of promotion. Hitherto, I dare say the House is aware, officers who joined the Special Reserve were only promoted by time promotion. Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last was perfectly correct in his statement that these officers, until they had served their time, were unable to secure the promotion which they very properly may have deserved. There are not only two classes of officers in the Special Reserve which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned, but there is a supplementary list which he did not mention. He is no doubt acquainted with the fact that there are officers on the supplementary list, and they are generally passed to the 1st or 2nd battalion. The supplementary list only have the time promotion. They were only eligible not as vacancies arose, but upon having served their period of time. The other officers were eligible as vacancies arose in the Special Reserve battalion, and not in the unit in which they were serving at the time. Now we have made arrangements by which the supplementary list of officers will be eligible for promotion pari passu with the other officers who have joined the Special Reserve as vacancies arise. Should time promotion benefit them more quickly they will be able to claim promotion after the expiration of that time. They will have two strings to their bow as against the Reserve

2295
officer proper, who will only be able to be promoted to vacancies as they arise. Hitherto Special Reserve officers have only been eligible for promotion as vacancies arise in their own units in the 3rd or 4th battalions. Now we are able to inform the House that commanding officers in the field will be able to promote officers in the Special Reserve whether they belong to the supplementary list or the Reserve or the new unit, which I think is called the second, to the vacancies as they arise in the 2nd or 3rd battalions; in other words, in the units to which they are sent to supply the wastage of war—that is to say, the Regular battalions. Really, I think that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am very pleased to be able to make the announcement.
With regard to Sandhurst officers, I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman who raised the Debate said about them. I feel sure it would not be proper or right to say in all cases that the young cadet from Sandhurst is inferior to the officer who has been a Special Reserve officer. I tried to make that point at Question Time, although I felt that I was rather kicking against the pricks, and that my view was not universally held or held even by the majority in the House; but, of course, I am perfectly free to admit that trench fighting and the terrible experiences of this War do inculcate officers in the severest school, and that therefore young fellows who join and have had some experience of that kind must necessarily be more experienced officers and, generally speaking, more efficient officers, than those who receive their training at a military camp. I hope and believe that really answers the whole of the points which have been raised by the two hon. Gentlemen, and I can only congratulate them that their propaganda has met with a successful issue.

PRESS CENSORSHIP (HIGH EXPLOSIVE SHELLS).
Mr. BOOTH: The Prime Minister today, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) stated that the telegram from the military correspondent of the "Times," who has recently attracted so much attention, was censored at headquarters in France. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether we are to accept that statement or whether he can supplement that infor-
2296
mation on behalf of the Government? It seems to me incredible, and I am sure that no one would like such a serious statement to be made as that which is calculated in some minds to reflect upon the headquarters in France, unless it has every foundation in fact. From information which has come into my possession, I do invite the Government to supplement their statement at Question Time to-day and to inform the House whether that telegram was censored in this country or not.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. TENNANT: By the leave of the House, I may inform my hon. Friend that the statement which was made at Question Time was perfectly accurate, although it was not complete. The statement that the message or telegram to which attention has been drawn was censored by the General Headquarters in France is perfectly true, because we went to the trouble of telegraphing to ascertain whether it was so or not, and the answer came back "Yes." When I gave the answer for the Prime Minister at Question Time I was under the belief that was the only censorship which had occurred, although I was aware that the message had emanated from the War Office. I believed, having ascertained the fact that there had been a censorship at the General Headquarters in France, no further censorship took place at the War Office. It was assumed to be the fact that although it appeared with the War Office stamp of the Censor, yet the Censor had not gone through it carefully or indeed at all. It was assumed that the censorship at general Headquarters would be sufficient, but since Question Time I have been informed myself that the message did come through the War Office and was considered there, and I believe certain passages were actually censored, but the passage in question remained in. I think that that is a sufficient answer to the question which my hon. Friend has put to me.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the House will have heard with great surprise the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who now tells us that the statement published—the very alarming statement—which has given considerable uneasiness throughout the whole country, was passed not only at Headquarters in France, but by the representative of the War Office in London. In view of that fact I am afraid we must reluctantly come to the conclusion that the statement was true. For

2297
my part, I very much regret that we have not had at the same time as this admission a full statement on behalf of the Government with regard to the question which that important announcement has raised. We have heard it in the House of Lords this afternoon, and the question there has been generally discussed. It is an old House of Commons tradition that a question discussed in one House may also be discussed in the other. I can only express my regret that the War Office should have allowed that statement to be published. I cannot, for the life of me, see what public interest was served by creating so much alarm to the whole country, unless it was accompanied at the same time with a full explanation of all the circumstances. I do hope that before the House adjourns to-morrow the Government will seize the opportunity of taking the House frankly into their confidence, having regard to the fact that the statement which has been published has been published with their full authority.
Mr. KING: I do not think it necessary to arouse further alarm on this matter. It is obvious to anyone, who thinks, that many circumstances may be present that we do not know of to explain the whole position. For instance, although at the very moment to which this description refers there may have been a temporary deficiency of ammunition, it is quite possible that very shortly after the deficiency was supplied, and instead of their being danger of the information reaching the enemy, it may have been an actual advantage to us, if, supposing there was a deficiency, he attacked at a time when the deficiency no longer existed. There are other suppositions which would occur to anyone with a slight imagination, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise. I hope that no unnecessary alarm will be felt either in
2298
this House or in the country, because it is not possible to explain every sort of news that comes through the War Office.
Mr. TENNANT: If I may be allowed to speak again, I will say, in answer to my right hon. Friend that because this message came through with the authority of the Censor at the War Office, it must not be assumed that the War Office takes responsibility for all the statements contained in the message.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not a fact that several very important passages were cut out of the message at the War Office?
Mr. TENNANT: Yes; but that does not give the authority of the War Office for this particular statement.
Mr. PRICE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the admission of the "Times" correspondent to the headquarters at the front is a new practice, and will newspaper correspondents be allowed to accompany the Army at the front? Many people have felt it to be the greatest disadvantage because we have not had, as we have had in former wars, certain representatives of the Press at the front. Is this a new departure? Is this one paper to be allowed to have this privileged position, or is it an indication that other papers are to be admitted to the same privileges?
Mr. TENNANT: The answer to my right hon. Friend is that this gentleman, the "Times" correspondent, was the private guest of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and no other newspaper correspondent, so far as I know, has had that privileged position. It was more accidental than anything else.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES AND ENLISTMENT.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES AND ENLISTMENT.
  SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO TROOPS.
  SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO TROOPS.
  FIRST-CLASS SHOTS.
  FIRST-CLASS SHOTS.
  CIVIL SERVICE (ENLISTMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ENLISTMENT).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  ARMY RECORD AND PAY OFFICE.
  ARMY RECORD AND PAY OFFICE.
  MECHANICS FROM NEW ZEALAND.
  MECHANICS FROM NEW ZEALAND.
SHIPBUILDING TRADE.
  LOSS OF TIME BY WORKMEN.
  LOSS OF TIME BY WORKMEN.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH SERVING WITH FORCES.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH SERVING WITH FORCES.
  WAR RISKS ("LUSITANIA").
  WAR RISKS ("LUSITANIA").
  DISTRIBUTING TRADES COMMITTEE.
  DISTRIBUTING TRADES COMMITTEE.
  INTERNED ALIENS (NEW COMMITTEE).
  INTERNED ALIENS (NEW COMMITTEE).
  PRIZE ORDINANCE (GERMAN DECREE).
  PRIZE ORDINANCE (GERMAN DECREE).
  Rum Supplies.
  Rum Supplies.
  Irish Chancery Practice.
  Irish Chancery Practice.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Charges against Boys.
  Charges against Boys.
  London County Council (School Buildings).
  London County Council (School Buildings).
INDIA.
  EXCISE REVENUE.
  EXCISE REVENUE.
  STORE DEPOT.
  STORE DEPOT.
  Post and Telegraph (Northampton) Society.
  Post and Telegraph (Northampton) Society.
  Morphia.
  Morphia.

MASSY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Petition of Hugh Eyre Barton Massy, praying that substituted service of a copy of the Bill, together with notice of the Second Reading thereof and all other Notices or Orders connected therewith, may be made upon Mr. Richard Simmons, of 10, Leinster Street, Dublin: Considered (according to Order): Counsel called in: A witness examined: Ordered that service of a copy of the Bill and of the Order for the Second Reading thereof upon the said Mr. Richard Simmons be deemed as good service of the said Bill and Order as if the same had been personally served upon Gladys Massy: Bill to be read 2a on Thursday the 17 th June next: The usual Orders made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR 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:

Barnoldswick Urban District Council Water.

Chelmsford Corporation Gas.

Dewsbury Corporation.

Friends' Provident Institution.

Metropolitan Water Board.

Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extensions, &c.).

Southend Water.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the

London County Council (General Powers) Bill

ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the

Port of London Authority

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.
Read, and agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
SEAFORTH AND SEFTON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
EASTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) JOINT SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Islington). (No. 76.)
SPECIAL CONSTABLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Stanmore). (No. 75.)

FISHERY HARBOURS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Lucas). (No. 74.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. (No. 78.)
CONWAY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 79.)
SEA FISHERIES (CARDIGAN BAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 80.)
SEA FISHERIES (POOLE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 81.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

LURGAN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
WORKSOP AND BAWTRY RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
NEATH CANAL NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
DEAF AND DUMB POOR ASYLUM BILL. [H.L.]
ILFRACOMBE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have Committed the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Bill to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time. The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order. (No. 82.)

THE WAR.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, there has been no marked change or decisive action in the various theatres of war since I last addressed your Lordships on the military situation. In Flanders the drying up of the ground and the improvement in the weather have enabled our troops, which have been strongly reinforced, to take the offensive. The action at Neuve Chapelle was fought with great gallantry and enabled us to occupy a considerable and, from a military point of view, valuable position which had hitherto been held by the Germans.
Towards the end of last month the Germans carried out a violent attack on that portion of the Allied front held by the French to the North-east of the Ypres salient. In order to succeed in this attack the enemy employed vast quantities of poisonous gases in defiance of the recognised rules of war and of their pledged
1018
word. Our soldiers and our French Allies were utterly unprepared for this diabolical method of attack, which had undoubtedly been long and carefully prepared by the enemy. Full accounts have been published in the newspapers of the effect of the gas and the agonising death which it produces. The Germans have persisted in the use of these asphyxiating gases whenever the wind favoured or other opportunity occurred, and His Majesty's Government, no less than the French Government, feel that our troops must be adequately protected by the employment of similar methods so as to remove the enormous and unjustifiable disadvantage which must exist for them if we take no steps to meet on his own ground the enemy who is responsible for the introduction of this pernicious practice.
The forced retirement in front of the heavy clouds of gas which preceded the German advance at Ypres resulted in the left flank of the Canadian Division being exposed. The Canadians suffered severely from the poisonous fumes, but notwithstanding held on to their position in the most determined manner. This was, indeed, an ordeal to try the qualities of the finest army in the world, and all the more credit is due to the soldiers of Canada who, unprepared for such an attack and exposed to a withering fire, reluctantly and with perfect steadiness withdrew their left flank to conform to the new alignment of the Allies' position. The Canadians, however, were soon supported by British Brigades pushed up, and the enemy's advance was thereby checked, and the Germans, whose efforts had cost them dear, were unable to press forward any further in this quarter. As a result of this retirement Sir John French decided to draw back his line from the salient at Ypres which we had occupied through the whole winter. This withdrawal was carried out with masterly success on May 3, and it was satisfactory to note that though an operation of this sort, in immediate contact with the enemy, is a difficulty military achievement and usually fraught with heavy losses, no serious casualties attached to it. The Germans have since attempted furious onslaughts on our positions in front of Ypres, each of which has been repulsed with severe losses to the enemy.
In pursuance of concerted plans between General Joffre and Sir John French, a

1019
vigorous offensive was taken by the French Army South of La Bassée and from Arras in the direction of Douai, while at the same time the British Army co-operated towards the Aubers ridge. We have all followed with admiration the forward movement of our brave Allies in their offensive operations, which have been marked by complete success and which are still proceeding with every promise and indication of further wholly satisfactory results. The attack delivered by our forces was at first not attended with the same immediate success owing to the elaborate arrangements that had been made by the Germans to defend their lines after their experience of our attack at Neuve Chapelle. But on the night of May 15, by a renewed effort, the British Forces drove back the enemy on a front of approximately two miles for a considerable distance and captured more than 500 prisoners. This action is also proceeding, and we hope, in conformity with the French operations, will achieve important results.
Offensive operations against the enemy's trenches demand, as we have known for some time, an enormous expenditure of ammunition, both of our usual type and of the high explosive pattern that we are now making. Your Lordships and the country are aware of the energetic steps that have been taken to produce a sufficient amount of ammunition to supply the Army in the field. There has been undoubtedly considerable delay in producing the material which we at an early stage in the war foresaw would be required. This delay is due mainly to the unprecedented and almost unlimited calls that have been made on the resources of the manufacturers of this country. Strenuous efforts have been taken by all concerned to reduce as far as possible this delay in production, and I am glad to say that already a very considerable improvement in the output has been the result of the energy and good work of all concerned.
High explosive shells for field guns have recently been brought into prominence by comments in the Press. At an early stage in the war we took the preliminary steps to manufacture these new projectiles, and though the introduction of any new departure in munitions of war naturally causes delay and difficulty to manufacturers, I am confident that in the very near future we shall be in a satisfactory position with
1020
regard to the supply of these shells to the Army at the Front. In these recent offensive operations our losses and those of the French have been heavy, but the task that our Armies have accomplished necessitated great sacrifices, and the spirit and morale of our troops have never been higher than at the present moment.
In the Eastern theatre a concentration of German and Austrian forces, which took place during March and April to the south of Cracow, developed into active operations against the position held by the Russian 3rd Army on the line from Tarnow through Gorlice to the Rostoki Pass. These offensive operations by the German and Austrian forces were necessitated by the Russian success, after the fall of Przemysl, in the Uszok Pass and in the Carpathians, which threatened to give entire access on to the Plains of Hungary to a Russian invading force. The Austro-German offensive began on the night of April 26 by an attack in the Gorlice region, and a desperate battle raged for several days along the Russian front. The enemy's Artillery fire, especially that of their heavy guns, was overwhelming, and the Russians, despite the greatest gallantry, were compelled to fall back. Further German forces were poured in to press the Russians, who, fighting with their well-known tenacity, retired steadily towards the positions on the River San which had been previously prepared. This retirement in West Galicia led to a Russian withdrawal from part of the Carpathians, and the Russians now hold a strong line from the Eastern Carpathians to Przemysl, which place forms the pivot of their line, and thence along the San to the Vistula.
In Bukovina the Russians have made a counter offensive, and have driven the Austrians back from the River Dniester to the River Pruth. The German losses in killed and wounded in these operations have been undoubtedly enormous, and many thousands of unwounded prisoners have fallen into the hands of the Russians.
In connection with the attack on the Dardanelles forts a body of troops, comprising British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers, with a Naval Division, and in co-operation with a French force, landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula. With the assistance and co-operation of the Navy they have been able to consolidate

1021
their positions and to advance further on the lines they immediately captured. The landing itself, effected in the teeth of great natural difficulties, skilfully prepared obstacles, and armed opposition, was a masterpiece of organisation, ingenuity, and courage which will long be remembered. The progress of our troops is necessarily slow since the country is most difficult. But the Turks are gradually being forced to retire from positions of great strength, and though the enemy is being constantly reinforced the news from this front is thoroughly satisfactory.
The recent operations under the command of General Botha in South-West Africa have been brought to a most successful stage by the occupation of Windhoek. The military ability displayed by General Botha has been of a very high order, and has confirmed the admiration felt for him as a commander and leader of men. His task was carried out under conditions of considerable difficulty, especially as regards transport, water, and supplies. All these have been successfully overcome, and the campaign has now, happily, entered its final phase.
In Mesopotamia our Indian soldiers have shown their value and bravery by attacking and utterly routing the Turkish forces sent against them. Sir John Nixon is following up the results of his victory, and the whole country is gradually being cleared of all hostile forces.
In my first speech in your Lordships' House I pointed out that this war would be a long one and would demand great sacrifices. Those sacrifices have been cheerfully made by the people of this country, who not only immediately responded in vast numbers to the summons to create the new Armies required, but have since continuously supplied the constant stream of recruits which has enabled us to maintain the forces in the field and in training at their full strength and with effective men. Your Lordships have watched the growth of the new Armies, and have noted, doubtless, the difficulties which have confronted us in providing them with all the material of war they require. I cannot speak too highly of the men and of the devotion to duty they have displayed during the long months of training, or of their cheerful acceptance of hardships incidental to an inclement
1022
winter, which have provoked the admiration of the expert officers who have reported to me as to the wonderfully rapid progress made in their training to become efficient soldiers. I am certain that in the activities in the field which immediately await them these men will worthily sustain the reputation they have already attained at home.
I have said that I would let the country know when more men should be wanted for the war. The time has come, and I now call for 300,000 recruits to form new Armies. Those who are engaged in the production of war material of any kind should not leave their work. It is to men who are not performing this duty I appeal, and I am convinced that the manhood of England still available will loyally respond by coming forward to take their share in this great struggle for a great cause.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, most of us were not prepared for the extremely interesting statement which the Secretary of State for War has just made to the House, and neither he nor your Lordships will, I think, expect that I should follow him by any attempt to review the operations which have been lately in progress in the different theatres of war. I will make one or two observations only on what he has said to us. We noticed, in the first place, with satisfaction and not without relief that the account which he was able to give us of the progress of those operations was upon the whole satisfactory and characterised by a feeling of confidence. But the noble and gallant Field-Marshal said enough to show us what kind of a struggle it has been in which our troops have been engaged. He used language which was certainly not that of exaggeration when he told us that they had passed through an ordeal sufficient to try the finest Army in the world. We rejoice to think that they have emerged from that ordeal with credit. And may I say I noticed in particular with pleasure the high compliment which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal paid to the conduct of the Canadian troops at a very critical moment in these operations.
I do not think your Lordships can have been unprepared for the announcement which the Secretary of State made to us as to the intention of the Department over which he presides to take efficient steps to

1023
meet the use of poisonous gases by the enemy. We have all read the ghastly accounts of the results produced by the use of these gases upon our troops, and much as in our hearts we must abhor resort to such expedients I think we shall most of us be agreed that it would be impossible for us to allow our Army to be destroyed by such agencies as these without ourselves resorting to suitable reprisals.
The Secretary of State touched briefly upon the question of ammunition, and he admitted with great frankness that there had been considerable delay in the supply of the most essential munitions of war. I am afraid, my Lords, that those of us who have followed the course of events at the Front, who have read the documents which are open to the inspection of us all, and who have paid some attention to the other sources of information which are available, can have come to no other conclusion but this—that on many occasions and at more than one point the success of our troops has been gravely impeded by a failure to supply them with an adequate quantity of these munitions. I will not attempt to say where the blame lies. There has been failure on the part of the trade; there may have been miscalculation on the part of the military authorities; but we do rejoice to learn from the Secretary of State that he looks forward to a considerable increase in the output, and that in the near future he believes there will be a satisfactory supply of these most essential munitions of war.
I am sure that I voice the feelings of every member of this House when I say that we listened with great satisfaction to the Secretary of State's announcement that the position upon the Gallipoli Peninsula was now thoroughly satisfactory. Many of us have watched those particular operations with grave anxiety, and to us it must be a great relief to know that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal is able to speak of them as he has this evening. Will he also permit me to associate myself with him in the tribute which he paid to the military skill and patriotism of General Botha, who will emerge from these hostilities with an added reputation.
Then the Secretary of State came to what was infinitely the most important part of his statement—that in which he told the House that the time had come
1024
when he should be obliged td ask the country to give him 300,000 more soldiers. I believe the country will give him all the soldiers that he wants, certainly all the soldiers that it can give. But may I be permitted to make this remark, that this question of adding to the strength of the Army appears to me to be not merely a question of additional numbers. At this moment there is every reason to believe that a great number of men do not join the Army who might join it. There are other men who do join the Army and who probably would be even better employed if they were to remain engaged in their civil avocations—I speak particularly of those men who are engaged in the manufacture of military stores and of munitions of war. It has therefore for some time past seemed to many of us that the time had come when the whole of this question required to be reconsidered, and it was for that reason that we noted with much interest an observation that fell from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack the other evening when, if my memory does not fail me, he told us that His Majesty's Government were ready to reconsider the whole of this question of recruiting. What we want is some better organisation of our resources, some organisation which will enable us to use every man fit to serve the country in such a manner as to turn his qualifications, whatever those qualifications may be, to the best use possible in the interests of the country, and if that desirable result is to be brought about something more than mere exhortations and appeals will, it seems to me, be inevitable.
I will add only this one further observation. I venture to express my humble concurrence in what the Secretary of State told us with regard to the new Armies. He bore testimony to the fine temper which they had shown, to their devotion to duty, to the manner in which they had stood the fatigue and the hardships of the winter. It is my fortune to live in a part of the country where a great number of these new troops are in training, and I have had some slight opportunities of judging of their fine physique. I feel sure that the Secretary of State is right when he tells us that these men who have made such excellent progress in their military training will adequately represent this country whenever the noble and gallant Earl calls upon them to take their place in the field.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CORNWALL, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) (No. 3) BILL.
ARMY ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

STATUTORY COMPANIES (REDEEMABLE STOCK) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

ALIENS AND NATURALISATION.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they propose to create any machinery, and, if so, what machinery, by which naturalised British subjects of enemy origin may be brought before the tribunal which His Majesty's Government propose to create.

2. Whether it is not true that under the German Imperial and State Nationality Law, 22nd July, 1913, a naturalised British subject may also be a German subject, and may resume his original nationality without returning to Germany.

3. Whether His Majesty's Government propose to intern those naturalised British subjects who have not divested themselves of their German nationality, or to bring them before the proposed tribunal.

4. Whether His Majesty's Government consider the fact that a naturalised British subject has a son in the German Army not a sufficient reason for internment or for investigation by the tribunal.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting the Questions that stand in my name to His Majesty's Government, I may say that I have been induced to do so before we adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess because in statements and declarations that have been made in the House of Commons the Government have informed us that it is their intention, in order to
1026
deal with this question of aliens, to set up administratively—that is to say, without Parliamentary control or Parliamentary criticism, and without any possibility of Parliamentary amendment—a tribunal of their own nomination to which would be left the question of dealing with the 8,000 naturalised aliens in this country. The country is very suspicious in regard to this matter. It is suspicious of the conduct of the Government because, as I shall attempt to show to your Lordships by the recital of a few facts, the record of the Government in dealing with this question of aliens has been an eminently unsatisfactory record; in fact, it has been a very bad record.
I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time by any loose or general criticism in regard to this matter. I wish, therefore, briefly to recapitulate in historical order the various acts of the Government in regard to this alien question. War was declared on August 4, but by a Proclamation that was then issued alien enemies were allowed to embark at approved ports up to August 11. It is a terrible thing to consider how many additional men must have been added gratuitously to the German combatant forces by this action of the Government. Then came what is called the Alders case. A man called Alders, who was a Consul at Sunderland, was convicted of high treason by the Quarter Sessions of the County of Durham. He appealed, and the conviction on appeal was quashed, because his counsel was able to show that Alders had only been doing what had been permitted under the Proclamation of the Government, which Proclamation enabled alien enemies to leave this country up to August 11. There was no question of Ahlers's treason or of his treasonable frame of mind, because he stated in open Court that although he had been for some time naturalised as an Englishman he still retained his pro-German sympathies and his desire to assist the German nation. The next fact that we have to confront is this, that by a Proclamation enemy aliens who chose to remain in this country, whether as individuals or members of a company, were given all the rights of a British subject, and were given those rights upon the mere formality of registration. Compare that with the practical attitude of the Germans, by whom English companies were sequestrated and English individuals interned. Then, again, enemy aliens were allowed to remain at large, even in prohibited areas;

1027
and I know as a fact, from information which has been supplied to me, that there have been in Portsmouth Dockyards certain mysterious fires, all reference to which has been suppressed on the part of the Censor.
The last fact to which I would call your Lordships' attention as evidence that in regard to this matter the country is justified by experience in regarding the attitude of the Government with very deep suspicion, is this. The Attorney-General was asked by Mr. R. McNeill on Thursday last in the House of Commons whether any of the claims before the Prize Claims Committee came from enemy firms. The Attorney-General replied, in a somewhat evasive answer, that the only claims that can be considered are claims made by British firms or by neutral countries. That to a superficial hearer may seem satisfactory. But I want your Lordships to note this, that this answer has allowed some £40,000 to be paid to Messrs. Schröder & Company, of which the principal partner is Baron von Schröder, an alien naturalised by the Government after the war who has a son fighting in the German Army. Then, my Lords, there is another point on which I should like to obtain some information from the Government. The Prime Minister stated in another place that there are 40,000 uninterned non-naturalised alien enemies, of whom 16,000 are women and 24,000 men. He further went on to say—
"All adult males of this class, if over military age, are to be repatriated,"
That, coming from the Prime Minister, requires, I think, some elucidation. How are these people to be repatriated, and where are they to be repatriated to? It is hardly likely that the German Government will want to feed a lot of men over military age. Was the Prime Minister's statement a statement made with any care or consideration at all, or was it simply and solely a mere device to quiet popular indignation, without any coherent or practical plan for carrying the device into effect?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am extremely unwilling to interrupt the noble Earl, but I think he must be aware that the matters of great import on which he is now speaking do not in any sense arise out of the terms of the Questions which he has put on the Paper. If he will study the precise terms of his Questions he will see that these matters, although of great moment, are in no sense included in those Questions.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I gather from the interruption of the noble Marquess that the Government are not prepared to explain the meaning of the Prime Minister's words?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I will say exactly what I mean. The noble Earl's Questions on the Paper are entirely concerned with the particular matter of what is to be done with naturalised Germans. The whole of his speech, so far, has been devoted to entirely different questions. Had he been good enough to put a Motion on the Paper raising the whole question, we should have been, of course, prepared with all the facts at our command and should have endeavoured to meet the noble Earl's arguments. But he must not be surprised if my noble friend who represents the Department, not having been informed as to the kind of speech which the noble Earl desired to make, is not provided with all the data which may he necessary to reply to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I maintain, with all respect, that the former part of my speech was to the point, because if I had, or if the public had, any confidence in the Government by experience of their dealing with this question of aliens, we should not be so greatly concerned as to the nature of the tribunal to be set up. I do not mind putting the Question clown for a future day, but I should not have thought that it was one which it would have been difficult to answer. The Prime Minister has made a statement that he is going to do a certain thing, and all I have asked is, How is he going to do it? However, let that pass.
Let me come to the particular point mentioned in Question No. 2. As regards that Question, I should like to call the attention of the House to the law which was signed by the German Emperor on July 22, 1913, and I call attention to this point because it gives a very illuminating example of the process by which the German Government have, by design, attempted to deceive the nations of the world in regard to this question of naturalisation. I have read the document in the original German, but I do not think I need quote it to the House. I will give it from a translation, which is quite accurate. In order to provide for cases where a foreign

1029
nationality is solely acquired with a view to meeting business requirements—no doubt extremely largely used by Germans in this country—it is laid down that a German shall not lose his nationality if, before acquiring a foreign nationality, he obtains the permission of the home authorities to retain his German nationality—that is to say, although he may be naturalised here he retains his German nationality. It is further provided in the same law that Germans who have lost their German nationality—this is pretty wide!—through any cause whatever, may recover it without returning to Germany, even if they have meanwhile acquired a foreign nationality. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will answer on behalf of His Majesty's Government to be good enough to reply seriatim to the Questions standing in my name.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, before the noble Earl's Questions are answered, I should like to refer to one point connected with the first Question—that is to say, the machinery that is about to be created to deal with naturalised British subjects and others. I wish particularly to draw attention to the manner in which this may affect a certain class in whom I am interested—namely, Ottoman subjects who are at present in this country. Although we do not know the full details of what is to be done, at the same time from statements already made I understand that the general principle on which the Government are going to proceed is that all non-naturalised aliens should be prima facie considered as enemies, and should, therefore, be interned unless they can show cause to the contrary, and that all naturalised British subjects should be prima facie considered as not hostile, and should not be interned unless good cause can be shown for interning them. We further know that tribunals are to be set up to deal with appeals from these various aliens. I do not know of whom the tribunals will consist, but I must say that if English Judges and magistrates have to deal with the status and character and general probity of Armenians, Syrians, Kurds, and so on, they will find themselves in a difficult position. To deal with matters of that kind Eastern knowledge is required, and what I suggest is this. There are at present in this country a good many members of the Levant Consular Service who speak Turkish and many of them
1030
Arabic. I do not say that they should be given any judicial functions, but I cannot help thinking that it might assist the Judges in their decisions if some of these gentlemen were added to the Courts as assessors to assist in coming to a decision on the points brought forward.
Without wishing to attach any exaggerated importance to this matter, I do think that it is one deserving of serious consideration, because I am strongly convinced that when eventually we come to decide the terms of peace the whole question of the relations between the British Government and nation and the Moslem inhabitants of the world will require a display of statesmanship of the highest quality and also a very great knowledge of Eastern affairs. I will not, of course, go fully into this matter now. The whole question bristles with difficulties of every description. There are Moslems and Moslems. A Moslem of Egypt is not the same as a Moslem of India, and the latter is not the same as a Moslem of Persia, and so on. In view of the difficulties likely to occur I cannot help thinking that it would be advisable to do all in our power to avoid widening in any respect the breach which is to a certain extent almost inevitable by reason of our having made a very just and necessary war against the Caliph of Islam.
Since this matter was brought up a few days ago, I have been in communication with Sir Herbert Belfield at the War Office, who, I believe, deals with this subject, and he promised to inquire into it. I do not know whether anything has been done, but I understood from what Sir Herbert Belfield wrote to me that he thought the chief constables and the London Police might object to having these Turkish aliens thrown on their hands. I really do not think that in dealing with a matter of this kind a chief constable or even a London superintendent of Police is the best judge. More knowledge of Eastern affairs is required than is possessed by these gentlemen. The matter is too serious to be left in the hands of Departmental officers, and ought to receive the attention of the Cabinet as a whole. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will be able to tell us that the subject will receive further consideration.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers for the Government I should like to say a few words. The importance of dealing with this alien question has been pressed on the Government many times in this House, and it is remarkable that after nine months the Government should have adopted precisely to the letter the proposition which some of us put forward at the beginning of the war. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is not in his place to speak on this matter. He dealt with it so well on former occasions, and his reason for not being here to-day, as we all know, is highly honourable to himself. The fact that the Government have adopted this line to-day in regard to enemy aliens shows that there is a Very different tone in the country now from what there was nine months ago. At that time I proposed this very course in this House, but I was told that I ought not to have done so because it would be inconvenient to many estimable persons. We have passed the days when the country thinks of the convenience or inconvenience of a German, or almost anybody else. I have not spoken on this subject for some months past. The reason I have not done so is that it was made clear that the whole matter as regards enemy aliens was in the hands of the War Office. The thing that troubled some of us was that there seemed to be confusion, that there seemed to be several different Departments dealing with the matter; and I myself was absolutely satisfied when I knew that the matter was in the hands of the War Office and the Admiralty.
I would like to ask, Are the War Office and the Admiralty satisfied with the present position? They know now that they are to be quit of enemy aliens. What have they been told about naturalised Germans? The Government are going to treat the naturalised German as a Britisher until he has given reason for contrary treatment—in other words, they are going to treat him just like all the rest of us. Are the War Office and the Admiralty satisfied with that, or have those Departments been told that nothing else can be done and that they must be satisfied? To put it another way. Suppose that two persons go to the Secretary of State for War. One of them says, "Here is the policy; we are going to shut up the foreigner, but we are not going to shut up the naturalised man but are going to treat him like an Englishman." The other one
1032
says, "We are going to shut up the foreigner; and, if you like, we will treat the naturalised man the same way too." Would the War Office and the Admiralty, if the case were put to them in that way, prefer the latter proposition? I venture to think that if they do the country will give them their way, in spite of the Government saying that that is a course which they will never take. "Never" is a long day. We have had nine months of war. Do you think "never" is going to last for nine more months I do not.
One exception, I think, ought to be made in this matter. I have made it myself on former occasions. It is this, that when people are agitating in this country against the naturalised German they ought absolutely and entirely to accept as an Englishman a naturalised German who has sent his own son to fight in the ranks alongside our sons. That is the kind of foreigner that I am prepared to accept as a man and a brother, and I think it ought to be recognised by everybody that a man who risks his son in His Majesty's Forces is a British citizen at heart. I do not say that there are not some others who ought in the same way to be excepted from the ranks of those who should be under suspicion. We have seen in the last few days in the newspapers protests by certain naturalised Germans who have told us that all their interests are in this country, that their sons are fighting with us, and that they are heart and soul in our cause. As regards the gentlemen who signed those protests, I have not the slightest doubt that most probably all of them are entirely sincere. But there are some highly-placed naturalised Germans in this country who have lived through all these months of war, who have seen every German horror in turn, but who have not said a word. They will not say a word. Why should they? They have property in Germany. You will find against the names of some of them German honours and decorations. Have those been returned Have they been flung back? We have heard nothing of it, and I do not believe that such has been the case. It is these men at the top at whom you want to get—these men who all the time, through all these months, are trying to get the best of two worlds. Some hold English honours, too. One of them has shown the virtue at least of resignation. May we suggest that others should take the same course?

1033
I speak thus because I feel that many people are thinking like this, and it is time that things were said. Times have changed and are changing. There are many people in the country who before the war were friendly with Germans, mixed with Germans, and were intimate with them in every way. They cannot be again. Does anybody think that after this war things are going to be as they were before, that in social life, in business, in every day interests, British subjects and Germans are going to live together in amity in this country? I believe not. The Government have announced publicly that they will never differentiate between naturalised Germans and ourselves. We see to-day what a change nine months of war has brought upon the Government. Were I in the Government I would not say "never." I would not wait until I was made to act. I should look at what had happened, consider what was going to happen, and take another course before I was obliged to do so by the force of public opinion.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, as the noble Marquess behind me has already pointed out, the noble Earl who initiated this debate travelled a long way outside the terms of his Questions. Although His Majesty's Government do not shrink from further discussion on this subject, I hope the noble Earl will excuse me if I am unable this afternoon to follow him into the whole of the first part of his speech, which, as I say, went a good deal outside the Questions of which he had given notice. Nor can I follow him into the cases of Ahlers, Baron Schroder, and so on. With regard to the Questions on the Paper, it may be convenient if I reply to the first, third, and fourth together—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I hope the noble Viscount will not do that. I should like him to answer the Questions categorically.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: Those three Questions hang together, I think. If there is anything further to be said the noble Marquess who leads the House, who is going to make some remarks later in this discussion, may be able to deal with the matter more fully. The first, third, and fourth Questions relate to the treatment of naturalised British subjects of enemy origin. Your Lordships will recollect that on Thursday last the Prime Minister explained the policy which the Government
1034
had decided to adopt in regard to enemy aliens. He went on to say—
"In the case of the naturalised aliens, who are in law British subjects (numbering about 8,000), we think the prima facie presumption should be the other way; but exceptional eases, established to the satisfaction of the advisory body, will be specially dealt with. There must be a power of interning in cases of proved necessity or danger."
There is nothing that I can add to the Prime Minister's statement. As to the tribunal, I understand that its composition has not been quite decided upon, but it is to be a judicial tribunal. With regard to the remarks of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer), whose great experience of Orientals and the East generally must have great weight with this House or wherever he speaks, I can only say that I am sure the suggestions which he has made will be considered by the Government before the composition of the tribunal is settled.
In his second Question Lord Portsmouth refers to the German Imperial and State Nationality Law of July 22, 1913. His Majesty's Government cannot express an authoritative opinion on the German law which is expounded in the Paper from which the noble Earl has quoted; but it appears that the German Nationality Law of 1913 provides, as the noble Earl stated, that with regard to the bearing upon German nationality of naturalisation in a foreign country a German who is not domiciled or resident in Germany loses his nationality on obtaining naturalisation in a foreign country unless before he obtains such naturalisation he has received from the proper German authorities permission to retain his original nationality. This permission, I understand, may be refused or granted. In the latter event a German naturalised in the United Kingdom would remain a German subject. I may perhaps say, in parenthesis, that I believe similar laws obtain elsewhere, as in Russia for instance. It appears also to be possible in certain circumstances—that is, where a person has applied for release from German nationality without realising its effect, or has lost it through the action of his parents or guardians—for a German to resume his original nationality without actually taking up his residence in Germany. As my right hon. friend the Home Secretary said the other day in the House of Commons, it is difficult for us to interpret the German Law, because the German Government, I am afraid, are inclined both to alter and to interpret the Naturalisation Law as it suits their own purpose.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, it really is not possible to congratulate the Government on the way in which they have dealt with this question of aliens. As Lord St. Davids reminded your Lordships, during the autumn of last year and the first weeks of this year we discussed this question at length in this House, and we desisted, not because our anxiety had been relieved, but because when once we knew that one Department of State had been made solely responsible—as we understood, the War Office—we felt that the clash of authorities against which we had protested had disappeared, and for the moment we thought we had better leave the subject alone. But it is mortifying to all of us that now, after nine months of war, the Government should only be beginning to do the very thing which they were urged to do at the commencement of the war. I confess frankly that I have never understood, and I do not understand now, why the Government dealt with this question with so much hesitation and apparent trepidation.
My noble friend behind me has asked certain Questions to-day, and I cannot congratulate him on the reply which he has received. Questions No. 1, 3, and 4 have not been answered at all. I presume that means that the Government have not vet finally decided what they are going to do on any of these three subjects. They have not yet formed their tribunal; they do not know exactly how they mean to deal with naturalised British subjects who have not divested themselves of their German nationality; and probably they have not considered what their duty would be in the case of the matter referred to in Question No. 4. Considering that the Government have obviously adopted this policy of internment rather suddenly, I am not surprised that they have not had time fully to develop its details; but in the absence of any opportunity of criticising those details I should like to say a word about the position of naturalised Germans in this country. I think we must be extremely careful to differentiate between them. It has been said that when once a country grants naturalisation it must not look behind that naturalisation except on proof positive of disloyalty; that it is not generous or justifiable to grant naturalisation in time of peace and then, when war conies, to treat with suspicion the man whom you have received as a British subject. I think that is, on a priori
1036
grounds, a perfectly sound doctrine. But then you have the German Nationality Law of 1913. That law does seem to me to make a very material difference to the whole question, because, as I understand it, a German law has been passed ostentatiously for the purpose of allowing Germans, for business purposes, to become naturalised in the countries in which they conduct their businesses, and yet to retain all the advantages of German citizenship. That being the case, I think the Government would be justified in looking behind the circumstances of each naturalisation; and that is what I hope the Government are going to do.
Lord St. Davids mentioned the case of naturalised Germans who have sons fighting in the British Navy or Army. I agree with everything he said about them. We accept them as brothers in the fullest sense of the word. But there are others who have not got sons fighting in our Navy or Army, perhaps because they have not sons old enough to fight. Many of us knew the late Mr. Alfred Beit, and many of us know his brother Mr. Otto Beit. Mr. Alfred Beit was, and his brother is, just as good and true an Englishman as any one in your Lordships' House. There are many others like them. But there is no doubt whatever that there are men in this country who have accepted British naturalisation solely for business purposes, who have never ceased to be Germans at heart, and who intend, when business purposes can no longer he served, to resume their German nationality. His Majesty's Government should probe those cases as closely as they can, because it is not just that the poor German waiter should be dealt with under one system and the rich German under another.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA(THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I was very sorry to rise and interrupt the noble Earl opposite in the middle of his speech, but I really did so, if the noble Earl will believe me, in the interests of the order of your Lordships' House rather than with any particular reference to the subject which he was discussing. Our rules of order here are lax, but from time to time—and I feel sure that I shall have the sympathy of the noble Earl below the Gangway opposite (Lord Camperdown) in saying this—it is desirable to call attention to the fact that where a noble Lord does

1037
not put any Motion on the Paper or where he does not include certain subjects in a Question which he asks, it is inconvenient, and it is also hard upon those members of the Government who have to give official replies, if the speaker wanders away into a general conversation on the subject.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Having regard to that statement, perhaps the noble Marquess will be good enough to answer the Questions on the Paper which were not answered by the noble Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So far as I can supplement anything that was said by my noble friend, of course I shall be happy to do so. First of all I may, perhaps, deal with the specific question which was asked by my noble friend Lord St. Davids. He asked how it was that this measure of general internment of aliens had not taken place before, and he asked specific questions as to whether the War Office and the Admiralty were satisfied with the distinction that was to be drawn between naturalised and non-naturalised aliens, or whether they had merely accepted it as a proposition advanced by the Government. On behalf of my friends who represent both the Admiralty and the War Office I should like to say this, that they have throughout been satisfied that, so far as they have been able to compass it, every alien against whom any kind of suspicion exists, whether he be naturalised or not, and also certain persons who are not enemy aliens, have been arrested and either imprisoned or interned.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: Am I to understand that at the present moment the War Office and the Admiralty have the power, and know that they have the power, to seize any naturalised German and shut him up without reference to any other authority?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My noble friend knows, or can easily ascertain, what the precise powers under the Defence of the Realm Act are. They do not, of course, in any case allow the permanent imprisonment of anybody without some form of inquiry. People who are taken up have to be tried in those cases by Court-Martial. In other cases they are brought before the ordinary tribunals. But it is not possible for anybody, either the Admiralty or the War Office, to issue a lettre de cachet against an individual and throw him into gaol.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: Then I am right in thinking that the War Office and the Admiralty have not had the offer made to them, "Would you like to have the same powers over naturalised aliens that you have over enemy aliens?" That is the power want them to have.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The position of a naturalised alien is, of course, in most respects that of a British subject; otherwise there would be no meaning in naturalisation. But I can say quite plainly, in reply to my noble friend, that the Departments have not addressed any request or made any suggestion that naturalised aliens as a class should be treated as though they were enemy aliens. Then the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and also, I think, my noble friend below the Gangway, assumed that in taking the recent decision which they have in the institution of this tribunal the Government are now, after a long interval, adopting the steps which they were asked to take some months ago on the ground of the prevalence of espionage. It is important to contradict categorically that statement. The Admiralty and the War Office, of course, are liable to have made mistakes like other people, and it is impossible to say that all guilty persons have been seized, but both of those Departments are satisfied that, so far as they are able to discover it, all persons, whether they be aliens, or naturalised, or possibly in some cases, as they might be, British subjects, or the subjects of neutral Powers, have been dealt with, and where there has been no actual case for trying them to conviction they have been interned. Therefore this step that has been taken bears no reference whatever to what may be called the general alien question, which, as we all know, was founded upon the fears that were held either of espionage or of the conveyance of information to the enemy.
There have been various pleas advanced at different times for taking general action of this sort. One argument that was used was, there being a large number of uninterned alien enemies, that in the event of an attack being made on London by aircraft it would be possible that those alien enemies would, in pursuance of some secret organisation, combine for the purpose of incendiarism or some other form of attack. That is not an argument to which the military or the police authorities have,

1039
as I believe, attached great importance. But it cannot be disputed that this question of internment assumed a different aspect after the rapid increase to boiling point of indignation which has been felt against our enemies, in particular, of course, against the Germans, owing to the adoption of the methods which we know so well, both by sea and by land. As my noble friend stated, the temper of the country did, no doubt, change greatly after those occurrences. Everybody, I am sure, even those who desire to take the harshest judicial measures against enemy aliens of all kinds, have reprehended those cowardly attacks on individuals, many of them probably perfectly harmless individuals, involving destruction of property, violence, and looting. It is hard to speak too strongly of such conduct as that. It is, of course, an evidence of a temper among the people which has to be considered and weighed. It is altogether undesirable that those who are responsible for order should have to give daily attention to safeguarding these people from such attacks, and from every point of view, therefore, it is better that they should be put out of the way so far as can be humanely done. The proposal which has been made is for the institution of tribunals of a purely judicial character. I mention that because I think the noble Earl opposite spoke of them as being appointed by the Government and implied that they would be mere Government nominees. These tribunals are to be of a judicial character—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Are they to consist of Judges entirely?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My impression is that each tribunal will be presided over by a Judge of the High Court, but I am not entirely certain of the details; and I have no doubt that the Judge will have assistance, some possibly of the character which my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer) suggested. His suggestion seemed to me to be a very fruitful one.
I come now to the particular Questions of the noble Earl opposite on this matter of naturalisation. As regards the first Question, I think it is quite clear that machinery will have to be created by which any particular naturalised British subject may have to be brought before the tribunal. But, on the other hand, I must associate myself with the observation made
1040
by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in another place, which was to the effect that where a foreigner had been regularly naturalised the burden of proof must rest rather upon those who desire to take hostile measures against him than upon those who would treat him as a loyal subject of the King. The original presumption ought to be, and I feel certain that in the vast majority of cases it would be properly so regarded, in favour of the man who has become naturalised. That there may be exceptions of various kinds I do not for a moment deny, and exceptions of that kind ought to be carefully examined. I agree with the noble Earl that machinery ought to be framed by which inquiry can be made in any particular case into the circumstances or the past of a naturalised foreigner. But I do not think it would be reasonable that every naturalised foreigner should be obliged automatically to come before the tribunal and prove that he is not a spy, or something approaching it. I do not believe that in practice any such system could be found to work. It surely would by no means be difficult to create machinery which reasonable people would regard as adequate.
Then we come to the question of double nationality, which is one which I quite admit may easily give some searchings of heart to those who look into the matter. I do not remember—perhaps some members of the House may—whether when the German Nationality Law was passed in 1913 it attracted any public notice in this country and whether it was mentioned in either House of Parliament. I gathered from the noble Earl that that was not the case, and my impression is the same. At any rate, I have no recollection of our having done so. The purposes for which that law was passed may have been, or may not have been, sinister. I do not profess to know. But it is important to call attention to this fact, that the existence of various forms of double nationality is far more common on the Continent of Europe than we living in these islands are able to realise. There are a number of persons that we know of who have properties both in Belgium and in Germany, in Germany and in Austria, and also, I fancy, in Austria and in Russia. Changes of boundaries have often brought about the result that the property of one family has fallen under the sway of a different

1041
Sovereign. There are other cases in which a man is a member of Parliament of more than one country; there are several such cases that might occur to some of your Lordships. Therefore the notion of a man being a citizen of two countries, though it seems to us so strange and anomalous, is probably not regarded abroad in quite the same way as it would be here. I think my noble friend behind me (Lord Allendale) stated that this system of double nationality obtains in Russia as well as in Germany. I repeat once more that the fact of a German citizen, or any alien citizen, having when by way of being naturalised here retained what we cannot recognise as being in any way effective, I imagine—allegiance to another country—is one which demands careful examination; and it is, I think, a subject which properly might come within the purview of the tribunal to examine. For instance, it would appear to me to create a prima facie case for examination of the status of a naturalised foreigner if proof were adduced that he had retained citizenship in another country. I do not think it necessarily follows in all cases that he is a disloyal person if he has, but the circumstances might well be examined, and I cannot understand that there need be any particular difficulty in doing so. That, I think, answers the noble Earl's third Question.
As regards the fourth Question, that is a matter of particular policy which, I think, should be left to the discretion of the tribunal to decide. What particular facts may arise as regards the doings and the relations of particular naturalised persons must, I think, be a matter for the tribunal in each case, and I do not think it is possible here to go beyond that in reply to the noble Earl. It is reasonable to recollect that it is possible to attach excessive importance to the doings of these particular naturalised Germans, or Germans who are not naturalised, as compared with those of other persons in the country. There are, no doubt, a certain number of neutrals with enemy sympathies and of enemy connections whose doings might become a more appropriate subject for inquiry and watchfulness on the part of the police or the military authorities than those, not only of naturalised Germans, but even of Germans who are not naturalised. It is, I think, more important that those who have these matters in hand should concentrate their attention upon
1042
the really suspicious sorts of people—those against whom there is any reason to suppose that they cherish not only hostile thoughts but the possibility of hostile action—than merely ticket large classes of persons as hostile because of their names or place of birth. These discussions are certainly not of a character of which we complain, and I have often said that I take no exception whatever to any noble Lord raising these matters in Parliament. It would be altogether absurd and improper for me to do so. But it is desirable, I venture to think, to see the different points in their proper perspective, and not to pay excessive attention to certain dangers which may not be so real as others of which the authorities are well aware but which do not strike the public eye quite so easily.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Is it proposed to pass a special Act laying down the functions and powers of these tribunals?
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, upon this part of the subject perhaps I may take this opportunity of addressing a question to the noble Marquess. Is it intended that any direction shall be given as to how those persons shall be dealt with who are technically Ottoman subjects but as to whom the presumption is that they are not enemies to us in this country but are in sympathy with us? Is it intended that any sort of direction should be given to the tribunal to discriminate between different kinds of Ottoman subjects? We read to-day in the Press that the Turks have been, as is their wont, massacring Armenian Christians in large numbers, and we may any day read that they have begun to massacre Greek Christians also in Asia Minor. Would it not be absurd to assume that because Armenians and Greeks from Asiatic Turkey are technically Ottoman subjects they are hostile to Great Britain? The presumption is all the other way. They are naturally our friends, being the victims of the Turkish enemy. I should also like to ask whether it is intended to ignore what has been done within the last few months by the War Office in liberating a certain number of aliens who had been interned some months ago. I happen to know that the War Office has taken great pains to investigate cases of perfectly harmless and well disposed persons who are technically alien enemies, some of whom had sons serving in His

1043
Majesty's Forces, and some of whom were able to prove that they had lived harmless lives. Will these people, most of whom are of a humble station in life, whose cases have already been investigated with great care by the War Office and who have been liberated, he obliged de novo to give an account of themselves and substantiate their claims before the new tribunals When the House reassembles perhaps the noble Marquess will be able to give us some idea of the method by which these inquiries will be conducted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In reply to my noble friend's last question, as to whether it will be necessary for those who have already been liberated from detention to give a fresh account of themselves, I do not like to give a quite positive answer but my impression is that it will. My impression is that in respect of this new departure the tribunal will be the only authority which is able to clean the slate, so to speak, of any particular individual. My noble friend will allow me to make this reservation, that that is my impression; I do not give it to him as a decision which has been made by Government. As regards the question put by my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer), which was carried further by my noble friend below the Gangway (Lord Bryce), it is intended that certain general principles should be laid down for the guidance of the tribunal.
THE EARL OF CROMER: By Act of Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: On that I should rather like to postpone a reply. But it is intended that for the guidance of the tribunal certain general principles should be laid down. Among those general principles undoubtedly will be the careful consideration of the case of technical alien enemies such as those mentioned by my two noble friends, in favour of whom a strong prima facie case must be agreed to exist. To lock up an Armenian when a number of his compatriots had been massacred in Turkey seems to be a strange and anomalous proceeding. There are other Europeans, technical alien enemies—some Austrian Poles, for instance, and others—in whose favour a prima facie case would, I have no doubt, be held to exist. But perhaps it will satisfy the noble Earl if I say that this is a matter which will undoubtedly form the subject of a direction to the tribunal.

INDIAN SOLDIERS IN GERMANY.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps are being taken by the India Office or any other official body to obtain information concerning the whereabouts and treatment of the Indian soldiers who are prisoners of war in Germany, and whether any measures have been adopted or are in contemplation for the supply of relief to these prisoners or the amelioration of their lot.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to impose upon the noble Marquess the obligation of answering yet another Question this evening, but my observations in putting this Question will be sufficiently brief to enable him to escape the necessity of a long reply. I am sure the noble Marquess will not expect me to offer any apology for putting this Question. The matter is really one, as no one knows better than himself, of great importance—of importance in its effect on the sentiment and attitude of our Indian soldiers who are fighting at the Front, on the opinion of the Indian soldiers who are lying in such large numbers wounded in hospital in this country, and, still more, on the opinion that will be entertained in India when the war comes to an end. When that time arrives these Indian prisoners will return to their own country with tales, not merely of the sufferings they have undergone in Gennany—and one can well believe that, in a country where no one speaks their language and where the conditions of life and food are absolutely different, those sufferings may be very great—but also of the manner, successful or the reverse, in which the British Raj had intervened to ameliorate their sufferings or to procure their release.
I have no idea myself how many Indian prisoners there are in Germany at the present time, but if we may judge from the prominent part that the Indian Forces have played in the fighting from the start, and more especially during the past two months, from the degree to which they have been in the thick of the fighting, and from their share in the general casualties which have been so severe, one can imagine that there must be at least several thousands of Indian prisoners in Germany. We know nothing about them in this country. Their names are not even published in the lists of casualties that appear in the newspapers. I have been endeavouring

1045
for some time past to obtain information on the point. We have in this country a Committee, with which I am closely associated—the Indian Soldiers' Fund—which has raised, and which distributes, large sums of money for the sending out of comforts to our Indian soldiers at the Front and for the relief of the wounded at home. In our efforts to ascertain what we could do for the prisoners, we have since the beginning of the war succeeded in procuring only one list of Indian prisoners from the Prisoners of War Help Committee, a list which contained a little over 300 names. Apart from that we have been dependent entirely upon stray pieces of information which have reached us in letters from officers who are themselves prisoners in different parts of Germany. In such cases—lamentably few, as I admit they are—we have done what we could to send out relief and to provide remittances of money to these unhappy men.
But the point of my Question to the noble Marquess is this, that surely this obligation is one which ought not to rest on a private Committee, necessarily imperfectly supplied with information, but ought to be undertaken and discharged by the India Office itself. It may be that some organisation already exists for this purpose, but if it does not I would suggest to the noble Marquess that it might be well for him either to constitute a Committee in the India Office with special direction to this object, or, if there are any reasons for not doing that, he might take our Committee, or some other Committee outside, give them the requisite authority for dealing with the matter; and provide them with funds. Amid the great issues with which we are dealing this matter may seem of small importance, but in India, it is of great importance indeed. I feel that I may, therefore, in addressing this appeal to the noble Marquess, address it, not merely to his humanitarian instincts, which alone, I think, would impel him to move, but to the larger interests of the State which are directly involved.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have, of course, no complaint of the noble Earl in raising this question of Indian prisoners of war, which is one which has given us, as he may well suppose, much concern. Various stories have reached us, both of exceptionally harsh treatment of Indian
1046
prisoners when captured, and of exceptionally kind treatment of Indian prisoners after their detention—the latter in hopes, it may be presumed, of winning their good will and of arousing discontent with British rule. The noble Earl, I think, is not accurate in stating that in all cases communication with Indian prisoners has been impossible in Germany. I believe, as a matter of fact, in some cases great pains have been taken to send Indian-speaking gentlemen to converse with them. But, as the noble Earl knows, we have had plenty of evidence in inquiries that have been made from time to time in Parliament of the fact that our general information about prisoners in Germany has been meagre. I do not know that we are much worse off, or indeed worse off, in respect of Indian prisoners than we are with respect to British prisoners in that regard.
From time to time the Government receive lists of prisoners in Germany, forwarded through the United States Ambassador. Those lists include a certain number of names of Indian prisoners, but we do not know, of course, what the total number of prisoners detained in Germany is; and therefore it is impossible to say whether the lists are anything like complete. So far as those lists have reached the War Office, to whom they are sent in the first instance, the names and the places of internment have been sent by them to the Prisoners of War Help Committee, to which the noble Earl alluded. That Committee is presided over by an old friend of mine with whom I was associated when he was Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office, Sir Charles Lucas, and anybody who knows him should know that, both in capacity and in sympathy, nobody could be better qualified than he to preside over an inquiry of that kind. The Prisoners of War Help Committee does all that it can, through the channels of the possible, for the amelioration of the lot of British prisoners in Germany. It equally undertakes inquiry into the lot of the Indian prisoners there. It is in regular touch with the India Office, and therefore it seems to me that there would be no object in appointing a fresh body or Committee for these purposes. All that we can do at my Office is to impress upon the Prisoners of War Help Committee the particular needs of the Indian prisoners, although, so far as I know, they have shown no disposition to neglect those in favour of other prisoners. If the noble Earl has

1047
any other information which he would desire to communicate, of course we should be most glad to get it at the India Office. But, so far as I know, anything that can be done is being done by this body; and I will do my best to see that they are kept up to the mark in doing what is possible. But I am by no means confident that very much can be done in the particular conditions which obtain in Germany for the amelioration of the lot of any particular set of prisoners.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied with the noble Marquess's reply. I have no doubt that the Prisoners of War Help Committee does its best, but it is a Committee constituted for dealing with British prisoners of war. The conditions operating in regard to Indian prisoners of war are wholly different, and require to be dealt with by separate men with special knowledge and experience. The only thing which the Prisoners of War Help Committee has succeeded in furnishing to the Indian Soldiers' Fund is one list containing a little over 300 names. There must be thousands of Indian prisoners of war in Germany. That fact shows that the Committee have not at their hands at the present moment the resources necessary to enable them to cope with the matter. The noble Marquess says he will impress them with the importance of the case. Well and good; and I dare say something might be done by putting men of Indian knowledge and experience on that Committee. But the work would be better discharged by the India Office itself. The noble Marquess has in his Office several able Anglo-Indian officials, and I suggest to him to reconsider
1048
my point—namely, whether he might not direct some of these gentlemen to devote themselves exclusively to this matter. You will hear a great deal of this as time goes on, and any negligence—I am quite sure not intentional—will react terribly in India after the war.
The noble Marquess did not answer this question. When you have discovered where and who these prisoners are, what are you to do for them and who is to do it? The Fund with which I am connected, and which sits in my house, administers large sums of money, but I am not aware that it is our duty to make advances to Indian prisoners of war. We have, however, done so. We have sent out a sovereign to this man and so many rupees to another, but that is distinctly an obligation of Government. Therefore what I want the noble Marquess to do, if he wishes our Committee to act in this matter, is himself out of the resources at his disposal to provide us with the funds. The two points which I venture to submit to him for reconsideration are—first, the desirability of using the great influences he has at his disposal in the India Office to consider this matter specially; and, secondly, if he wishes us to deal with it in any way, to give us the funds to enable us to do so.

IMMATURE SPIRITS (RESTRICTION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Strachie). (No. 77.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.