Sitting of 14 October 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906, ETC.
Copy presented of Report of Proceedings of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906; the Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Act, 1909; the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908; and the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANK OF ENGLAND NOTE ISSUE.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th October; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 370].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ENEMY PROPERTY CAPTURED.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, adverting to the statement that enemy property captured under the Order in Council of 11th March, 1915, will be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order, he is aware that the Order in no way interferes with the liberty of His Majesty's Government to apply for con-
    1438
    demnation and confiscation of enemy property captured under the provisions of that Order, but leaves it open to His Majesty's Government to apply for such condemnation and confiscation; and will he now say whether His Majesty's Government proposes to apply for such condemnation and confiscation?
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, considering the large number of questions on the Paper to-day—160—you will exercise your discretion and disallow supplementary questions, in order that they all may be put?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would rather not exercise any authority in the matter, but leave it to hon. Members themselves. I am sure they will not abuse their privilege of asking supplementary questions.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the Noble Lord explain his answer? I do not understand it. Will he say what it means?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I mean that I was not aware of any foundation for the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not the question on the Paper. The question on the Paper is specific. The Noble Lord gave me an insolent reply to my last question on the matter.

    SEA WARFARE.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, adverting to the statement in his letter dated 25th August, and published in the Press on the following day, that freedom of the seas may be a very reasonable subject for discussion, definition, and agreement between nations after this war, but not by itself alone, not while there is no freedom and no security against war and German methods of war on land, will he explain whether it is intended after this War again to entertain on behalf of this country proposals touching sea warfare, similar to those embodied in the Declaration of London or in any of those Hague Conventions which have not been sanctioned by Parliament; and especially

    1439
    whether it is intended to renew the declarations made at The Hague in 1907 that His Majesty's Government were desirous to see the right of search limited in every practicable way, and that they were willing to abandon the principle of contraband of war altogether?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The passage to which the hon. Member refers meant exactly what it said, that certain matters might be reasonable subjects for discussion between nations generally after the War. The hon. Member's question is apparently intended to raise a discussion during the War. This, I think, is impossible, for obvious reasons, as far as belligerent Governments are concerned. The personal opinion of my right hon. Friend, and, if I may say so, my own, is that the whole question of international agreements, and how they can be made worth anything in future, may reasonably form the subject of discussion between nations after the War in the light of the experience gained and the reflections suggested by the way this War originated, and the methods by which our enemies have conducted it on sea and land; and that it would be very unreasonable to say the contrary. Further than that I cannot go at present.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY AND TURKEY.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any recent information as to the conditions under which our merchant seafarers are interned in Turkey; whether they are receiving the same consideration at the hands of our Government as are our prisoners of war interned in Germany in the way of provision of clothing and the like; and whether he has any knowledge that letters and parcels addressed to these interned prisoners in Turkey are safely received?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have no official information as to the conditions under which British merchant seamen are interned in Turkey; but the United States Consul-General at Smyrna is doing all he can for the crews interned at Magnesia. With regard to the second part of the question, in the absence of proper lists of prisoners it has been impossible to take all the same steps for the assistance of our prisoners in Turkey as of those in Germany,
    1440
    but the United States Ambassador at Constantinople has a fund at His Excellency's disposal for the relief of British subjects interned in Turkey, and he is being consulted as to whether the activities of the Prisoners of War Help Committee could usefully be extended to Turkey: as far as I am aware, letters and parcels addressed to British subjects interned in Turkey are duly received.
    Mr. PETO: I will give the right hon. Gentleman some further information.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I shall be very glad to receive it.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to a number of invalid and aged British merchant seafarers who are interned in Germany; and whether, having regard to the exchange of invalided civilians and of incapacitated military and naval prisoners of war which is taking place on the 6th and 7th of every month, he will now take steps to bring about a similar exchange in the case of merchant seafarers?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am aware that a number of invalid and aged British merchant seamen are interned in Germany. I am requesting the United States Ambassador to inquire whether the German Government would agree to extend the agreement for the release of invalid civilians to invalid seamen.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give information as to the treatment of captains and officers of German merchant ships who are now interned in this country; and whether similar treatment is accorded to our own interned merchant captains and officers in Germany?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Masters and ships' officers of German nationality are treated in the same manner as other civilians interned in this country: the same principle is followed in Germany.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what steps have been or are being taken to obtain a list of British prisoners in Turkey; and whether, in view of the anxiety felt by relatives of missing officers and men, he will cause such list to be published as soon as possible?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: We have repeatedly pressed the Turkish Government for these lists. It was recently decided, in view of the failure of the Turkish Government to communicate to His Majesty's Government lists of the British prisoners of war in their hands, to suspend the dispatch of similar lists to the Turkish Government. In the meantime we have received four lists of British prisoners of war in Turkey, which have been forwarded to the Admiralty or War Office.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the Noble Lord say when the last list was received—I have a brother-in-law there?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Have the services of the American Ambassador been invoked for the purpose of obtaining these lists?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly. We can only act, and are acting, through the American Ambassador, who has done everything he can to persuade the Turks to give them. I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Baronet offhand, without looking it up, when the last list was received. It was comparatively recently. If my hon. Friend will speak to me afterwards I will look into it.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the British wounded who are now in the Bed Cross hospital provided by Americans in the Tash-Kishla barracks, in Constantinople; whether he has official information to the effect that, under German instigation, access to this hospital has been denied both to American and British residents in Constantinople; and, if so, whether he will request the American Ambassador in Constantinople to appeal to the Turkish Government to remove these restrictions?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have no information as to the British wounded in the hospital established in the Tash-Kishla barracks, except that they were transferred there at the end of August. We received information, dated 1st September, that visiting of the British wounded had been absolutely prohibited as a retaliatory measure for supposed ill-treatment of Turkish prisoners. The United States Ambassador at Constantinople at once took steps to secure an official permit for the Secretary of the Embassy to visit freely all wounded in hospitals, and he expected that this would be given at an early date. There is, of course, no foundation whatever for the allegations of ill-
    1442
    treatment of Turkish prisoners, and we so informed the United States Ambassador, and asked him to convey that information to the Turkish Government. We also asked him to inform them that we had no objection to the inspection of any Turkish prisoners of war in our hands by United States Diplomatic or Consular officers, and that we expected that the Porte would give us reciprocal treatment.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many uniforms have been sent from this country to Germany and from Germany to this country, respectively, for the use of prisoners of war?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. There have been sent to Germany 961 jackets, 1,006 pairs of trousers, 562 great-coats, and 997 caps. Individual German officers and men have received articles of uniform from Germany, but I have no statistics which I can give my hon. Friend. So far as I am aware, no bulk consignments of uniform emanating from the German Government have reached the German prisoners in this country.

    SHAMEEN TERRITORY (GERMAN RESIDENTS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Germans are still permitted to reside, under anti-bellum conditions, at Canton, on the Shameen, territory leased by Great Britain from China; whether the German flag is still permitted to remain flying over the German Consulate there, the German post office to remain open, and the German bank to do business and afford facilities for remittance of money to Germany; and, if so, whether steps will now be taken to exclude all Germans from the above-named British concession?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The answer to the first four paragraphs is in the affirmative. Though the Shameen territory has been leased by His Majesty's Government the Chinese Government retains sovereignty over it. Unless the German tenants break some provision of their lease which renders them legally liable to eviction, we have no power to turn them out by process of law. To do so by force would be a breach of the neutrality and sovereignty of China. The

    1443
    Government are therefore unable to adopt the suggestion in the last paragraph of the question.
    Colonel YATE: Is it not a fact that the French allow no Germans in their concessions, and is it not right that we should take the same action in China as our French Allies have taken?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should be glad to have notice of that question if my hon. and gallant Friend will give it.

  BALKANS.

    ITALIAN CO-OPERATION.
    Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had his attention drawn to a statement that the handicap of the allied diplomacy in the Balkans has been greatly increased owing to the adhesion to the alliance of Italy with her special claims on the Eastern Adriatic seaboard; and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I regret very much that this statement should have been made.
    Italian co-operation was, and is, most cordially welcomed by His Majesty's Government and their Allies on every ground, and any statement to the contrary is entirely opposed to their views. It would be very unfortunate if any importance were attributed abroad to statements which appeared to imply that there was not complete harmony and good-feeling between ourselves and our Allies. The whole tone of the British Press generally does, I hope, counteract that impression, but it is most desirable that while indulging in criticism or advocating particular measures at home, care should be taken to avoid any statements which may be used by our enemies abroad with effect for a purpose which the writers did not intend and which is very injurious to this country.
    It is beyond the power of the Censorship to protect the country from this risk, and we can only rely on the patriotism of the Press.

    SHIPMENTS TO ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps, if any, have been taken, or are to be taken, by the Government to prevent shipments of cotton goods, hardware, and other manufactured or semi-manufactured goods from being shipped at British ports in British bottoms to alien enemies in neutral countries and particularly to South American countries; what steps, if any, have been taken, or are to be taken, by the Indian Government to prevent shipment of jute goods (grain and nitrate of soda bags, ore pockets, and Hessian cloths) from being shipped at Indian ports in British bottoms to alien enemies in neutral countries, particularly to South American countries; and is the Government aware that in certain South American countries extended credits to native dealers are being granted by German firms in order to cultivate trade relationships in these countries to the detriment of British merchants at a time when credits granted by British merchants are being prudently restricted in all countries, owing to the financial disturbance caused by the European War.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a person of enemy nationality resident in a neutral country is, according to our existing law, treated as a neutral and is only subject to such restrictions as affect other neutral traders. A special committee has been appointed to consider the anomalies and evils arising from this state of affairs and to devise remedies for them. I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will communicate to me any views or information he has for the assistance of that committee.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I will do that.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in organising the oil supply in the territory which has been captured from Turkey, no private monopoly will be conferred other than that secured by public tender; and whether the Government will take care that no pledges are given to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company or any other-private company?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The subject of the oil in the territories in question is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. While it would be premature to make any definite statement at present, the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member will not be lost sight of.

    CENTRAL AFRICA (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Spanish Government offered to lend its good offices in order that the territories in Central Africa should be placed during the War under the rule of neutrality; whether the British Government was bound by treaty to accept such an offer of mediation, and what was the answer given by the British Government to Spain; whether France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, and the United States had all expressed themselves in favour of excluding Central Africa from military operations; and when and by whom did the first act of war take place in the conventional basin of the Congo?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Spanish Government were requested by the Belgian Government about 10th August, 1914, to approach Germany with a request for the neutralisation of the conventional basin of the Congo during the War. The Spanish Government consulted His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid informally as to this request, and on 16th August His Majesty's Ambassador was informed that His Majesty's Government could not entertain the proposal for neutralisation, more especially as the German forces in East Africa had already undertaken an offensive movement against Nyasaland, and British naval forces had just destroyed the wireless station at Dar-es-Salaam. As regards the remainder of the question, His Majesty's Government were not bound by treaty to comply with such a request from a neutral Government, for the relevant Articles of the Berlin Act contain no mention of any such obligation. The answer to the third paragraph of the question is in the negative. I am unable to say what was actually the first act of war within the conventional basin of the Congo.

  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS.

    BRITISH AMBASSADOR AT PETROGBAD.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue as a White Paper the speech recently made by the British Ambassador at Petrograd, in which he is reported to have stated that the first attack on the Dardanelles was undertaken at the request of the Russian Government?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It does not seem worth while to issue this separately. When the next presentation of Papers on Russian affairs becomes possible it can be included. I understand it is already accessible in the Press.

    ENEMY ALIENS (SOUTH AFRICA).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Public Trustee has been appointed in the Union of South Africa to take charge of funds belonging to enemy aliens; whether businesses, such as the Johannesburg branch of the Siemens-Schuckert Werke, the United Engineering Company, and Malcomess and Company, Limited, which are wholly or mainly owned by German aliens, are administered by the Public Trustee; and whether he can state what steps are taken to prevent the dividends on large blocks of shares to bearer in various South African mining companies, which are paid to the Schweizerische Bankverein or the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, at Basle, and Zurich, reaching their enemy owners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): No Public Trustee has been appointed in the Union, and I am not able to say how particular firms in the Union have been dealt with, but the general policy with regard to trading with the enemy pursued by the Union Government has been that followed by His Majesty's Government. South African mining dividends payable to enemies are, I understand, paid into the Union Treasury for custody and preservation pending the conclusion of peace, and I have no doubt that the Union Government is quite alive to the danger of indiscriminate payments to banks in neutral countries.

  MUNITIONS.

    HOUSING OF WORKERS.
    Captain DONELANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that there has recently been an extension of the munition works at Arklow, county Wicklow, and that a number of skilled and unskilled workers are now employed there; whether, seeing that the housing accommodation has been found inadequate to the present needs, he will take steps to secure that a Grant shall be made to the Arklow Urban District Council for the purpose of providing additional houses for munition workers; and whether, in accordance with the general undertaking given by the Prime Minister on 28th September last, he will invite the co-operation of the Ministry of Munitions, the Locol Government Board for Ireland, and the Board of Works with a view to expedite the necessary procedure as much as possible?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the provision of additional accommodation for the munition workers at Arklow has already been taken in hand by the Urban District Council and Messrs. Kynochs, Limited, without Government assistance, but I am making further inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the growing deficiency in housing accommodation in munitions areas is seriously hampering the output of munitions of war; and what steps he proposes to take?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is aware that the provision of housing accommodation for munition workers has given rise to difficulties in many places, and a special Department of the Ministry is dealing with the whole question. Investigations have been made and the requirements of all the most important areas have been ascertained. Schemes for meeting those requirements by building or otherwise have been prepared, and they are already being carried out in a number of places.

    CONFERENCE OF MUNITION WORKERS.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether Councillor Tom Fox, in a speech at Manchester on 3rd October, 1915, had official authority in stating that at the recent conference the Secretary of
    1448
    State for War had said that he knew how many men he wanted and how many for munitions, that he had their names and the numbers on their doors, and that if they did not come he would fetch them?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The conference was accepted by all those attending it as being of a private and confidential character.

    BISCUIT MANUFACTURERS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the recent decision stating that men engaged on making machinery for manufacturing biscuits are not munition workers; whether he is aware that men engaged on Army contracts for making biscuits are also denied war badges and as a consequence are seeking work where they can get such badges; and whether, in these circumstances, he will make a statement making it plain who are and who are not munition workers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the decision of a Metropolitan Munitions Tribunal that certain men engaged on the manufacture of machinery for chocolate coating, icing, and biscuit manufacturing, were not engaged on munition work and did not therefore require a certificate under Section 7 of the Munitions of War Act to enable them to obtain employment elsewhere. As regards the second part of the question, it is the case that war service badges have not been issued to men engaged on making biscuits. The contracts for such supplies would be made by the War Office and not by the Ministry of Munitions; and in regard to men employed on such contracts, the Ministry would act on the advice of the War Office in issuing badges. As regards the last part of the question, "munitions work" is defined in Section 3 of the Munitions of War Act. The detailed interpretation of it must rest with the tribunals.

    STERLING TELEPHONE COMPANY.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Sterling Telephone Company, Dagenham, are making fuses and field telephones for the Government; whether they are paying a rate of 2½d. per hour, and 1s. 6d. war bonus, to adult women engaged on this work; whether the firm recently worked women

    1449
    on Government work (field telephones) for a thirty hours' consecutive shift; how often this occurred; and what action, if any, it is proposed to take?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is not desirable in the public interest to state what munitions are manufactured by particular establishments. Inquiry is being made into the various matters referred to in the question, and my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Home Office on the subjects within their purview.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm is a German firm?
    Dr. ADDISON: No.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is!

    MUNITIONS COURT (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether, in the event of a workman being brought before the Munitions Court charged with some offence under the Act and found not guilty and discharged, he has any claim to compensation or costs for loss of time and wages; against whom such action would lie; and by what process it could be pursued?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is no provision under the Munitions of War Act for compensation in such cases as described by my hon. Friend, so that the position in regard to proceedings before a munitions tribunal would be the same as that in regard to proceedings before any other Court of Law. The question whether compensation would be recoverable in any case depends upon a number of legal considerations, upon which I am not in a position to express an opinion.

    BOARD OF CONTROL (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of Munitions whether an inquiry by the Board of Control (Liquor Traffic) was arranged to be held at Chatham on Saturday, 25th September; whether the arrangements with witnesses were cancelled; whether the inquiry is dropped or only postponed; and for what reason, seeing that Chatham is a very important military, naval, and munitions centre?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am informed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) that the inquiry which it had been proposed to hold at Chatham was postponed at the instance of the Commander-in-Chief
    1450
    at the Nore, who represented that restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquor had recently been imposed by the competent military authority after consultation with himself, and suggested that these restrictions should be given a reasonable trial before action was taken by the Central Control Board. A report on the working of the present Orders is to be forwarded to the Central Control Board by the Commander-in-Chief towards the end of the present month.

    WORKERS' BADGES.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the United Alkali Company, of Fleetwood, has given to some of its workmen a badge, signifying that the workman is on munition work; that these badges are not the badges issued by his Department, but have been made to the order of the firm; and whether he proposes to take action against this firm for violating the provisions of the Munitions Act?)
    Dr. ADDISON: The United Alkali Company spontaneously informed the Ministry some little time ago that they had issued private badges to some of their workmen. My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the company have acted in this matter otherwise than through a genuine misunderstanding of the Regulations. He is in communication with the company with a view to the withdrawal of unauthorised badges and securing the adoption of proper arrangements. He does not anticipate that any legal proceedings will be necessary.
    Mr. WINGasked the Minister of Munitions if he will consider the advisability of granting some distinguishing medal, badge, or certificate to workmen who loyally and conscientiously carry out their duties and work to the full extent of their physical powers, and thus distinguish the faithful and industrial soldier in mine, factory, or workshop?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Chippenham on 16th September, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among workmen employed in several firms on munition work because of the delay in supplying them with war service badges; whether many

    1451
    firms have written repeatedly for a supply of badges and have received only post cards in reply; and whether he will state the grounds on which in some works badges have been supplied to skilled workmen, but refused to labourers who are employed with the skilled men on exactly the same munition work services?
    Dr. ADDISON: Since the Ministry of Munitions has taken over the issue of war service badges, the number of applications has greatly increased. Many of these applications can be and are dealt with immediately, but in many other cases inquiry is necessary. Since 1st August a total of over 380,000 badges has been issued—some 3,200 firms having received badges. Badges may be given to semi-skilled as well as skilled men, but are not given to unskilled men, unless the Minister is of opinion that removal from their present employment is likely to prejudice the production, transport, or supply of munitions of war, or the successful prosecution of the War.

    VOLUNTEER WORKERS FROM SOUTH AFRICA.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that a number of fitters and turners in South Africa volunteered to come to this country to make munitions; that they were brought over at the expense of the Government; that some of those men are now employed by the United Alkali Company at Fleetwood; that they are not employed on munition work; that they have the opportunity of employment at a munition works but that the company refuses to release them; and whether he will take steps to secure the release of these men so that they may be employed on more urgent work?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has made inquiries into this matter, and he is informed that the men in question are engaged in work necessary for war purposes, namely, preparing and improving plant for the manufacture of chemical products required for munitions. The question as to whether the men referred to are engaged on work corresponding to their skill is being inquired into further.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only 50 per cent, of the men employed by that firm are on Government work?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I believe that is correct.

    TRANSFERENCE OF EMPLOYES.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that workmen employed by Messrs. Jackson, Wharf Foundry, Bolton, are being compelled by his Department to leave Messrs. Jackson's to go and work elsewhere; if he is aware that this firm is engaged on important and urgent work for the Army and the Navy, and that this work is being delayed owing to the transfer of these men; and whether he will give instructions that workmen employed on work for the Government must not be compulsorily
    transferred to other employers?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is aware that war munition volunteers have been transferred from the firm in question. Every case of proposed transfer is carefully examined by skilled adjudicators with business experience. Full opportunity is given to the employers to show cause against any transfer, and their objections are carefully considered by the adjudicators. The sole criterion is the relative urgency of the work. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give the instructions asked for in the last part of the question, as there may obviously be different degrees of urgency in different classes of munition work.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that work urgently required by the Navy is being held up owing to men being taken from this firm?
    Dr. ADDISON: That may be so, but it is a question of deciding where the men are most necessary.
    Mr. WILSON: Could you not leave the decision as to whether men should be transferred or not to the Local Munition Committee?
    Dr. ADDISON: No, that would not do. It must be referred to a body which cam deal with the whole subject.

    TURNERS' AND FITTERS' PAY.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he was aware that the United Alkali Company, of Fleetwood, Lancashire, is paying the fitters and turners in the employ of the firm 1s. per week less than the district rate of pay, and that the firm refuse to pay overtime in accordance with The rules and customs of the district; and whether he will notify this firm that the Fair-Wages Clause must be observed?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has no information regarding the facts alleged, but he is communicating with the firm on the matter and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

    ABSENTEES FROM WORK.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been called to statements made in the newspapers, "Umpire" and "Leeds and Yorkshire Mercury," of 12th and 13th September, respectively, to the effect that, of 2,500 workers employed at a particular munitions factory, the number of absentees on each of two successive days was no less than 1,400, notwithstanding that, in fact, the total number employed at the factory referred to was less than 140 and the story regarding absentees was entirely unfounded; and whether he intends taking any action against the two newspapers in question under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend's attention has not hitherto been called to the statements referred to in the question. He is, however, making inquiries in the matter.

    HOUSE RENT.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the extra profits made by the landlords who are raising the rents of their houses in the areas occupied by munition workers will be subject to War Profit Tax?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): In so far as the letting of houses or the collection of rents constitute a business within the meaning of Clauses 34 (1) and 35 of the Finance Bill any excess profits that may be made in the course of such a business would come within the scope of the Excess Profits Tax.

    SIGNALLING AT SEA.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the Board of Trade has recently issued any official notice calling the attention of shipowners to the necessity of efficient signalling at sea, especially for the purpose of efficient inter-communication between naval and merchant ships; if not, whether, under the Defence of the Realm Acts or under any other powers exercisable by them, it can be made compulsory that mer-
    1454
    chant ships shall be provided by their owners with adequate and efficient signalling apparatus for Morse, semaphore, and flag signalling; and (2) whether the Board of Trade has recently issued an official notice to candidates at examinations of masters and mates drawing their attention to the question of signalling at sea and to the penalties involved under the Defence of the Realm Acts on failure to respond to signals made by His Majesty's ships and stating that officers of merchant ships should take every opportunity of perfecting themselves in both Morse and semaphore signaling; if so, whether the Board of Trade are aware that many merchant ships are not provided with the necessary apparatus for Morse, semaphore, and sometimes even flag signalling; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have been in communication with the principal shipowners' associations with regard to the importance of adequate signalling apparatus being carried on merchant ships, and the matter is engaging my attention. A notice, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member, has recently been issued drawing the attention of candidates for masters' and mates' certificates to the question of signalling.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any steps to see that the necessary signalling apparatus is provided in all our ships at present?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot add to the answer I have already given. We are in close communication with those interested in the subject.

    OCEAN FREIGHTS.
    Mr. WILESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the advance which has taken place recently in ocean freights, thus causing a large increase in the value of all commodities; and if he will consider the advisability of taking some action to prevent a further advance?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The advance to which my hon. Friend refers has occupied and continues to occupy the close attention of the Government.

    DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT (INSURANCE).
    Mr. WILESasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the rate of insurance against aircraft of 5s. charged to private residents in small tenements when situated over shops; and whether, having regard to this higher rate falling heavily upon numbers of families throughout London with small incomes, he will arrange that such tenements, when unconnected with the shops below, shall be charged the ordinary private dwelling-house premium of 2s.?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The rate of 2s. is confined to private dwelling houses and buildings in which no trade or manufacture is carried on. In the case of other buildings it is consdered that the risk is greater and a higher premium has to be charged. I fear that at this stage it would not be possible to modify the rates or to differentiate between cases in which tenements over shops are or are not connected with the shops below.
    Mr. CROOKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether an air raid is an act of war? Why should we insure at all?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Government has decided that all cases of loss caused by air raid can be provided for under the insurance scheme, and by that we must abide.
    Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEY: Is my
    right hon. Friend aware that many poor people have already suffered loss of property? Are they to be left to their own resources?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Some of the cases earlier in the War have already been dealt with by the Commission presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but after the Government decided that they would have an insurance scheme that was made as public as possible and I believe everyone has had an opportunity of knowing how cheaply insurance can be effected.
    Mr. ALDEN: Would it not be possible to discriminate in favour of shops rated at a very low value?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: will consider that.

    MAXIMUM FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Trade why he has ceased to issue a list of maximum prices for the chief articles of food; and if he proposes to resume the weekly issue of such prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the early days of the War I invited the representatives of certail retail trades to advise what, in their opinion, should be the retail prices of various commodities, and the advice so given was published from time to time. At the present time I think that competition between traders is in most cases a sufficient safeguard. However, I am considering whether it would not be helpful to the purchasing public to publish from time to time the wholesale prices of the various commodities, showing the difference between the present prices and the prices ruling immediately before the War.

    FEMALE LABOUR.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the chief trades and occupations in which women have taken the place of men during the War; and if he has formed any estimate of the number of women so employed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is estimated, from information obtained by the Board of Trade, that there has been an increase since the War in the number of women employed in industrial occupations of about 6 per cent., or nearly 150,000. This figure does not include clerical and commercial occupations, in which the substitution of women for men is known to be considerable. It is not possible to say to what extent the increase in the number employed has been due to women taking the place of men, as there has been at the same time an expansion in the numbers employed in certain women's occupations. It is known, however, that women have been substituted for men in certain branches of engineering and other metal trades, tailoring, boot-making, tramway service, certain branches of the railway service, and, to a certain limited extent, in agriculture. During the last twelve months the Labour Exchanges have placed over 300,000 women in employment, and I am sending my hon. Friend a classified list showing the occupations in which these women have been placed.

    MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters and parcels addressed to men serving in the British Mediterranean Expeditionary Force on active service, and dispatched on the 17th August last and on subsequent dates, have not been delivered; and whether steps will be taken to ensure prompt deliveries hereafter?
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received complaints that many parcels sent from relatives to the soldiers at the Dardanelles never reach those to whom they are addressed; and whether, in view of the financial sacrifices made by the poor in sending these parcels, any fresh steps can be taken to ensure more certain delivery?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am hoping soon to receive a report from the officer who has been sent out and who is now conducting an inquiry on the spot.

    MAIL SERVICE, SHETLAND ISLES.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the curtailed and irregular mail service to the Shetland Isles and elsewhere, he will consider the expediency of allowing special Press telegrams to be sent at a reduced rate during the continuance of the War?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret that I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, though the contract for the conveyance of mails to and from Shetland is intended to provide for a service of some regularity, the running of the mail steamers is at present being conducted without any system whatever and without regard for the interests of the Shetland mail service; whether he will state what sums have recently been paid to the contracting company and for what exactly have those payments been made; will he say what excuses have been given by the contractors for irregularity in the conveyance of mails between Shetland and the South; whether these have been inquired into; whether he will state how far he is satisfied with them; whether he is aware that Shetland depends
    1458
    for all communication with the South on the steamers carrying His Majesty's mails; whether he is aware that these steamers, after shipping the mails, are used for a carrying trade between ports en route and, as a consequence, are so irregular and uncertain in their sailings as to prevent soldiers on leave before going to the front and sailors on leave from His Majesty's ships from being able to get home to Shetland; and whether the irregularity of the service has his sanction?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The formal contract for the conveyance of mails to and from the Shetland Islands was recently determined by the contractors, who have, however, agreed to carry on the service as nearly in accordance with the terms of the contract as is practicable under existing conditions. A new contract cannot be arranged at present, but I will enquire whether anything can be done to ensure greater regularity in the mail service.

    PETTY OFFICER RATINGS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the services rendered and the hard work done by men of the lower deck since the outbreak of war, and the fact that second-class petty officer ratings have been abolished for some eight years past, he can see his way to extend further the number of first-class petty officer ratings?
    The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The number of petty officers is governed and must continue to be governed by the actual needs of the Naval Service. I may observe, however, with regard to second-class petty officers (old system) that when this rating was abolished, men holding it were allowed to retain it, arrangements being made at the same time that the abolition of the rating should be attended by an increase in the number of leading seamen, the increase being made gradually as petty officers, second-class, were absorbed.

    PRIZE MONEY (MINE SWEEPING AND PATROLLING).
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the officers and seamen employed by the Admiralty in mine sweeping and patrolling will be entitled to share in the prize money at the end of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking generally, the answer is in the affirmative, but I cannot make a definite statement pending the formulation of the exact conditions of eligibility and distribution.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the Foreign Office do not pinch this money?

    MOTOR TRAFFIC (SPEED REGULATIONS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the danger to pedestrians caused by taxi-cabs, private motors, and motor omnibuses proceeding at a rapid rate along wide thoroughfares, especially thoroughfares dimly lighted like Park Lane and the Embankment, he will consider the advisability of issuing new regulations governing the speed of motor traffic in London after dark?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the number of accidents in the darkened streets of London; and if he proposes to impose a lower speed limit for motor traffic after sunset?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): This matter is one on which I am in communication with the Local Government Board, and I hope very shortly to be able to announce the result.

    PRESS BUREAU.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary why the news of the resignation of M. Venezelos, the Greek Prime Minister, was kept back by the Censor on 6th October, especially in view of the fact that in Paris the news appeared in the morning editions of newspapers, and in London only in the early editions of evening newspapers of the same date?
    Sir J. SIMON: The first message from Athens, reporting the resignation of M. Venezelos, was submitted to the Press Bureau at 4.35 a.m., though an earlier message from Paris reached there at 2.15 a.m. Reference to the Foreign Office for confirmation was clearly necessary in such a case, and as soon as publication was authorised both messages were passed at 11 a.m.
    Mr. KING: Was it only the mere confirmation of the Foreign Office that came into the view, or had the Foreign Office to wait until they also received the message?
    Sir J. SIMON: In a message of that importance, in view of the present situation in the Balkans, it was right in the public interest that care should be taken to verify it before it was published.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the descriptive account of the recent battle in France, written by Mr. John Buchan, was so censored as to eliminate what he had written about the nerve, tenacity, and skill of the German soldiers; and whether it is the policy of the Government to suppress all such tributes to the fighting qualities of the enemy?
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information that the excisions of part of Mr. Buchan's dispatch which referred to the bravery of the German troops were made by two separate sets of authorities and against the express desire of the generals in the field; and, if so, will he say who were these two separate sets of authorities?
    Sir J. SIMON: The account referred to was censored, in accordance with the usual practice, by the military authorities at General Headquarters in France, and by nobody else. I have no knowledge of two separate sets of authorities or of any conflict between their decision and the desire of generals in the field. The decision of the military authorities appears to have been that it was not in the public interest at that moment to publish a detailed account of an action which was only part of a larger movement.
    The idea that these military censors selected for special excision a passage which acknowledged the quality of the German troops is without foundation. This sentence occurred in the course of the detailed description of operations the whole of which was cut out by the military censors in France. It is certainly not the policy of the Government to suppress tributes to the fighting qualities of the enemy, and I have no doubt that the military censors dealt with the passage as a whole for purely military reasons, and not with the object of suppressing the words of appreciation which happen to form a small part of it.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the excision of these passages really destroyed the whole value and, as a matter of fact, ruined the perspective of the account so given?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what opportunity my hon. Friend has had of examining the document. I have had an opportunity of examining it, and I differ from him in toto.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Were these excisions made contrary to the wish of the generals serving in the field, as stated in the "Times" newspaper?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have answered that question. I said that I have no knowledge of two separate sets of authorities or of any conflict between their decision and the desire of generals in the field.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it was stated in many London newspapers published on or about the 28th January, 1915, that the Bank of England had made a loan of £5,000,000 to Roumania; and whether this statement was submitted to and approved by the Censor before publication?
    Sir J. SIMON: The answer to both parts of this question is in the affirmative.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech recently made at York by Lord Selborne that, if some of the people of this country do not realise the greatness of the crisis, the fault is not wholly due to them, but largely to those who so unfortunately committed the crime of slurring over bad news and exaggerating good news; whether this statement correctly records the views of the Cabinet on the administration of the Press censorship; and whether he is aware that many private Members of this House have publicly expressed the same views as Lord Selborne?
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the speech delivered on Saturday last at York by the President of the Board of Agriculture, in which animadversions were made upon the Press censorship; and whether, in view of a member of the Cabinet publicly condemning the conduct of a Department of the Government, any action will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the Press censorship has been frequently discussed in the House, and my Noble Friend has fully explained his position in another place.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question does not refer to the statement made by Lord Selborne referring to this specific incident, but to the slurring over of bad news which has been habitual and constant since the Press censorship was established?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a debatable matter.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the view expressed by the President of the Board of Agriculture is the view of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: What view?
    Mr. PRINGLE: That the action of the censorship was mischievous stupidity.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not understand my Noble Friend to express that. I would advise my hon. Friend to read the speech more carefully.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that on 11th October he addressed an important letter to an anonymous correspondent defending the action of the Press Bureau and forwarded a copy of the same to the Press by messenger on the same day that he had written the letter, he will say why, seeing that the House met on 12th October, the day his letter was published, he did not make the defence of his Department in the House, which had been attacked by a Member of the Cabinet, instead of through the medium of an anonymous correspondent?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend is aware that full explanation has been given to the House more than once of the nature of the work done by the Press Bureau, and the letter referred to in no way interferes with any further discussion that may be desired. My hon. Friend will see by reference to a statement made in the House of Lords on Monday, that he is mistaken in supposing that any attack was made on the Press Bureau.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Press Bureau in paragraph 219 drew the attention of the Press to the fact that they must not publish any interviews with Labour leaders; and whether it is the policy of the Press Censor to suppress opinions in their case while allowing others to express their views with impunity?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; the Press Bureau never issued any notice differentiating between Labour leaders and others concerned in industrial disputes. What my hon. Friend is presumably referring to is a confidential communication issued at the request of the Ministry of Munitions with the object of discouraging the publication of hasty and ill-considered statements by either side likely to encourage industrial disputes, and so to make victory in the War more difficult to obtain.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether he accepts responsibility for the censoring as regards some newspapers of the statement made by Lord Derby that, in accepting his post as chief recruiting officer, he felt he was entering into a bankrupt concern; and, if he does not, can he say whether the War Office censored its own officer?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the Censor whose action is referred to did not realise Lord Derby's official position, but as soon as the matter was brought to the attention of the Directors of the Bureau permission to publish was given.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether he can state for what reason the Press Bureau censored three words in the line
    "The captains and the kings depart"
    in a recent newspaper article?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the gentleman who cut out the three words "and the kings" felt that, as no kings were present, it would be wrong to say that any of them departed.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the country still paying for the services of this idiot?
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman could not have known that there might have been a great number of people of the name of King?

    RECRUITING.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether the use at first proposed to be made of the pink forms was approved by the Government as likely to assist recruiting; and, if so, what were the reasons for its abandonment?
    Mr. TENNANT: My Noble Friend Lord Derby proposes to embody some new methods in the scheme for recruiting. It would be a mistake to say that the use of the pink forms has been abandoned.
    Captain GUESTasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to inform the House what decision, if any, the Government has arrived at on the question of National Service?
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether the new situation which has arisen in the Balkans, and its possible effect on our whole position in the East, has necessitated the revision of the figures, given by him and the Secretary of State for War to the Labour Conference on 28th September and has increased the urgency of a speedy decision on the question of National Service?
    Mr. DILLON: Before the Prime Minister answers, I would like to ask whether his attention has been called to the fact that the East Dorset Liberal Association has repudiated the action of the hon. and gallant Member in this matter, and has unanimously decided against Conscription?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the statement I propose very shortly to make on this subject.

    RENTS AND EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the rent raising and threatened evictions of short-period and tenement tenants, many of them having soldiers at the front; and whether the Government will introduce an emergency measure to protect those families from disturbance and enable them to remain in their homes at reasonable rents?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to Section 1, Sub-section (4), of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, which was intended to deal with such cases.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although that Act is supposed to be in operation it has really had no effect in a great many cases in preventing the evils complained of. Will that power be exercised in future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will bring these cases to my notice, I will have the matter looked into.

    "NO-TREATING" ORDER.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the injury to the health and efficiency of the men of His Majesty's land and sea forces when on furlough, directly attributable to the hospitable instincts of their friends, he can see his way to extend the no-treating Order to all parts of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The prohibition of "treating" is included in all Orders which have been made by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) for areas which have been scheduled by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915. The Board would have no power to extend the prohibition over all parts of the United Kingdom unless the whole Kingdom were scheduled, and to extend it otherwise would require legislation.

    EVENTS IN BALKANS.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if he will provide an opportunity for a Debate after the promised statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible for me in the public interest to provide opportunity for discussion of my right hon. Friend's statement.

    CABINET WAR COMMITTEE.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked whether the War Committee of the Cabinet is empowered to decide matters of policy with out reference to the Cabinet as a whole; and if he will say what is the constitution and what are the powers of the War Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer to the answer which I gave on this subject on Tuesday.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does the answer given the other day mean that the decisions of the War Committee are accepted by the Cabinet without the remainder of the Cabinet hearing the grounds on which these decisions are based, or do the Cabinet accept responsibility for those decisions without hearing the grounds on which they are arrived at?
    The PRIME MINISTER: So many people seem to know so much more than I do of what goes on in the Cabinet that I have rather a difficulty in answering that question. The ultimate responsibility of the Cabinet always remains.

    POWER OF MORTGAGEES.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked whether, having regard to the difficulty occasioned by the War of selling or raising money on mortgage of any form of real property, the Government will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to suspend the powers of mortgagees to call in their mortgage moneys until the War is over, subject of course to the due performance of the mortgage covenants in other respects?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn on July 21st, under the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act mortgagees cannot call in mortgages without the leave of the Court, which has discretion to postpone the date of payment if the mortgagor is unable to pay the mortgage debt immediately, and such inability is due to circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the War. I doubt whether it would be equitable for Parliament to interfere further between mortgagor and mortgagee.
    Sir F. LOWE: Is there anything in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act to prevent a mortgagee entering into possession of mortgaged property and selling it over the mortgagee without any application being made to the Court at all?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. POLLOCKasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to state the number of men of efficient military age at present employed in the various Departments of the Civil Service in Great Britain and Ireland; and whether an effort is being made to secure the services of retired Civil servants or other older men in order to enable leave to enlist to be granted to as large a number of Civil servants of efficient military age as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to state the number asked for. Every effort is made to release from the Civil Service men of military age, who are almost universally anxious to undertake military service, but heads of Departments are compelled to retain the service of men for whom substitutes cannot be found and where their loss would be detrimental to the efficiency of the Department. By performing the duties of their offices these men are serving their country in the most effective way possible to them.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Is there any difficulty in giving those figures now, considering that the pink forms are being dealt with by the Local Government Board?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Miss Frances Aicken and Miss Elsie Aicken at the Hitchin Petty Sessions, who refused to fill up the National Registration forms and were ordered to pay a fine of 50s.; if he is aware that the money has not been paid; if these ladies are still at home; if he is aware that Mr. Stanley Rodgers Randolph was ordered at the same Court to pay a fine of 50s. for the same offence; if he is aware that the man Randolph is now in prison; if he can state why in one case the man is in prison and in the other the people are still at their homes; and if he intends setting the man free?
    Sir J. SIMON: From the report of these cases that has been brought to my notice it appears that Randolph was committed to prison on his declaring that he had not money to pay the fine imposed on him and would not pay it if he had. The other
    1468
    two defendants were allowed time to pay their fines. I am not aware of any reason for intervention on my part.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.

    INTERNMENT AND REPATRIATION.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many aliens and how many persons of hostile origin or association have respectively been interned or repatriated since the 1st of August; and how many of each class remain at large in the United Kingdom?
    Sir J. SIMON: Three thousand alien enemies have been interned and 2,600 (including children) have been repatriated since 1st August, making the total now interned 32,400, and the total repatriated since the 14th May 8,900. In addition, orders have been made under Regulation 14B in about sixty cases.
    The number of exemptions from internment granted is 7,233, of whom 2,800 are Germans. The number of females (together with some males not of military age) who have been or will be exempted from repatriation is about 16,000.

    "NO CONSCRIPTION FELLOWSHIP."
    Mr. JOWETTasked by whose authority the members of the Manchester branch of the "No Conscription Fellowship" have been warned not to hold private meetings amongst themselves under the auspices of the branch; and under what powers this step has been taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am making inquiry into this case. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question next week.

    DEPARTMENTAL ECONOMIES.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education (1) what are the chief recommendations on the subject of economy in education which the Board has made to local education authorities; (2) whether he will state what economies are contemplated in the Board's expenditure on education; and whether he will submit them to the House' before acting upon them; and (3) if the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the

    1469
    Table the chief correspondence between the Board and local education authorities on the subject of economy in the service of education?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Board have no general power to control the current expenditure of local education authorities on education and have made no general recommendations to them as to specific methods of economy except as regards buildings. They have, of course, had formal and informal correspondence with local education authorities on details involving expenditure, and their inspectors have been freely consulted by the authorities in many areas. The Board's general object has been to secure as much economy, in the proper sense of the term, as is possible, and such reduction of expenditure as is consistent with maintaining the efficiency of the public system of education. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by laying correspondence or that the expense of printing it would be justified. I cannot anticipate the decision of the Government on the Report of the Committee on Public Retrenchment, and it would be premature to attempt any statement of the effect which any proposed economies may have on the Board's expenditure.

    FOOD PRODUCTION (BACTERISED PEAT).
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether attention has been given to humogen, a form of specially treated peat manure, claimed by its inventor, Professor Bottomley, to have power to largely increase food production; and whether experiments are being made with this invention?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Yes, Sir, and State Grants have been made in respect of the scientific side of Professor Bottomley's work, as I informed the hon. Member for North West-meath in reply to a similar question on the 11th instant. Practical experiments in the use of humogen for horticultural and agricultural purposes are being carried on at various institutions, but so far as I am aware no results have yet been obtained which demonstrate its utility for agricultural purposes on a field scale and on a commercial basis.
    Mr. KING: Does that answer refer to the experiments carried on at Kew, where great results were obtained?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir, it does.

    CHICAGO BEEF TRUST (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the result of the negotiations between the Board of Inland Revenue and the firms comprising the Beef Trust of Chicago as to the amount of Income Tax due from those firms covering a period of over ten years?
    Mr. McKENNA: Material progress has been made in the negotiations referred to.

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT STOCK.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a letter from the council of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom urging the desirability of requesting the Bank of England to discontinue the inconvenient practice with regard to inscription and transfer of the greater portion of British Government Stock (including the War Loans), and to employ the ordinary modern method of registration and transfer by deed; and whether he is in a position to give a favourable reply?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received the letter to which the hon. Member refers. It is not clear, however, that as regards the majority of stockholders the existing system of transfer is not more convenient than transfer by deed, and in any case I do not think that the present time would be suitable for a general change in the Bank's practice.

  FINANCE (No. 3) BILL.

    SUGAR PRICES.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether tablets, cubes, and cut loaf sugar is obtainable in America; whether the price in this country has now been raised to 6d. per lb.; and whether he will make arrangements to import these sorts and so prevent a further enhancement of prices?
    Mr. McKENNA: The price of cubes has been raised to 6d. per lb., but no further enhancement of price is anticipated. The Commission has already purchased all the tablets, cubes, and cut loaf sugar available in America at reasonable prices, and no further supplies of an appreciable quantity could be procured, even if excessive prices were to be paid.
    Mr. LOUGHasked whether the Royal Commission on Sugar have received a request from Ireland to import American crystals and standard granulated sugar to meet the special requirements of that country for coarse sugars; whether they can see their way to procure a sufficient supply to meet this demand; and, if not, whether they are prepared to allow the free importation into Ireland of the descriptions of sugar required by its inhabitants?
    Mr. McKENNA: Requests of the kind described have been received from Ireland, as also from many other parts of the United Kingdom. But the Commission has not found it possible to undertake to provide special kinds of sugar to meet all the varying predilections of different markets, and it does not think that in such an emergency as the present it can be regarded as a serious hardship that consumers should be asked to forego preferences which are the outcome merely of fashion and habit, and have no basis of intrinsic difference in the quality of sugars.
    Mr. LOUGH: Would there be any objection to allowing those people to get it themselves if they could?
    Mr. McKENNA: They could not get it except at higher prices than they are now charged.
    Mr. SHERWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if granulated sugar is sold by the Royal Commission on condition that the retail price shall not exceed a fixed maximum price per pound; and, if so, will he say what that maximum price is?
    Mr. McKENNA: Royal Commission sugar is sold to dealers on the condition that the buyers shall resell at a profit of not more than 2½ per cent, on sales for cash and immediate delivery. The proper retail prices for sugars were specified in the Notice which appeared in yesterday's Press.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that sugar is being sold by retail in the central district of London much in excess of that?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has been good enough to report a case yesterday of that kind, and inquiry will be made into it.

    CAPITAL ISSUES.
    Mr. GRANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the decisions of the Committee appointed by the Treasury to regulate fresh issues of capital have caused dissatisfaction in the City; and whether he will appoint a tribunal which shall hear the parties making applications and ground their rulings on evidence of the facts and on some principle of equity or policy?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid that it is inevitable that the decisions of a Committee entrusted with these duties must cause dissatisfaction on the part of applicants to whom permission is refused. In view of the very large number of applications which have to be dealt with the procedure suggested in the second part of the question would not be practicable.

    TOBACCO CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the opinion of those engaged in the cultivation and manufacture of Irish-grown tobacco that the Budget proposals would annihilate that young industry, he will say what concession he is willing to make to avoid that result?
    Mr. McKENNA: I had the advantage, only yesterday, of receiving a deputation representing those interested in Irish-grown tobacco, and I promised to consider the representations made to me.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation requiring the members of co-operative societies to be registered by their names instead of by numbers, so that their liability to pay Income Tax may be ascertained, in view of the Budget proposals to reduce the limit for exemption?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the exempt members of these societies form a very great majority,

    1473
    and in view of this fact and of the insignificant amount of the average taxable profit per member I am not aware of any consideration which would warrant the step suggested by the hon. Member.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Sir F. LOWEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in calculating the amount of income derived from freehold or leasehold property for Super-tax purposes, allowances are made for the amounts expended by the owner for management expenses, insurances, and repairs; and, if not, why, this being a personal tax and not a tax on the property itself, the individual taxpayer is called upon to pay Super-tax upon income which he has not actually received?
    Mr. McKENNA: I may remind the hon. Member that the Super-tax is an additional duty of Income Tax, and that the same allowances for repairs, etc., apply to the Super-tax as to the Income Tax.
    Sir F. LOWE: May I ask what is the reason why owners of property in rural districts are allowed to make all those deductions while owners of property in urban districts are only allowed to make a limited number of deductions, so that they really have to pay on income they do not receive, both ordinary Income Tax and Super-tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has pointed out a distinction which exists in the present law, and which I am not in a position to explain at the present moment.

    LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps are being taken to find useful public employment for the staff of the Land Valuation Department, who are now being dismissed?
    Mr. McKENNA: The attention of such Government Departments as might be likely to require men with valuation qualifications has been called to the fact that the temporary valuation staff is being reduced, as the work for which it was engaged is advancing towards completion. Should any opportunity arise of giving employment in any other branches of the Inland Revenue Department to suitable members of the temporary valuation staff, advantage will be taken of it.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of employing the officials of the Land Valuation Department for adapting the present valuation to meet the case of Land Values Taxes imposed upon unimproved values in case the exigencies of war finance make that necessary?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any men are being discharged from this Valuation Department in excess of the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman to the House with regard to the retention of the necessary men?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; no men are being discharged in excess of the forecast I gave in the House.

    United States and Mexico.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has in regard to the reported recognition by the Government of the United States of America of General Carranza as de facto President of the Republic of Mexico; and, in the event of such recognition having been given, what course His Majesty's Government propose to follow in regard to the matter?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received official intimation of the recognition by the United States Government of General Carranza as President of the Mexican Republic?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: According to my latest information the United States Government have not yet reached a definite decision as to the recognition of Carranza. Hon. Members will therefore understand that His Majesty's Government must reserve the question of their attitude for further consideration.

    African General Service Medal.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the African general service medal will be granted to officers and men of the Artillery and Infantry of the Southern Nigerian Regiment who took part in the operations during 1907, 1908, and 1909, when the Ihni country to the east of the River Niger was

    1475
    entered and occupied, and the country between the Niger and the Cross Rivers to the south of the Munshi country was taken over?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The reports on the operations in question have been fully considered by the Interdepartmental Council on Military Rewards, and I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Touche) by the then Under-Secretary of State for War on the 30th of April, 1912.

    Political Espionage (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of policemen employed during the last twelve months in political espionage in Ireland; the number of persons thereby made amenable to the law; the estimated cost of that service in that time; and whether he can name any Irish representative body that has expressed approval of either that service or the expenditure on it?
    Mr. BIRRELL:I stated in the course of a reply I gave to the hon. Member on the 27th July last that it is the duty of all members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to exercise such supervision as may be possible or necessary over persons who have committed or are suspected of committing illegal acts. This answer still holds good, and the present question is accordingly based on a misapprehension of the facts.

    Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the Return of Lands Undisposed of by the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, of which notice appears on the Order Paper, will be granted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The records of the Congested Districts Board are not kept according to parishes and townlands, and to prepare such a return as is asked according to counties would involve an expenditure of time and labour disproportionate to its value. Information with regard to untenanted lands or estates purchased by the Board, which will probably to some extent meet the requirements of the hon. Member, is contained in the Board's twenty-third annual report which has recently been presented to Parliament and will shortly be available to Members.

    Flax Seed.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure an adequate supply of flax seed to meet the requirements of Irish flax growers for next season's sowing; and if he proposes to send a representative to Russia to buy seed and arrange for its speedy transport to Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Department have been in consultation with their Advisory Committee on flax and with representatives of the principal firms and importers of flax seed to Ireland as to the quantity of seed required to be imported to supplement available stocks. The Department are now in communication with the Foreign Office with the view to securing facilities for the importation of the necessary supplies of seed. They do not contemplate sending a representative to Russia in connection with the importation of seed from that country.
    Mr. HORNER: Did the Department take any steps whatever either to induce or to compel farmers to save their seed this year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will make inquiries.

    Central Goods Clearing House (London).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any scheme alternative to the street widening proposals made by the Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade has been submitted to the Department; if so, whether such scheme requires legislative powers to carry it out; whether it would so reduce the volume of traffic as to render street widening unnecessary and effect economies suggested by a resolution of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, dated 26th May, 1914, which recommended the scheme in question; and whether he will lay upon the Table a full Report on the scheme?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before effect could be given to the scheme for a central goods clearing house in London, to which my hon. Friend refers, extensive statutory powers would have to be obtained by the promoters, and until the scheme has taken the form of a Bill seeking such powers, I think that no useful purpose would be served in reporting on it to Parliament.

    Vivisection Experiments.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary when the annual return of vivi-sectional experiments will be issued?
    Sir J. SIMON: This return was issued on the 11th instant.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    SCOTTISH COMMISSION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received the many resolutions which have been passed in Scotland by public bodies regarding any alteration in the administration of health insurance in Scotland; and whether he can now say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the Scottish Health Insurance Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received representations on this subject. I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 29th September.

    FINANCIAL DEFICIENCY.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware of the unsatisfactory position of women under the National Insurance Acts, and that the financial deficiency is increasing week by week; and whether he has given any attention to this subject and is now in a position to announce his policy?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Financial Statement on 4th May, 1914, dealt at some length with aspects of the subject referred to in the question; the further examination of these has necessarily been affected by the War. The present time is not appropriate for a statement as to changes needing legislation, and I am satisfied that nothing would be gained by taking action at the present moment rather than later.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend aware that the position is becoming worse from week to week, and does he suggest that they are losing nothing by this delay? What is the meaning of the delay?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (VALUATION).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he has decided upon the date of valuation of the approved societies; and whether the Commissioners have any knowledge of the impossibility of many societies and branches to survive the result of a strict valuation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In regard to the first part of this question, the matter is under consideration, but I am not at present able to make any further statement. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if any meeting of the Advisory Committee has been held since his appointment as chairman of the Joint Committee of National Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir, no important new Regulations have been made since the date named necessitating any meeting of the Committee.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend aware that his predecessor called this Advisory Committee repeatedly, not merely for the discussion of Regulations, but of questions of high policy? Will the hon. Member take the trouble to look up the minutes?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have also taken the trouble to look at the Act, and I do not think that any Regulations have been drafted that would really justify the heavy expenditure involved in collecting these numerous people from all parts of the United Kingdom.

    MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND CHEMISTS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that there is still a sum of money due to medical practitioners for their services during the year 1914, and that the balance so due from insurance committees has not yet been paid; and whether he can take steps to accelerate these payments?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 27th

    1479
    July to the similar question then put to me; every effort is being made to overcome the difficulty arising out of the War to which I then referred.
    Mr. DIXONasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he will explain the reasons justifying the deductions insisted upon by the National Health Insurance Commissioners (England), in Circular I.C.L. 124, of one-third of the quarterly accounts of panel practioners, chemists, and institutions
    after services have been rendered and an agreement entered into with each party; why there has been no advance on account nor adjustment of the deductions of 10 percent, made in the accounts of doctors, chemists, and institutions for the year 1914; and if the Government will instruct the Commissioners to deal with the reductions owing to enlistments upon a less arbitrary and more generous basis by a temporary increase of the Treasury grant, if necessary, considering that the medical profession has undertaken the free treatment of soldiers' wives and families and other dependants, and have lost the most healthy portion of their panel?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 27th of July to questions in identical terms by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire.

    WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether it is in contemplation to abolish the Welsh Insurance Commissioners and, if so, on what grounds; and on whose suggestion the decision of Parliament is to be reversed?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I fear that I am unable to add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on the 29th ultimo.

    Coal Mines (Fatal Accidents).
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the continuous fatalities in the coal mines of Durham caused by falls of roof; and if he will say whether the same arises from shortage of timber or slackness in inspection?
    Sir J. SIMON: Forty-six fatalities have occurred during the present year, as compared with thirty-seven during the corresponding period last year, but in comparing the figures of this year with those of last it should be remembered that during August and September, 1914, a great deal of short time was worked and some pits were closed. The fatalities in the last two months have been somewhat high, numbering fifteen, but the investigations of the inspectors showed that none of them were due to the causes suggested in the question.

    Society of Solicitors (Scotland).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the expected communication from the Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts in Scotland as to the position of Mr. Horatius Stuart, Edinburgh, has now been received; if so, whether it is regarded as satisfactory; whether, failing this, any understanding has been arrived at with the society as to a definite date by which the communication will be forthcoming; whether the Bank of England, in connection with its employment by the Government in the issue of Loans, keeps a register of the names of brokers, bankers, firms, etc., suitable and qualified for inclusion therein; and whether Mr. Stuart's name has for some time appeared and still appears on such list?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that no communication from the Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts in Scotland regarding the position of Mr. Horatius Stuart has yet been received by the Bank of England, but the Bank are informed that a meeting of the society will probably be held this month, when it is understood the matter will come before them. No such register as that described is kept by the Bank of England.

    Customs and Excise.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state up to what age are surveyors of Customs and Excise regarded as eligible for promotion to the second class of the controlling grade; the number of surveyors, formerly Customs first-class clerks, and the number of surveyors, formerly Excise supervisors, who have respectively been eligible under that age limit since selections were first made within the

    1481
    amalgamated Customs and Excise service; and how many of the former surveyors have been selected for promotion and how many of the latter?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no fixed maximum age prescribed for promotion to the controlling grade, but as a general rule the Board of Customs and Excise would not consider men over fifty-five suitable for promotion. When the first promotions by selection were made within the amalgamated Customs and Excise service there were, amongst the various sections of surveyors eligible for promotion, 144 who were formerly Excise supervisors and fifty-one who were formerly Customs first-class clerks. Of these two sections twenty-four and one respectively have, up to the present, been selected for promotion.

    Local Government (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of the Committee on Economy was directed to the cost of the Local Government Board for England and Wales having been increased for the current year by £47,435, and of the Local Government Board for Ireland by £5,538; to the employment of nineteen inspectors for the inspection of 159 unions in Ireland, while seventeen inspectors are sufficient for 648 unions in England and Wales; and to the payment of first-class travelling expenses for all those gentlemen, while those whose money they receive travel third; and will he say what the committee recommended and the Government have decided with reference to each of those particulars, and the amount of saving to be effected in each in the current financial year?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Retrenchment Committee have not yet concluded their inquiries into the various Civil Departments and I cannot anticipate their recommendations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Upon Tuesday and Wednesday we propose to take the Committee stage of the Finance (No. 3) Bill), and upon Thursday a number of the other Bills on the Paper.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Before the Foreign Secretary makes his statement, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to move "That the House do now adjourn," so that if hon. Members desire to take part in any discussion on the details of the Dardanelles they will be able to do so? Otherwise if he does not move the Adjournment before the Foreign Secretary makes his speech the House can merely listen to the right hon. Gentleman and no one can join in the discussion.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have already said in answer to a question that I think, under the existing circumstances of the diplomatic and military situation, it would be very undesirable to move the Adjournment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Papers will be laid with reference to the statement which the Foreign Secretary is going to make?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In due course.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why is this House to have less opportunity of discussing the matter than the French Chamber?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The French Premier made exactly the same appeal.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next.—[The Prime Minister.]

EVENTS IN BALKANS.

  STATEMENT BY SIR E. GREY.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I understand that the Foreign Secretary desires to make some statement with reference to the Balkans?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): With the leave of the House I shall make
  1512
  the statement which the Prime Minister promised a few days ago would be made this afternoon. I am, of course, going to make a statement not on the military but on the diplomatic side of the situation. I am aware that many criticisms have lately appeared in some quarters of the Press upon the conduct of diplomacy since the War, and especially with relation to the Balkans, but I do not propose to touch upon those in any way, not because I think there is nothing to be gained from considering criticism or because I think that no answer could be given, but, as the Prime Minister has suggested, it is a somewhat delicate time to have discussion, and I propose to confine myself to a bare statement and short résumê of the general objects of our diplomatic policy in the Near East since the opening of the War, making as little comment on them as possible and confining myself to bare facts. At the outset of the War, when Serbia was the only Balkan country engaged in it, we desired that the War should not spread in the Near East. We did not seek then to bring any other country into it, lest by bringing any one country on our side we should precipitate conflict with another, and unnecessarily and to no good purpose enlarge the area of the War. Therefore, in common with our Allies, on the outbreak of War we assured Turkey that if she would remain neutral, we, the Allies, would see that in the terms of peace Turkey and Turkish territory should not suffer. This situation, of course, was completely changed by the entry of Turkey into the War. For some time, indeed, Turkey resisted German pressure; but when Turkish ships were forced by German officers to fire upon Russian ports and shipping without notice or provocation, war, of course, ensued, and all obligations on the part of the Allies towards Turkey came to an end. That was the first change in the situation.
  We—and when I say "we" I mean the-Allies—we and our Allies then concentrated on working for Balkan agreement. This could be secured only by the satisfaction of the reasonable hopes and aspirations of all the Balkan States, including Bulgaria. The mutual concessions neces-

  1513
  sary to secure such an agreement were things that required mutual consent, and we used all our influence to secure this consent to them. Unfortunately, owing to past circumstances, the feeling between Balkan States was one not of union, but of acute division, and the policy of encouraging division and embittering existing antipathies between them was infinitely easier than the policy of reconciling them and securing union. In my opinion, it is clear that nothing but a decided and preponderating advantage to the Allies in the course of the military events in Europe during the last few months would have enabled us to make the policy of Balkan agreement prevail over the opposite policy of bringing about Balkan war. It is the latter policy that the Sovereigns and Governments of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria—the Sovereigns and Governments—have succeeded in carrying into effect. We were given to understand that in order to secure Balkan union there were certain concessions that Bulgaria would require, especially in Thrace and Macedonia. The Allies were ready to do all in their power to secure these things for Bulgaria; but to obtain the consent of Serbia and Greece to the necessary concessions, it was an essential preliminary that Bulgaria should take the side of the Allies against Turkey. In other words, if Bulgaria was to realise her hopes and aspirations, she must co-operate in the common cause in which were engaged the hopes and aspirations of other neighbouring States, who were to make concessions to her. I need not enter in detail into what those hopes and aspirations on each side were; it will be enough to say that what we describe as reasonable hopes and aspirations were in the main founded upon an opportunity to peoples of the same race, the same sentiments, and the same religion, to join themselves to that State and under that Government which was most akin to them.
  We were given to understand, in the course of negotiations, that, except as regards Thrace, the Central Powers—Germany and Austria-Hungary—offered more to Bulgaria as the price of her neutrality than the Allies promised, or could in
  1514
  common fairness promise, to others on condition of Bulgaria's joining with them. I have seen it stated lately that no secret treaty exists between Bulgaria and the Central Powers. I do not know whether it is intended to mean that no agreement, no promise, no condition exists between the Central Powers and Bulgaria. It is asking a little too much to ask us to believe that Bulgaria, who had had large promises from the Central Powers for her neutrality, has been induced to enter into the War without any promises at all. These promises, whatever they are, must be given to her by the Central Powers at the expense of her neighbours, without, of course, any corresponding advantage to those neighbours. Throughout all this we have remained in the most friendly relations with Roumania, who has been entirely favourable to the policy of promoting agreement between her neighbours in the Balkans, and has throughout, according to our information, in all her dealings with them, shown a readiness to promote the same policy we were pursuing, which was that of Balkan agreement, and not Balkan division. The Allies themselves, in constant discussion, have remained united in their diplomatic efforts.
  4.0 P.M.
  I now come to the question of the moment—the critical question—that of the acute struggle in which Serbia is engaged. Before the War we had no previous alliance or engagement with Serbia, but throughout the War we have naturally, in common with our Allies, given her all the assistance in our power as an Ally. The geographical position of Serbia and the use of our Forces elsewhere has necessarily made that assistance limited, but all that could be given since the outbreak of War has been given freely and unconditionally by the Allies to Serbia. Last winter, it will be within the recollection of everybody, there was an acute crisis in the military position of Serbia. She had to evacuate Belgrade and retire on her own territory before superior forces. It was impossible for her then to receive any assistance by the despatch of troops from outside. The skill and courage with which she turned on her enemies and drove

  1515
  them out of her country is one of the most outstanding and remarkable things that has so far happened in the War. Again, a crisis is upon Serbia, which she is meeting with the same splendid courage as before. But this time the entry of Bulgaria into the War against Serbia makes a great difference in the situation. The attack upon Serbia by Bulgaria raises the question of Treaty obligations between Greece and Serbia. For the attitude and intentions of the Greek Government at the moment, and the feeling of the Greek people, I can only refer to the speeches of Mons. Zaimis and Mons. Venizelos which have recently been published in the Press. But it must be obvious to everyone that the interest of Greece and Serbia is now one, and that in the long run they stand or fall together. It is through Greek territory alone that direct assistance can be given rapidly by the Allies to Serbia. Such help as was within their power to give at once the Allies desired to give to Greece and Serbia in this way, and they accordingly sent such French and British troops as were immediately available to Salonica.
  Greece had ordered mobilisation in consequence of the Bulgarian mobilisation. She made a formal protest when the first Allied troops arrived, but that the assistance given in this way is welcome is sufficiently proved by the circumstances of the landing, the reception of the troops, and the facilities for continuing disembarkation which have been given. Indeed, in view of the Treaty between Greece and Serbia, how could there be any other attitude on the part of Greece towards the assistance offered, through her, to Serbia to meet the attack by Bulgaria? In the steps thus taken we have acted in close cooperation with France. The co-operation of Russian troops is promised as soon as they can be made available. The military measures which are best adapted to meet the requirements of the new situation in the Near East are the subject of continuous attention by the military authorities of the Allies, and will be taken in closest consultation with each other. It is not in my province, and if it were it would not be
  1516
  expedient, to make any public disclosure of military plans. I will only say that they will, we believe, be based on principles of sound strategy. Serbia is fighting for her national existence. With her the struggle just now is intense and acute. But all of us are fighting the same issue for ourselves. As the struggle is one, so the issue is one in whatever theatre of war it is taking place. It is a fight for the right to live—not under the shadow of Prussian militarism, that will not observe the ordinary rules of humanity in war, nor in peace leave us free from menace and oppression.

  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH RATES (STATUTORY LIMITS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The House will observe that the Bill does not include several of the proposals in reference to the postal and telegraphic charges that were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. Some of these proposals do not appear in the Bill because legislative sanction is not necessary for them: they can be carried into effect by executive action. Of these the chief is the alteration proposed to be made in the rates of letter postage—alterations which, I think, have been received, under present circumstances, with general approval, and which will bring in a revenue of nearly £1,500,000. I have seen it suggested in some quarters that the Post Office ought to have gone further in one direction, and ought to have refused any longer to carry redirected letters from one address to another free of cost. A redirection charge used to be levied by the Post Office. It was abolished twenty years ago, as the revenue it brought in was exceedingly small, but mainly because that revenue was entirely absorbed by the cost of collecting these redirection charges. It involved the postmen at the time of delivery interrupting their delivery for the purpose of collecting small sums, usually amounting to a penny—a most costly method of collecting a comparatively insignificant revenue. In view of that fact, and of the great convenience to the publics

  1517
  which the free redirection of letters undoubtedly gives; it has been decided not to revive the practice of making a charge of the character I have described.
  As the House has already been informed, it is not proposed to proceed with the increase of the halfpenny postal charges to a penny. By foregoing this alteration the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving up nearly two millions of expected revenue. In this connection I should like to point out to the House a fact which is not generally known, that so far as the halfpenny packet post is concerned, the proportion of packets that contain circulars is only a very small percentage of the whole. We in this House who look each day at our daily budget of postal correspondence, finding that perhaps most of the halfpenny envelopes contain circulars, generalise from our own experience, and reach the conclusion that this is so generally. It is not so generally. I caused a Return to be taken recently on the examination of about 800,000 halfpenny packets, and it was found that only 14 per cent, of them contained circulars, whilst 86 per cent, contained business communications, invoices, bills, receipts, municipal, charitable, or social notices of one kind or another, maps, and other publications. Although perhaps in peace time the proportion of circulars might be somewhat larger than now, the fact remains that circulars are only a comparatively small portion of the whole of the halfpenny packet post. One proposal we intend to maintain, if the House agrees, is the raising of the postage rate for newspapers weighing more than 6 ozs. from one halfpenny to a penny, with a further halfpenny upon every additional 6 ozs.
  The halfpenny rate for newspapers was introduced at a time when no one could foresee that the newspaper was likely to weigh more than an ounce or two; but the monstrous growth of papers, weighing 16 ozs. and 18 ozs., and sometimes up to 2 lbs., was never foreseen. An instance which might perhaps interest the House came to my notice a few days ago. An enterprising firm of London drapers inserted a great many pages of advertisements in a certain ladies' weekly paper, bringing up the total weight of that paper to almost 2 lbs. The firm then purchased over 40,000 copies of the paper, and sent it through the post to possible, or known, customers at a charge for postage of only one halfpenny per copy. There were eighty-four pages of advertisements in that paper, and sixty-eight
  1518
  pages of letterpress. The Post Office was required to carry in that case a total weight of 35½ tons, for which it had to pay over £500 for conveyance by motor vans and railway alone. It received in postal charges the sum of only £85. Under the new regulations as to weight, either the newspaper and the advertiser must largely reduce the weight they call upon the Post Office to carry, or, if they desire to maintain that weight, they will be called upon to pay instead of £85, £510, thus placing the service on a remunerative basis. The total revenue, however, that is involved by this charge is quite a small matter. Probably a reduction of the traffic will follow, and not more than £20,000 is estimated to be realised, because the vast majority of papers carried through the post are newspapers which are within the 6 oz. limit.
  I do not think it necessary to go into any of the minor proposals of this Bill. I should like, however, to say a few words on the very considerable change which it is intended to effect in the charges for telegrams. The country generally has accepted without protest, in the existing circumstances, the increase in the telegraphic charge for ordinary twelve-word telegrams from 6d. to 9d.; but I do not think it would be proper for the Postmaster-General, when he proposes to Parliament a considerable change of this sort, to pass it by without some explanation as to the causes which have brought the finances of our national telegraph system to their present condition. The telegraph service, under State control, began badly from a financial point of view in 1870, when the plant of the companies was taken over by the State at a most excessive cost. Owing to the Parliamentary arrangements at that time not only was the value of the plant paid for, but heavy compensation was also paid to the companies on account of the transfer, and very large sums were paid to employés of these companies in pensions and allowances. The State expended altogether a sum of no less than £10,000,000 in respect of the plant, the actual value of which was about £3,500,000. Ever since the telegraphic enterprise has been charged interest on that £10,000,000, amounting to about £270,000 a year, only one-third of which is in respect of actual asset value. In 1883 a private Member's Motion in this House was carried, against the advice of the Minister of the day—as sometimes happened in those days—in

  1519
  favour of 6d. telegrams A small majority of this House—it was sixty-eight against fifty—insisted on the reduction of the minimum charge of 1s, to 6d., and in 1883, in obedience to that Resolution, the Government of the day altered the charge from 1s. for twenty words, excluding the address, to 6d. for twelve words, including the address. The accounts then laid before Parliament showed ostensibly a profit being earned on the telegraphic business, but that profit was, in fact, barely enough to pay the interest on the debt which had been incurred through the purchase of the system from the companies, and the accounts were then framed upon a much less strict basis than is now adopted by the Post Office. For example, no charge was made for depreciation beyond the actual cost year by year for renewals. No regard was had for the certain future increase in pension charge, but the pension charge was simply stated at the cost of that time, and there were several other minor points which depart from the present practice.
  If the telegraph accounts at that time had been framed on the same basis as now, the enterprise would then have shown a not inconsiderable loss. The Postmaster-General of that day estimated that a revenue per telegram would be realised of 10d. for twenty words. It was then estimated that the ½d. a word telegram probably would consist of twenty words, and bring in a revenue of 10d. As a matter of fact, the average telegram consists of fifteen words, bringing in 7½d.; in other words, the revenue per telegram was 25 per cent, less than was estimated when it was introduced. If the original estimate had been realised we should have been receiving now in respect of telegrams an additional revenue of £750,000, against which would have to be set the comparatively small cost of transmitting the additional words for the longer telegrams that were estimated. The future expenditure that was estimated in 1885 was 8¾d. per telegram, leaving a profit on that basis of 1¼d. As a matter of fact, the expenditure per telegram is 11d., instead of 8¾d., and the revenue is 7½d., instead of the 10d. estimated, and there is consequently a loss on each telegram of 3½d. Since that time the wages of the operating staff have been very largely increased by successive steps, largely—perhaps mainly—in consequence of pressure from this House from time to time. The actual average pay, apart from
  1520
  overtime pay, Sunday pay, and pensions, of a London male telegraphist was 28s. 10d. in 1885. In 1913 it was 51s. 3d. I do not think that anyone can possibly defend a wage of 28s. 10d., and I am not suggesting that the present scale of wages is unduly high; but the fact has to be taken into account that these increases have been made, and, if an allowance is made for the numbers of the staff of the various classes, it is found that the average increased expenditure in respect of the wages of the operating staff has been in that period 40 per cent.—that is, comparing the year 1885 with the year 1913, and apart from all questions of war bonuses. The engineering staff also has had its wages considerably increased, and the total increased cost which may be attributed to increased labour expenditure amounts to another sum of £750,000 a year.
  Further, the introduction and rapid spread of the telephone has had, naturally and inevitably, a great effect upon the telegraph service and its finances. Of recent years the number of telegrams transmitted has remained much the same from year to year, but their character has been continually changing. Short-distance telegrams, which were remunerative telegrams, perhaps from one part of a town to another, involving only a single transmission, have been continually decreasing. The long-distance telegrams, which involve several transmissions and the use of a much greater length of wire, and much more telegraph plant, have been increasing in number, and consequently the cost of transmitting the telegram per word each year becomes much greater. It will be obvious to the House that as short-distance remunerative telegrams have been replaced by telephone messages to a large extent, and long-distance telegrams have increased in number, the cost on the average of maintaining and managing the telegraph service must necessarily have increased. Further, for the sake of the convenience of the agricultural industry, and of residents in rural districts generally, great numbers of telegraph offices of an unremunerative character have been opened in the rural districts. It has been deliberately done as a matter of policy, and the loss which has occurred has been undertaken avowedly, and of set purpose, by the House. In addition the three-mile delivery limit is now allowed, and it is obvious that to send a telegraph messenger a distance of three miles out and three miles back to deliver a telegram on

  1521
  which, perhaps, only 6d. has been received for all services, must be an exceedingly unremunerative operation.
  Again, the Post Office of recent years, not with any financial purpose in view, but solely in order to improve the efficiency of the service, has entered upon a costly programme of underground lines. Fourteen hundred miles of underground cable have been laid in various parts of the country with a view of improving the transmission of telegrams, and especially freeing them from interruption owing to the breakdown of the wires. These underground lines cost no less than £1,200 a mile, and expenditure has been incurred under that head of £1,675,000, which, from a financial point of view, is little remunerative, but which has undoubtedly very much improved the efficiency of the service whole. Against all those factors has to be set only this one—that the average telegram is, as I have stated, fifteen words instead of twenty, and consequently the Post Office is relieved from the necessity of transmitting the additional five words for which estimate was made in 1885. We have, again, effected economy of administration somewhat through the use of machine telegraphs, which, however, are very costly instruments to maintain, and we have undoubtedly in recent years very much improved the internal management of the Post Office telegraph system and increased the output.
  The consequence—I think the Post Office is entitled to take some credit for it—is that in spite of the fact that wages have been so much increased, in spite of the fact that each telegram has to be transmitted a longer distance on the average, and in spite of the fact that we maintain unremunerative rural post offices, and have extended the free limit of delivery to 3 miles, the actual cost of operating is no higher than in 1885 on the average. The cost on the average then was 8d. to transmit each telegram. It costs on the average now just under 8d. to transmit each telegram, but the real cause of loss is due to the fact that the estimates framed in 1885 have not been realised, either in respect to revenue or in respect to expenditure. If one views the telegraphic accounts as a whole, and not the average of each telegram, it is found that we receive from the public in respect of telegrams, in round figures, £3,000,000 a year. This just covers the cost of salaries and wages, and leaves nothing over for maintenance, depreciation, interest, accommodation, and pensions. These items
  1522
  altogether amount to a total expenditure of about £1,200,000 a year, and that has been the loss hitherto on the telegraph service.
  In those figures I have included, of course, the revenue from and expenditure upon Press telegrams. If 6d. for every twelve words was unremunerative it must be obvious that 1s. for every hundred words must be far more unremunerative, and particularly since the 1s. is only paid in respect of the first telegram of a batch, and that the Press has the privilege of sending at the rate of 2d. per hundred words by night and seventy-five words by day any number of additional copies of the same telegram to any number of additional addresses in different towns in any part of the country. A Press telegram is handed in at night, containing one hundred words, addressed to Newcastle, and a second copy of that telegram must be accepted by the Post Office, and addressed, perhaps, to Southampton for 2d. Nine tenths of the Press telegrams are sent, as a matter of fact, at the copy rate, and the average receipts for Press telegrams, taking that fact into consideration, is not much over 4d. per one hundred words by day and 3d. per one hundred words by night. The night rate is one hundred words for 1s., and the day rate seventy-five words for 1s., with 2d. copying rate in each case. As a matter of fact, the great bulk of Press telegrams is not sent by night, as is generally supposed to be the case. About sixty per cent, of the telegrams are sent at the day rate, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., and only the minority of telegrams are sent by night, when the wires are comparatively idle. A very considerable proportion of those telegrams sent on behalf of the Press are never published. It is, of course, very difficult for any Press organisation to be able to distribute precisely the amount of Press matter required by the newspapers. Unexpected news may come in, displacing telegrams that would otherwise have been used. They have to cater for the different tastes of different newspapers. A return was taken in some of our largest provincial offices in 1911, and that return showed that only 64 per cent, of the words transmitted over the wires were published and 36 per cent, not published at all. The transmission of that 36 per cent, involves, of course, a heavy loss to the Post Office, as the revenue received for the transmission is far less than the cost.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: They were all paid for.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, but I would much rather not have them.
  Sir W. BYLES: I thought the House might think that only 64 per cent. were paid for.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, all transmitted over the wires, and consequently paid for, and the effect is that, the Press pay roughly for 150 words for every 100 words published. I hope one method by which the Press may recoup itself for the extra burden caused by the increased charges may be by economising in that direction, and securing that the number of telegrams transmitted shall approach more closely—I quite agree it cannot approach accurately—to the number used. Although the Post Office thereby loses some revenue, the service is an unremunerative one, and the loss of revenue leaves me quite cold. The Press, however, have been accustomed to these excessively cheap rates for a period of forty years, and great businesses have been built up on the strength of them. On a review of the whole circumstances the Government thought that it was not possible at the present time to attempt to make the Press telegraphic service remunerative. The charges which were proposed by the Retrenchment Committee, and which were mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, are considered on review to impose on the Press a burden which, especially in the present time, it would be difficult for them to meet, and, consequently, I have been in close communication with accredited representatives of the Press and journalists' organisations. I have found that they recognise that some increase in the Press rates is reasonable in the present condition of national finance, and, by agreement with them, I propose the scale of charges which hon. Members will find included in this Bill. They will add about 40 per cent, to the present revenue from the Press, after allowing for some diminution of traffic—realising an additional sum of about £60,000. The Press have represented very strongly that their position during the War is one of great difficulty, for, although the circulation of papers has increased, the advertisements, which to them are very important, have very largely declined, and, therefore, in order not to press them too hardly, it is proposed by this Bill that the new charges shall not come into operation until the end
  1524
  of the next period for which they make their normal contracts—after the 31st December next year, thus giving them rather more than a year's notice in order to adapt themselves to the new arrangement.
  The consequence will be that from the new telegraph charges we shall derive the following additional sums:—From ordinary telegrams an increased revenue of £410,000 after allowing for some diminution of traffic, and from Press telegrams an increased revenue of £60,000. We hope to be able to effect owing to the diminution of traffic a saving of expenditure in a full year of about £70,000 in the near future, and we hope also that we may be able to make a much larger saving, perhaps, amounting to as much as £200,000, when the effects of these changes are fully felt and when we have been able to adjust the staff to the new conditions of traffic. That will be a total from revenue and saving on expenditure of £740,000.
  Further, I have been giving in recent years very close attention to the increased use of machine telegraphy, and to the economies that may be effected in that direction. When I had the honour of being Postmaster-General before, I appointed a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of the then Assistant Postmaster-General to make a more detailed inquiry, with expert advice, into the kind of machine which is most suited for the various classes of Post Office work. There are a number of rival machines on the market. That Committee is now about to-report. Since then my right hon. Friend, who succeeded me as Postmaster-General, appointed a second Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn, which is going more closely into the question of the finances of the telegraphs, particularly with regard to machine telegraphy. That Committee will be able to act on the new Report which will be in their hands, and I hope they will be able to carry the process of Post Office economy by means of using machines, which of recent years have been very greatly improved, to a much further point than has hitherto been possible.
  I beg to present to the House this Bill for Second Reading. The Post Office has always prided itself on being able to give to the public a progressive reduction of rates with increased facilities, and during the four years of my previous tenure of office as Postmaster-General I had the privilege of being able to extend in many

  1525
  directions the facilities to the public—all of them of a character which were at the same time not unremunerative to the Post Office. It is an unhappy moment for any Postmaster-General at any time to have to come to Parliament and ask for sanction for an increase of Post Office charges. In fact, I believe it is the case that since the penny post was introduced, over seventy years ago, there has been only one instance in which any Post Office charge has been increased, and that was the abolition of the sample post in 1871—a policy which was reversed a few years later in 1887. Otherwise the record of the Post Office has been an unbroken history of reductions of charges and increases of facilities. But in the present national circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been compelled, much against his will, to look to the Post Office for assistance in increasing the national revenue, and I trust that, in view of the difficulties of the time, the House will give its sanction to this Bill.
  Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. I understood that the other day you said these postal charges were not in the nature of a tax, and, therefore, required a separate Bill. May I ask whether, in that case, private Members will be in order in putting down Amendments which will increase those charges?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question to the Chairman of Ways and Means when the Bill reaches Committee. I have no power to deal with any Amendment, and the only Amendment I can take now is one that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I want to say a very few words on the Motion for the Second Beading of this Bill. I quite appreciate the last statement of the Postmaster-General, that ever since the inception of the Post Office charges have always been decreased. But at the present moment we are in very exceptional circumstances, and I think it is absolutely necessary that some increase should be made in the charges. I am rather sorry, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned his proposal for the abolition of the halfpenny postcard. There has been very great agitation against it, but it does not follow that because there has been such an agitation the proposal is wrong. The increase of the charge from a halfpenny to a penny was going to bring in a very large revenue, and I think it would have been better if
  1526
  the right hon. Gentleman had adhered to his first feeling and had made the increase. I am not quite certain whether it was the right hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said what, the increased revenue from this change would be. I believe it was a very large sum that was mentioned.
  Mr. SAMUEL: About £1,000,000.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: They would never have got it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: At any rate it is a very considerable sum; and as to the interruption of the hon. Member for the Scotland Yard Division of Liverpool, may I point out that people have been in the habit of sending a variety of things through the post for a halfpenny. If the thing was worth sending through the post, if there was anything to be gained by way of advertisement from it, surely the senders could afford to pay a penny instead of a halfpenny. The fact is that the people who are sending these things through the post for a halfpenny wish the State to continue to give them a subsidy to carry on their business. If a thing is worth sending it is worth paying a penny for. If it is not worth a penny it had better not be sent at all. We are all overwhelmed every day with an enormous number of things that are of no earthly use, and which are in fact a considerable nuisance. I often do not gather for the moment the importance of a particular letter because I have been spending my time in opening all sorts of letters which come by the halfpenny post and which have nothing in them except an advertisement as to some article I did not want. I understand that the change was only to be for the War, and I think it would have been worth while, despite the interruption of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, to have made it. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not adhere to his original intention. I do not know whether the proposal was his or whether it came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the rest of the Bill, I can only say I shall be very happy to support it.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The right hon. Gentleman indicated in his speech that the Retrenchment Committee, on which I had the honour of serving, had at an early date to undertake the examination of Post Office rates. I wish to point out that that Committee, in approaching this question, worked upon two principles. The first

  1527
  was to see how far the Post Office service could be made self-supporting, the question being whether those who got the advantage of a service should pay for it, or whether the general body of taxpayers should pay for services used by only a limited number of people. We came to the conclusion that, in a general way, it would be well that the people who did use a, partcular service should in most cases pay for it. In the present national emergency it was undoubtedly desirable, as far as possible, that the taxpayer should be relieved of paying for a service only used by limited classes. The second point was whether some increase of postal charges was not a fair way of raising revenue which was necessitated by the War, and which, after all, must be raised in one method or another.
  We came to the conclusion that, as regards increasing rates with a view to making the chief branches of service self-supporting, an increase such as that proposed in the halfpenny post, and that in the case of telegrams—and in the latter case the increase is not sufficient to make it self-supporting—was justifiable. Of course one had to take into consideration the fact that the increased charge and reduced amount of work sent through the telegraph plant might make a certain portion of that plant unremunerative. It was considered that, although the 9d. rate would not make, telegrams self-supporting, it was as far as any increase in prices could be carried. I regret that the increase of the halfpenny postage has been abandoned, and, accepting the principle I have just mentioned, it would seem that that increase was a proper and reasonable way of relieving the taxpayer from unnecessary expenditure and of providing something towards the general revenue of the country.
  But I cannot help thinking that as regards the raising of revenue for the general expenditure of the country, the best proposal would have been one which was not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman—I have no doubt for very good reasons—and that was an additional halfpenny war stamp on all packets, whether charged at the present time a halfpenny, or a penny, or more. I believe this additional war stamp would have produced nearly £4,000,000 a year. It was a good way of raising revenue in a manner very little felt by the public. It would not be felt as heavily as many other ways in
  1528
  which money may be raised, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, having abandoned the proposal to increase the halfpenny post, will examine into the proposal of a general extra halfpenny war stamp, should he have to reconsider this matter at some future date.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that one of the difficulties about the telegram was that in recent years the short-distance telegram, which cost the least to send, had decreased in number, whereas the long-distance telegram had proportionately increased. This, of course, is attributable to the introduction on a general scale of the telephone. If that is so, and it is undoubtedly the fact that a great deal of the short-distance work formerly done by telegram is now done by telephone, it would seem to be a reason for increasing the revenue derivable from the telephone. I do not know how that could be done, but there are a few directions in which an effort might be made to increase the revenue, such as the fixed rate of interest chargeable for machines. I merely throw out for some future occasion the suggestion of the possibility of deriving some further revenue from the telephone if it is the fact that the telephone absorbs a good deal of work which used to be done by the telegram. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Press telegram rates were not to be put into force until December next year. That, of course, means that for the next fifteen months we are not to derive any increased revenue from that source, and, although I am sure there are excellent reasons for doing that, it is to be somewhat regretted that we have to wait so long for the result of this alteration. I would merely like, as I have no doubt the whole question is being decided by the right hon. Gentleman, to impress upon him the desirability before this matter has to be revised—and I have no doubt if the present conditions of things continues long he may find it advisable to revise the postal rates again—of considering the possibility of some special charge on all packages, which I think perhaps would be a better way of increaseing the revenue.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: The hon. Member who has just spoken was a member of the Retrenchment Committee. This Bill represents an enormous change in the recommendations of the Retrenchment Committee, and one of the lessons to be learned from it is that if you appoint

  1529
  Retrenchment Committee to deal with matters of this kind you should appoint business men. They would never have made the recommendations they made if they had approached the matter in a businesslike fashion. Something like four-fifths of the members of that Committee had had no business experience whatever, and the recommendations were such as we might expect from a Committee of that kind. One of the first things a man with no business experience thinks of when he wants to improve a business is to increase charges, but it is one of the worst ways you can go about it. The thing to do is to encourage sales. I understand that the halfpenny postcards are remunerative, and it is a great fallacy to think that by increasing the charge from a halfpenny to a penny you are going to sell anything like as many at a penny as you sell at a halfpenny. The reduction would be enormous. You would never have made a million increase or anything of the kind. The difference between a halfpenny and a penny as an expenditure is best illustrated by the experience of the halfpenny and penny newspapers of this country. Anybody who knows anything about newspapers is aware that when you reduce the price of a newspaper from a penny to a halfpenny you immediately practically sell ten times as many. The sale of the halfpenny paper is ten times that of the majority of the penny papers. The difference between a halfpenny and a penny makes that difference in the sales. It would have been so in the case of the halfpenny postage, and the increase to a penny would not in my judgment have made an increase in the receipts. The Postmaster-General has very wisely indeed met the representations which have been made to him by those who understood the matter. The Retrenchment Committee came to their decision without hearing anybody but the officials. They made no inquiry whatever amongst those who would be affected, and who knew something about it. They simply swallowed what the officials told them and took no evidence whatever.
  Mr. SAMUEL Mr. SAMUEL indicated dissent.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: They had nothing more than that which the officials told them, and their Report bears out very much indeed the story which the officials have told for a very long time. I dispute altogether the idea that these are subsidised services. I do not think it is an accurate description. The Postmaster-
  1530
  General, having met the numerous persons, parties, and interests that would be affected, has very wisely very substantially modified the proposed charges, and as he has come to an agreement with them. I have no intention of criticising the present arrangement, but I do think the lesson is an extremely clear one. The additional charges which are to be made for Press telegrams are an increase of 80 per cent., which is a very substantial increase. I suggest that the Postmaster-General and his predecessor in making these inquiries into the use of labour-saving and more efficient machines are moving in the right direction. The right direction is to increase efficiency, to increase speed, and to get better services. I believe that the officials of the Post Office Department are very able men, and I do not think they ever showed their ability more than when they were approached by the Retrenchment Committee and when they switched the Committee off retrenchment and on to increased charges on the public. It was very ingenious and showed a very considerable amount of ability. I notice also that the Retrenchment Committee did not suggest because the agricultural post offices and agricultural telegrams do not pay that there should be an alteration there. They are obviously and clearly unremunerative. I contend that they ought to be continued. I do not think you can look at these services in detailed items. It is a national service, and you must take it as a whole. The postal service in our large towns could be done by private enterprise at a great deal less cost, but in my judgment you must look at the service as a whole, and as a whole it is extremely well done, cheaply done, and well managed. I have indicated the directions in which, in my judgment, increased revenue might be obtained. You should get increased revenue through increased efficiency, and not through increased charges where they can be avoided. The present time is special, and it is quite reasonable that there should be some increase in the charges, but those now proposed, I venture to submit, are quite ample.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) has made a severe and I would say an almost bitter attack on the Retrenchment Committee. He is perfectly welcome, as far as I am concerned, to

  1531
  depreciate as much as he pleases any business capacity which he may think I have, but I think I am justified in pointing out that his criticism that the Committee did not consist of business men is not only a futile one, but is wholly untrue. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason) has just spoken. Does he suggest that he is not a business man?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: I said the majority of them.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CECIL: It is almost invidious to go through them one by one, but I need scarcely say that Sir Gilbert Claughton, chairman of the North-Western Railway, is an extremely wise and capable business man. Mr. Gaspard Farrer has spent his whole life in business. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider Mr. Harold Cox a business man. Apparently he does not. There are many business men on the Committee, and I think I may say that every man on it is level-headed. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Post Office officials were extremely ingenious in switching the Members of the Committee on to increased charges. If he will look at the Debate in the House of Lords, initiated by Lord Midleton, he will see that Lord Midleton expressly asked whether increased charges were to be considered by it or not, and the reply of the Government was that they were to be considered. That statement therefore is quite inaccurate, and if the right hon. Gentleman bases his attack upon the Retrenchment Committee on such inaccuracies I am afraid all I can say is that his criticisms are not worth much. While I welcome entirely what the Postmaster-General has done in advancing these proposals, so far as they go, I should like to express mild surprise at his extreme modesty, especially when I bear in mind my right hon. Friend's past history. I do not think that he has been naturally averse to putting on heavy taxation on the various occasions when he has been in this House, and I do not think he can be quite unconscious of a rather widespread criticism at the present time that more money is really required to foe raised than is actually being raised by the present Budget. If I might make one other somewhat preliminary remark, I would like to say that where there is too much fear of interested agitators there is usually too little regard for national finance. The whole principle of the
  1532
  Retrenchment Committee has been to make each Civil Government Department or section of a Department pay for itself, like any other business concern. Surely that is a sound principle to work upon, and I hope it is one which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley will take to heart. If by some drastic measures a material additional profit can be justifiably secured to the Exchequer, no member of the Retrenchment Committee at any rate, and I should be inclined to think very few Members of this House, would oppose such a course. No doubt in making these high charges there are exceptions to be made. If you put on an extra halfpenny it may be right to give friendly societies and insurance societies, who are in a very exceptional position, some special consideration. The recommendations of the Committee, as contained in the Interim Report, to a great extent hang together. I regret that the Government only accepted some of them. If you impose an extra halfpenny on postcards you almost must put it on ordinary letters. It may be that there has been no increase in the penny postage since it was started in 1840, and that is a very proud position to maintain, That was during a normal time, but these are wholly abnormal times, and so long as they last I think there is something to be said for reconsidering our course of action. Doubt has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) whether an extra halfpenny all round would pay, in view of decreased correspondence. I can only say in reply that the figures have been carefully gone into by the Post Office, and they estimate that making all allowances, even for importation of circulars from abroad under postal union rates, there will be a large increase. It is estimated that you will get £1,000,000 from postcards, and £4,000,000 by an extra halfpenny on ordinary letters. I do not think a sum of £5,000,000 a year is one to be sneezed at nowadays. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts this statement, I would very politely suggest to him that the business men on the Committee have endeavoured to go into the matter by making inquiries as to what actually occurred in Canada, where a halfpenny has been put on all round for some months. We have inquired what the result has been. I am not certain that I am justified in stating the figures, but they

  1533
  are very remarkable. I do not know that I ought to state the figures without the leave of the Canadian Post Office, but I can assure the Postmaster-General that the experience of Canada during the first two and a half or three months has been extremely instructive, according to the latest figures we could get as regards the effect of this change in Canada. We felt convinced in making this recommendation from a business point of view that we were very appreciably adding to the revenue of the Exchequer, and that we were on perfectly sound ground. The whole of our proposals really hang together, and that recommendation would do as much in this country as in Canada. There was no grumbling in Canada, and there was no interested agitation against it. It would touch a number of people; some of those who even yet do not seem to realise that a gigantic war is going on. I think those people ought to have taxation brought more nearly to them, for they are people who do not acknowledge the duty of contributing to the National Exchequer, and do not have any pride in the obligation to do so. If this broad recommendation of a halfpenny war tax, which is in operation in Canada, cannot be adopted in a broad sense now, I should like to commend it to the Postmaster-General for serious consideration in a future Budget, when more money has to be raised.
  Let me take the Bill as it stands. May I make two suggestions? Why could you not limit the halfpenny packet post to one halfpenny per ounce, instead of 2 ozs., so that the penny letter scale would begin at 1 oz. for everything? I think that would meet the case of friendly societies, and societies in similar positions, whose packets are not heavy, and at the same time it would stop a great many heavy circulars, which are quite unnecessary in time of war, and more labour would be set free to enlist. My second suggestion is in regard to postcards. I believe that under the French system of postcards, so my information goes, you may write for a halfpenny five words on a postcard, and if you write more than five words the charge becomes one penny. That would save picture postcards, which, as a rule, are merely greetings, if this is desired. You can send five words by paying only one halfpenny, and it would prevent correspondence, which is virtually a letter, being sent for a halfpenny. That is a suggestion which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will note
  1534
  as one worthy of future consideration. I quite agree that newspapers of more than 6 ozs. should be charged more than one halfpenny, and I am glad that the rate of Press telegrams has been raised. Nobody wants to be unfair to journalists or Press agencies, whose public services I, for one, gladly and warmly acknowledge, but in a time when there is a crying need for economy I doubt whether the nation should continue giving what is really an enormous subsidy, and something which is subversive of the principle that each Department should be run on a remunerative basis. I understand that that is the principle upon which my right hon. Friend wishes to act, and that is certainly the principle which has actuated all the recommendations of the Retrenchment Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that these new rates for Press telegrams applied more particularly during the War, and they were not to begin until 31st December, 1916. I shall be thankful if we are able to conclude the War before that date, but whether that be so or not, I do not quite follow what the right hon. Gentleman really proposes. Supposing the War ended before that date, would the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill to restore the old rates, or is it proposed eventually, when peace conditions return, to see that Press telegrams are placed on a remunerative basis, and that the rates will be again revised after 31st December, 1916, to ensure that the principle to which I have referred is carried out. I commend these suggestions to my right hon. Friend.
  Colonel HARRY LAWSON: In whatever light you look upon it, I think the House will be with me in saying that this is a melancholy little Bill. I doubt if it does much for retrenchment, and I am certain that it does a good deal that sins against efficiency. To those of us who have dabbled in past years, however ineffectually, in postal reforms, this is a very depressing and disheartening performance. When we have pressed for cheaper means of communication it is because we have thought that they have been essential to national welfare, the expansion of trade, and the growth of industry. I do not think that we have forgotten those maxims now; but, of course, we live in hard times, and I agree that the Postmaster-General is justified in doing all that he can to effect economies, providing that the loss of efficiency be not overmuch. It is not for me this afternoon to enter into general questions

  1535
  so much as to deal with those parts of the Bill in which the organisations with which I have something to do are particularly interested. I think the House should be quite sure of its ground in making changes in regard to the cost of Press telegrams. The history in this connection is rather a curious one. The present arrangement was made forty-six years ago, and it was done more for the benefit of Members of this House than for the public generally.
  The new charge is one which falls almost exclusively on the provincial Press. When the proposal was first made, I think hon. Members were a little mistaken and thought the Press generally would share the charge among them; but that is not so. It is really an addition to the working cost of provincial newspapers, and the reason the old arrangement was made was largely to enable speeches made in this House and by public men outside to be reported in the provinces. The effect, of course, will be that many of my hon. Friends will find they are no longer reported in the newspapers which circulate in their constituencies; and I am sure that will be a loss to the constituencies, and some of my hon. Friends may think it a loss to them also. That is the way in which the economy will be effected, and I am certain that the revenue will not gain much. I am equally certain that the Postmaster-General's anticipations will be falsified. The economy will be made in diminishing what has been looked upon as a public service, and it is for the House to judge whether that is a desirable thing or not. Some people think the effect will be to curtail the volume of speeches made here to the national advantage. I do not know whether hon. Members know that there is a special section occupied in reporting their speeches in the Press Gallery here in a special manner for special newspapers. That is to say, speeches made here are supposed not to be of equal interest in all parts of the country, and therefore special reporters report them at greater length—I do not say at undue length—for consumption in the constituencies represented by hon. Members. I venture to think that that section of the Press Gallery will largely disappear under the new system, or at any rate their arrangements will have to be modified. I have no interest whatever in this matter, but it is really a curtailment of publicity of debate and of speech making, and the House must look upon it in that light.
  1536
  There is no doubt that it is in that direction that the Press agencies will effect a saving, and newspapers can only expect in that way to maintain their present rate of expenditure upon this part of their working organisation.
  It is wrong to think that this was a favour shown to newspapers, because it was really a piece, of extravagance—vicarious extravagance perhaps—imposed upon the country by hon. Members of this House who wished to be reported in their constituencies. That is the true and inward history of the arrangement made for Press telegrams. The House now professes to wish to bring it to a close. I notice the date on which the arrangement will come into operation is far removed from this, and perhaps before that time hon. Members may reconsider the question in the light of their own experience. Anyhow they will not experience the new charge until they have ascertained what the new conditions will be. As it stands, it cannot come into operation for virtually fifteen months. If a saving is made, having the experience of past years behind us for our guidance, does anybody imagine that the country will reap the benefit? Probably those who will reap the benefit will be the postal servants. From some lack of concentration and the inevitable slackness of management which characterises Government Departments, the Post Office has never been able to resist any organised movement for the increase of wages and remuneration, and I am certain the postal servants, who are admirably organised under very capable leadership, if they find that there is a saving made, will be the first to say that the benefit ought to go to them and to nobody else, and will point out very good reasons why that should be so. In fact, I believe myself that this difference in expenditure is a new appropriation-in-aid of postal wages. Whether that turns out to be a prophecy which, like many others, may be falsified by the event, that is how the matter strikes me. I thought the House ought to know exactly how this new newspaper tax will act. It will not affect the Press generally. It is meant to be a burden on the provincial papers, but probably the provincial papers and the Press agencies who supply them will safeguard their interests by curtailing the reports of public speeches.
  I am informed that in the drafting of the Bill there is a mistake in Clause 1, which makes it very doubtful whether there will

  1537
  not be an extra charge on all packets far in excess of what is intended. That is a matter of drafting which I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman will see is set right when the Bill comes into Committee, because it is clearly not his intention to disturb existing arrangements to that extent. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong also in thinking that daily newspapers generally will be covered by the 6 ozs. rate. That is not so either. That is a matter of detail which on inquiry he will be able to set right, if he thinks it ought to be done in fairness and on the principle of equality as between different publications. For my part, I should have much preferred that this new tax, instead of being put as a perpetual clog and load upon our national industries, had been specifically stated to be for the term of the War. In that respect I agree with the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. E. Cecil) that a war tax and a war stamp would have been preferable to a permanent impost. It cannot be the wish of this House to fetter the means of communication so as to act in a way that will be detrimental to our national trade in the future. After all, competition will not only be keener, but, to use an American phrase, it will be more cut-throat than ever after the War. It will be a desperate affair to keep things going, and it cannot be sound to cripple national industry in such an essential as the means of correspondence if it can be avoided. In national economy that cannot be a right principle and it cannot be an expedient principle. I believe that is done to some extent by this Bill, and if we could be assured that to meet the necessities of the War these taxes were imposed for the period of the War and until the present trouble be overpassed, personally I should prefer it, and I think it would be not only more workable but more likely to be successful in its results. These are the points to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. As to the charges in regard to the weight of newspapers, I hope he will be able to give them some consideration before the House goes into Committee, because I am certain he has been unwilling to bring this Bill before the House, but as he has had to bring it I am equally certain he is anxious it should not act unfairly to the particular interests affected by its provisions.
  Mr. PETO: I must confess that I see with some regret the way in which the proposals for retrenchment have been
  1538
  whittled down to something which is almost negligible in this Bill. I particularly refer to the main suggestion of the increase in the ordinary postal rates—the halfpenny rate and the penny rate. It was with that view that I asked you, Sir, a question just now on a point of Order as to how private Members stand. I have taken your advice and consulted the Chairman of Ways and Means, and, without stating definitely a decision at first asking, he is not unfavourable to the view to which from your ruling I was inclined myself, that an Amendment proposing an increase in the charge proposed by a private Member would be in order. With that in mind, I wish to make to the right hon. Gentleman a suggestion which seems to have been brought a little nearer realisation by the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and gallant Member for Mile End (Colonel Harry Lawson). He says he wishes that these increased postal charges should not have the appearance even of being something which would be permanent and which might restrict the revival of trade which we shall have to do so much to encourage when the War is over. The opposition to the doubling of the halfpenny rate was very strong, and arose from various quarters. But I do not think, if the right hon. Gentleman, finding that opposition, had proposed a War surcharge upon every postage stamp, which would obviously on the face of it be a contribution to our War expenditure and of a temporary character, as would be indicated by its being a surcharge on the stamp of ordinary denomination, that he would have met with the same opposition.
  Mr. CECIL: That was the proposal of the Retrenchment Committee.
  Mr. PETO: A stamp of different denomination would have had to be printed. My point is that that might go on indefinitely so far as the public or anybody in this House can tell now, whereas the other form of increase would naturally be of a temporary character. In that way a small surcharge could easily have been made. I am informed that this is being done not only in Canada, which has been mentioned by other Members at different points of the Debate, not only to-day, but previously, but it is also being done in Russia. If we took such a step as that we should be acting in good company. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will very seriously consider getting out of the difficulty

  1539
  of either such a special increase as a complete doubling of the halfpenny rate or, on the other hand, doing nothing to make that great branch of postal service remunerative, in the way I have suggested to him. The last speaker referred to the question of Press telegrams. Personally, perhaps, I have a special interest in the provincial Press, and, as representing a provincial constituency, I may say I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say that he had so far modified the earlier proposals, when a great increase was suggested in the Press telegram rates, that he had got the approval and agreement of the parties who are mainly interested.
  Colonel H. LAWSON: Only the agreement.
  Mr. PETO: The hon. Member said that it might result in Members' speeches in this House being reported at less length. I would call his attention to the fact that the charge it is actually proposed to make is 1s. for eighty words, and I really think that if a speech in this House is not worth 1s. for every eighty words it had much better not be reported in the provinces or anywhere else. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said in reference to the remuneration of postal telegraph clerks, I was very much interested to know that not only was there such a great increase since 1885, but that the average of the postal telegraph clerks have now arrived at the dignity of being Income Tax payers or potential Income Tax payers.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In London.
  Mr. PETO: I think it is very satisfactory to think that this great service is remunerated on such fairly generous lines, and that half of these gentlemen will be making Income Tax returns—at least I hope they will. I am sorry to see that there is a lost opportunity in this Bill, because I am looking for ways and means by which the charges for the postal services should more nearly make a balance wherever they are at the present time making a loss. I see that the charge of 1d. for 4 ozs. is maintained.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that the proposed alteration can be made by administrative action without legislation.
  Mr. PETO: Is that proposed?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
  Mr. PETO: Is it proposed to reduce the weight of the ordinary 1d. letter to 1 oz.?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech.
  Mr. PETO: Like many other Members, I had taken a different view. So many things are set forth in this Bill in detail, and that one was not mentioned, that we thought that proposal, like many others, had been dropped. I am very glad to hear that that is not so. I have spoken already of the provincial Press with regard to Press telegram rates, and, on the other hand, I am very glad that the proposal to charge a penny postage on all newspapers has been dropped. Just as the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Harry Lawson) was perfectly right in saying that any increase of the postal telegraph rates hits the provincial Press and not the London Press, so, if that proposal had been maintained, it would undoubtedly have been a great hardship to people in the country, who would have had to pay very highly for a newspaper delivered by post, which in many cases is probably the only way in which they can get it.
  Colonel H. LAWSON: They will now in certain cases where the newspaper is over 6 ozs.
  Mr. PETO: I was thinking more of the ordinary small daily paper, and not of one of the size to which my hon. and gallant Friend was referring. Although the right hon. Gentleman is wise in having dropped that part of the proposal, it would be recognised as a perfectly reasonable thing if some small surcharge for the period of the War were made. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the average telegram sent turns out to be a telegram of fifteen words, which, on the present scale, brought in a payment of 7½d. As he has shown us that he is practically making arrangements under this Bill to make the postal telegraph service self-supporting and to make both ends meet, I would suggest, as it is always a matter of great ingenuity to work a telegram with the address into twelve words, and as he has found from experience that fifteen is the average number of words, that he might, at Very small cost and at great convenience to the public, make this charge of 9d. a flat rate to cover a telegram with three more words than is usual now. Addresses, particularly country addresses, very often

  1541
  involve several words, and this suggestion, if carried out, would have the effect of giving the public ten words in which to convey what they want, leaving over five words for the address. That is a small suggestion I make in the opposite direction to the increase of the charge, but rather in the increase of the service rendered. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us anything more about the Post Office to-day, I would like to ask him, as it is of particular interest in the present circumstances, how far he has gone with the large extension of underground work in connection with telephone services which he had said had cost more than £1,250,000. I should also like to know, in regard to the restriction of public works, what is the position of the postal telegraph railway in the Metropolis, in reference to which we had a Bill upstairs, and which was to cost, I think, £10,000,000?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing general Post Office Estimates.
  Mr. PETO: I did not intend that as any criticism at all, but simply wanted to know what facilities were already completed, if the right hon. Gentleman could have told us. I hope most seriously he will consider the proposal I have made to him, and if he does not put down an Amendment to the Bill himself, which would be the most obvious solution of the difficulty, if I put down an Amendment in that sense, I hope he will give it his most careful consideration. It might be a way of saving a very large part of the revenue we give to the Post Office, which is abandoned in this Bill, and, according to the experience in Canada which was quoted by the hon. Member (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), particularly if it was to be a war surcharge only for the period of the War, would not result in any material diminuation of the use the public would make of the postal service.
  Sir W. BYLES: I rise to express my thanks to the Postmaster-General for the manner in which he has addressed himself to the public agitation which arose after the postal changes were first announced. When the Resolutions were in Committee I predicted that there would be an outcry. There has been an outcry, and I have no doubt the Postmaster-General has had a heap of letters and complaints of warning, so to speak, on the subject. I have, at any rate, had a great many, and it is on behalf of these people who have protested especially against the withdrawal of the halfpenny stamp, as well as on my own
  1542
  behalf, that I thank him for the courtesy which he has rendered us. He has listened to the remonstrances which have been made to him, he has applied his own strong common sense to the matter, and he has found that there was good reason for the complaints which have been made. I cannot agree in the least with some of the earlier speakers, notably the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), in regretting the withdrawal of the halfpenny stamp. I was prepared vigorously to resist its abolition. I believe the concession which has been made in that matter is abundantly justified by evidence which has been brought to me, and no doubt to my right hon. Friend, proving that it is an enormous convenience, and an essential of many businesses which have actually been built up upon the halfpenny stamp. They would be dislocated, and even destroyed, and so far from bringing in revenue to the Post Office it would in all probability have brought them a serious loss. I believe it was a blunder ever to have proposed it, and the wonder to me is what has been its genesis. It does not speak much for the wisdom of the Retrenchment Committee. I thought it was probably some simple-minded but unimaginative official of the Post Office, who said, "Here are so many millions of halfpenny communications being carried. They bring in so much. If you double the postage and make it a penny instead of a halfpenny it will bring in twice as much." If he thought that he was mistaken. The abolition of the halfpenny would have abolished the revenue which arises from the halfpenny stamp. People would not pay a penny for what they now get for a halfpenny. However, the Postmaster-General has examined the thing for himself, with the result that the halfpenny is restored to the great satisfaction of the public.
  To the other changes which are proposed I will not refer further than to express my acquiescence in the observations of my hon. Friend near me in regard to Press telegrams. The changes which have been made in the charges to newspapers for Press telegrams, as compared with the rates which were proposed in the first Resolution are, at any rate, tolerable if not thoroughly acceptable to the newspaper Press, but it should be remembered that it is hot in the interests of newspapers only that these charges are adjusted to the capacity of the newspapers, but it is also in the interests of the public. It is the general public that profits by having-

  1543
  its news diffused, not only in London but all over the provinces, by having columns of war news sent on the wires every night, and columns of general news, not to speak of Parliamentary news. It is of immense interest that all that is happening around us should be concentrated into the service of news, as it is by the great Press agencies and carried at such a rate as will enable the newspapers to present it to the public. I am extremely anxious that this matter should not be regarded as a class, or private, or trade interest at all, but in the interests of the public itself, the reading public—and all the public to-day is a reading public—and I am glad that the Press telegram rates are put at a figure at which it will be possible at any rate to give a good service of news. In all the complaints I have heard from people who were afraid of the additional tax which would be imposed upon them there is no one who is not perfectly willing to bear his share of this costly War that we have been drawn into. There is an entirely loyal sentiment expressed by all these men who desire the continuance of the halfpenny stamp, and they are perfectly willing to bear their share, only they do not want to be ruined, and they do not want the revenue to suffer.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise at the request of the approved insurance societies to point out that this measure will add a considerable increase to their burden, and they are in a peculiarly unfortunate position. Their management expenses have been decided for them by the Commissioners under the guidance of the Treasury, and they have been asked to work on so much per head per annum. There will be a large increase of postal charges even now, and they will be in the position either of asking for an increased Grant from the Treasury to meet those expenses or giving fewer benefits. They cannot recoup themselves from customers or anything of that kind. They are in a rather helpless position. Part of the original bargain was that the insurance societies were to be helped by the Post Office. The fabric of the Act is built upon that. The societies post the insurance books, as well as the cards, and on the average two communications go every year. But it is quite clear that some societies which are now working at a slight loss, and are just getting into debt, will be rather staggered at the extra postage bill. I feel sure that the Government will
  1544
  have to meet it, so that, I hope, in calculating the increased revenue, the Retrenchment Committee will count this increased burden upon approved insurance societies, which are working strictly under the Act of Parliament and under Treasury administration. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for deleting the rather extraordinary proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish these halfpenny stamps. It would almost have fomented a strike on the part of the approved insurance societies. I do not see what else they could have done. It would have made their administration almost hopeless. However, I express the gratitude of these societies that this proposal has been discarded when it came to the business department, but even now the extra cost will be very grievous, and I have had appeal after appeal, both from large and small societies, to bring this matter up. I would point out to the Assistant Postmaster-General that I have had communications from his own area. In the North Riding of Yorkshire, for example, rural clubs have joined together and become approved societies, and upon going into the facts I find, and I dare say other Members from agricultural districts will bear it out, that the increased cost of these postal charges hurts the small village societies more than the powerful centralised institutions in London because they depend almost entirely upon the postal service for communicating with their members, so that when the burden comes upon them it comes in an unfair degree upon the poorer societies, and I hope that will be borne in mind, perhaps not by my hon. Friend but by the Treasury or the Insurance Commissioners when they have to put these matters right.
  I must protest against the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) in suggesting that this is retrenchment. It really is a preposterous idea to say that a Government Department is over-staffed, or it might rearrange its methods and save money, and ask the Retrenchment Committee to go into it, and their reply is simply to charge an increased price to their customers. A more preposterous idea of retrenchment was never conceived. We hear warnings that they are next coming on to the administration of the Insurance Act, but if they come in the spirit they have come on to the postal arrangements they will say at once, "We will make every working man pay 1d. a week more out of his wages." Surely that cannot be called retrenchment any

  1545
  more than, if we thought there was extravagance at Billingsgate Market or the Metropolitan Meat Market, you told the butchers to charge 1d. a lb. more for meat, or the fishmongers 1d. a lb. more for their fish, and called that retrenchment. I dare say there would be more money to divide and some people who are now losing might make a profit, but I never understood from the business point of view that that could be called retrenchment. I should have thought that if the Retrenchment Committee was turned upon the Post Office they would endeavour to show how, by economy of administration, greater facilities could be given to traders. That is what they should have devoted themselves to, and not to finding means of carrying on the War. That is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope these things will be borne in mind, because the approved insurance societies have a claim upon the Treasury to put them right. I want the largely increased burden of these institutions on the private side to be remembered. When you increase the postal rate to the friendly societies which communicate with their members they have no chance to recoup themselves. I cannot see how there can be any refusal to help them when the thing is working under State control, but on the private side there is a heavy burden. You cannot pick and choose, and it may be that they will have to bear it; but I fail to see, if you charge the great friendly orders more for their postal communication and hand it over to the State, how you can call that economy. How can you call it economy when you know it must mean a reduction of benefits? I do not understand the meaning of it. It may be justified on the ground that you must exact all the money you can to carry on the War, from the bad and the good alike. That I can understand, but I do maintain that to tax friendly societies in this way and call it economy is simply a misuse of terms.
  Mr. BRADY: I rise for the purpose of asking the Postmaster-General, or his colleague, a question which has been suggested to me. It has been publicly stated that this Bill contemplates, in addition to the increased charges which are set out, a diminution in the number of private wires. I do not find any warrant for that in the Bill itself, but it is just possible that such an arrangement can be carried cut in a departmental manner without any statutory enactment. I cannot help
  1546
  embracing this opportunity to cordially endorse everything that has been said so eloquently and forcibly on behalf of the provincial Press by the hon. and gallant Member for Mile End (Colonel Lawson). If the proposals embodied in this Bill adversely affect the provincial Press of this country, they will still more adversely affect the Press in Ireland. In common with all the Members of this House, we who sit on these benches recognise that in the present national emergency, increased taxation, and increased cost to the public is necessarily involved, but at the same time, I cannot help thinking that in this matter as affecting the provincial Press the hardship would be more severely felt in Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  There is another matter which calls for attention. The Postmaster-General pointed out very properly the disproportionate cost of the long-distance telegrams. I recognise that many of these long-distance telegrams go to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that some time ago he and I were engaged in a friendly controversy about the very frequent breaking down in the wires used for the purpose of conveying these telegrams to Dublin and other parts of Ireland. I hope that if he is going to get, as I know he is going to get, this increased cost for telegrams, that greater efficiency will be secured in the future for these long-distance telegrams to Ireland than has been secured in the past. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the very bitter complaint that was made by the Stock Exchange in Dublin, extending over two or three years, as to the constant delay in the transmission of Stock Exchange telegrams to Dublin. He took the matter in hand, and I think considerable improvement has been effected; but I cannot help thinking that in the transmission of long-distance telegrams to Ireland there is considerable room for further improvement, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account. I should be very glad to hear from him, or from his colleague, that there is no intention of diminishing the number of private wires, so far as Ireland is concerned, in the future, in view of the serious effect it would have not only on the provincial Press, but on the whole of the Press of Ireland.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I want to make a suggestion to the Postmaster-General. I welcome the alteration of the scheme that

  1547
  the right hon. Gentleman has now introduced. For my own part I felt that it would be impossible to withdraw the halfpenny postage, because it served as an important function in public life, and is an important basis in the commercial system of the country. It occurred to my mind that the estimate on which it was said that the halfpenny postage did not pay was somewhat misleading. I understand that the penny postage does pay. It must be remembered, however, that the halfpenny postcard is used largely as a basis of, or as a first approach to, a commercial transaction which ends, probably, in one or two penny letters being sent. Therefore, when you come to consider whether the halfpenny postage pays or not, you must consider that it draws a considerable benefit to the penny postage, because it ensures that a certain number of penny letters must follow for the purpose of conveying cheques, money orders, and so forth. Under these circumstances you must not consider the halfpenny postage entirely alone, but must recognise the effect which it has upon the penny postage. I thank the Postmaster-General for the alteration and also for his action in leaving the halfpenny postage in regard to newspapers. On this point I would like to make a suggestion. It is recognised by the altered scheme now before the House that it is of importance that the newspaper should be sent, but the right hon. Gentleman gave a very glaring instance of a case where the halfpenny postage undoubtedly is misused or has been misused. The figures that he gave indicated clearly that the advantage which is offered by the halfpenny post is sometimes used in a manner wholly uncontemplated, and it causes a very large loss to the Post Office. In considering the question of the 6-oz. limit, has the right hon. Gentleman considered or taken advice as to the trade papers? I am told that a certain number of trade papers, which necessarily have a number of designs and pictures printed upon them, and which necessarily have to be printed upon heavy paper, would exceed the 6-oz. limit. If that be so, will he consider a suggestion in Committee that the 6-oz. limit should be altered to 8 ozs., which, I believe, would have the effect of safeguarding the halfpenny postage to what I may call the trade newspapers. The alternative suggestion that the trade newspapers should print on lighter paper is really not a practicable one, because the paper has to be so good and so very expensive to bear the imprint that
  1548
  it would be impossible for them to adopt that course. It may be that the Postmaster-General can see his way to modify the 6-oz. limit so as to meet that need of the trade of the country.
  I desire to make another suggestion. If the halfpenny post does not pay, is the picture postcard business of sufficient magnitude to be worth dealing with by itself? The trade of the country, I quite recognise, ought to be safeguarded and to have the opportunity of cheap means of communication, but when I come to the opposition that is raised to the withdrawal of the halfpenny postage by the picture postcard trade I really can have no sympathy with it at all. This is a trade which has risen in the course of the last few years, and if it is of such magnitude that the loss upon it can be estimated or can be appreciated by the Postmaster-General, I suggest that he might differentiate as to that and not allow postcards to be sent by halfpenny postage which are in the nature of picture postcards. We have been told by a notice, which I think was issued by some authority, though I do not stop to inquire by what authority, that picture postcards of public buildings ought not to be sent by post at all. That is a considerable stab to the picture postcard trade. I hold in my hand a picture postcard on which it is stated that it was printed in Germany. Is the picture postcard business still carried on by cards which are printed in Germany and which come into this country by means of neutral countries? If so, there is reason for putting an end to that trade, not only on the ground that it is a loss to the Post Office, but that it is remitting money out of this country to neutrals or to Germany to pay for these picture postcards which we receive from Germany, and which are printed in that country. I hold in my hand a picture postcard which was handed to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He was too modest to refer to it himself. It contains upon the reverse side a picture of a house in which we must all take an affectionate interest, because it is the house in which the hon. Baronet recuperates at the week-end after his strenuous efforts in this House. Much to the alarm and the regret and the anger of the hon. Baronet, he finds that the picture postcards of his own little home are printed in Germany. I will leave that matter, which is one of domestic detail, and come to the broad question, in regard

  1549
  to which I do ask whether this picture postcard trade is one in which the basis of the cards are printed in Germany, and whether it is a trade which ought to be put an end to, because so many public buildings are represented on picture postcards that it is unwise that they should be the subject of postal matters? Further, if this trade is of such magnitude that the Post Office can recognise the loss upon it, it seems to me that by a simple Amendment which can stop the transmission of, such cards by halfpenny post, it will save the loss to the Post Office and at the same time put an end to a trade which, so far as one can see, and having regard to the criticism which I have suggested this afternoon, seems to have no particular merit to support it. If there is any real desire to send picture postcards I believe those who are really anxious to send them will be prepared to pay a penny for them. It may be that one is talking about something that is so small that it may be unworthy of the notice of the Postmaster-General and unworthy of the trouble of his Department. If so, we shall be told so. Meanwhile I would like to have some information upon it.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on this Bill, although I am rather personally interested, as I happened to be a representative of the Press in the interviews which took place with the right hon. Gentleman. The Press generally were very glad when this question was removed from the Taxes Bill, because there is a very strong feeling that one ought not to seem, and certainly ought not, to shirk any burden which may be placed upon us by the War. The Postmaster-General has administered this Government monopoly with very great consideration, and the Press have always found that he had an open mind to their necessities in any communications which we had to make to him. They were therefore very glad to meet him and to discuss this matter on a business basis and on the grounds of public policy. Personally I am extremely glad that we were able to come to a settlement and avoid the necessity, which I think the Press would have found themselves obliged to have recourse to, of pressing for an inquiry into the accounts and administration of the Post Office, the nature of which was indicated by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. There are many points there which I expect might have been disputed; they are certainly
  1550
  very disputable. Nothing would have been more hateful during the War than discussing such details as these. I hope the House will recognise that there is a very large increase of cost imposed by the new charges upon the Press. When the deputation was genially dismissed by the Postmaster-General they felt that they had been pretty closely shorn, but I have received sufficient information from different parts of the country to show that we at present accept in good faith this settlement of a very long standing controversy between the Press and the Post Office, and that we are extremely glad that that settlement has been come to.
  6.0 P.M.
  The House may not appreciate the terribly critical position in which the original proposals would have put a very large portion of the provincial Press. From information and figures with which I have been supplied from various quarters, I cannot help thinking that those proposals would have been fatal in certain parts of the provinces to some of the newspapers which are struggling against the competition of London and of the larger cities. So great a change as that which was proposed at first we felt was not merely a matter of account, but was a question of a change of public policy, affecting almost every provincial constituency in the three Kingdoms. It would have reduced very seriously the facilities of the local Press for commercial, markets, law, and foreign telegrams, and for Parliamentary news as well as for general political intelligence, a change which, I think, would have lowered the status of the whole community served by these local papers. I do not wish to do more than express my pleasure at the agreement having been arrived at. Hon. Members on the other side have indulged in some criticism in reference to the year's notice. I do not think that, when two firms are dealing together in such a large matter as the upsetting of an arrangement which has been carried on for forty or fifty years, such notice was too long. A year's notice, I think, was reasonable in such a case. Existing contracts would have to go on. They could not well be altered, and the time which has been given gives to the Press an opportunity of arranging the details of business. This matter affected a comparatively small number of firms, perhaps a hundred and fifty, certainly not more than a few hundred, in amounts varying from £500 to perhaps £5,000 a

  1551
  year, and it was a very great change to impose at such very short notice. That is decreased by the agreement to which we have come, and so far as this portion of the Bill is concerned, I hope that the House will see its way to endorse the proposals of the Postmaster-General.
  Colonel YATE: I would like to join the last speaker in expressing my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, for the concessions which he has given to the provincial Press. We have all of us received a memorandum from him on the subject, and we all rejoice at the concession which has been given to the small provincial Press. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having put a stop once for all to the 4-oz. postage for 1d. I have always thought that the allowance of 4 ozs. for 1d., in the case of letter postage, was far more than was necessary, and I think that we are all agreed that the Post Office should be a paying concern and not run at a loss, especially in present circumstances. I am delighted that the halfpenny postcard system has been allowed to remain, and I join with the previous speaker in expressing my hope that the Postmaster-General will take some steps to stop the use of postcards which are printed in Germany, so that we may use only English postcards which are manufactured in England. Whatever arrangement may be necessary, I trust that these German postcards will no longer come into England in the way in which they are coming now.
  Mr. PRICE: Though I am not a member of the Press I have received a large number of communications from provincial papers asking me to oppose the original proposals. Therefore I am very glad indeed to hear that the Postmaster-General has come to an arrangement with the representatives of the Press. May I ask him whether he will now take into consideration the statements which are placed before us as to economies in the Post Office itself? The communications which I have received point out that some of the departments of the Post Office were working under old and obsolete methods, and therefore while terms are being adjusted it might be advisable for the Postmaster-General to get into communication with the persons who have made these statements and receive and consider their suggestions, because it is still open to the Post Office to reduce expenditure and to make a profit on the whole matter. I
  1552
  was greatly impressed by statements which were sent to me, and by a personal interview which I had with some newspaper proprietors regarding the matter. In reference to picture postcards, I certainly think the suggestion made on the other side as to their abolition should not be carried out. The chances are that the postcard printed in Germany and giving a picture of the house of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was printed long before the War took place. These cards are not coming in at all now. There has been a large development in this country of colour printing, and in Edinburgh in particular the proposals as originally suggested would have had a disastrous effect on the printing trade. Anybody who knows the printing trade knows that there is no trade which has suffered so much. I have had several resolutions from various quarters in Edinburgh, and therefore I trust that so far as picture postcards, or anything else affecting the printing trade, is concerned, the Postmaster-General will not do anything more which will affect that trade. In the printing trade over 50 per cent, are on short time. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on settling a long-standing quarrel regarding the Press. It has been up here every year ever since I have been here. I hope now that it has been finally settled, and that it will not be up again in my time.
  Mr. DENNISS: I desire to ask a question in the interests of economy which would mean an addition to the revenue. I understand that there is a large loss on the Press telegrams, but I have always been opposed to any increase in the charges for Press telegrams for reasons which have been given at great length in this House, and which I need not repeat. I understand that the original proposal was that the rates should be raised by 200 per cent. Now we have come down to 50 per cent. That being the case, there must still be a large loss upon these Press telegrams. There is a certain company of engineering and Government contractors who have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman and who have expressed their willingness to undertake to handle the whole of the news traffic of the whole country at existing rates, and then to do the work, they say, even more expeditiously than the Post Office. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider that proposal, and is he prepared to say whether such a scheme as that might not introduce real economy, and be

  1553
  a great saving of the loss upon Press telegrams which is now incurred. If the experiment succeeds it must revolutionise the methods of the Post Office and lead to a great national saving in that Department. If it fails, then the right hon. Gentleman will of course take a guarantee before entering into any contract with these gentlemen. But if these people do it, I will not say more expeditiously, though that is what they claim themselves, but if they do it at existing prices, the Post Office will not only save all loss but may be able to reorganise the whole of the existing telegraphic system.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): As this is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking for the Government from this Bench I trust that my remarks will receive the kind consideration and sympathy of the House. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for the City of London referred to the halfpenny postcard, and deplored the fact that my right hon. Friend had brought in a Bill which did not deal with this. I think that the whole House really is in agreement as regards the halfpenny postcard, because it is well known that it is very popular in the country, and the abolition of the halfpenny postcard and the halfpenny post generally will destroy a great deal of trade. The case seems to be very clear. My right hon. Friend has received deputations and also has received a great deal of evidence to show that in future it will be wiser to keep the halfpenny postage. The hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) referred to the French postcards. In France the postcard is 10 centimes, in Russia 3 kopecks, or ¾d., in Belgium 5 centimes, which is a ½d., in Italy 10 centimes, in Spain 10 centimes, in Portugal 10 reis, in Holland 2½ cents, in Denmark 5 orë, in Norway 5 orë, in Sweden 5 orë, in Switzerland 5 centimes, in Germany 5 pfennigs, in Austria 5 heller, and in the United States 1 cent. In almost every case it is a ½d. The hon. Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock) gave the House to understand that there was no proper remuneration from the halfpenny postcard, and that it was not a remunerative trade, so far as the Post Office was concerned. This is not the case. As far as I can learn.—it is always very difficult to make any real estimate in regard to matters of this kind—it is a remunerative service. And perhaps I might say that it is impossible for anyone in this country to estimate what the position of the
  1554
  State or the Post Office would be if the abolition of the halfpenny postage had taken place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, who is a member of the Retrenchment Committee, said he thought that the principle had been arrived at that in regard to matters of this character we should pay for services rendered. But many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes in his speech to-day, really ask a great deal more than that. As far as the question of a war stamp is concerned, and the question of a halfpenny postage, there is no doubt that it would be very difficult with any rearrangement of charges to adopt the principle of paying only for services rendered. For instance, if there were a surcharge of a halfpenny on every letter, it would mean really that owing to arrangements which we have made with our Colonies a man would be able to post a letter here for 1½d. and it would be delivered, say, in Victoria Street, for that amount, and the same man would be able to post a letter at Westminster which would be delivered in Canada for a penny. I think that that is a very clear exposition of what is involved in the suggestion to which I have referred. My hon. Friend also referred to the question of telephone charges. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is extremely sorry that he has to make any increase in these charges, because it is admitted on all hands that it is desirable to decrease, as far as possible, telephone charges in this country. We are under-telephoned at the present moment, and whenever the opportunity occurs I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to make an extension of that system. The question has also arisen in the minds of many Members, and they have mentioned it in their speeches to-day, as to the charge of a halfpenny on newspapers, and its possible increase as adumbrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend received a deputation representative of the chief Press organisations of this country, and they made perfectly clear to him that in existing circumstances it would not be reasonable to make the extra charge which was suggested.
  Everyone in this House knows that a great many trades have suffered during the War, and anyone who considers the subject will agree that no interest has suffered more than has the newspaper interest, owing to the fact of the decreased

  1555
  amount of advertisements received and other causes. In the circumstances, I feel perfectly certain that the Postmaster-General could not come to any other conclusion than that as to the rates previously suggested it was necessary, so far as the Press were concerned, to reduce those rates. I am very glad that the Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin), who was the spokesman for the deputation, is satisfied with the arrangement which has been come to. Although he says that the Press of the country has been fearfully shorn, I am quite sure that they have received ultragenerous treatment, and that they ought to be very well satisfied with the position in which they are placed, when we consider that the services rendered are great and the payment is little. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) as to the Retrenchment Committee, views may be held which are not exactly in accord with those of the Post Office, but I am perfectly certain that the Department will be only too delighted to consider any inquiry so far as the Post Office arrangements are concerned.
  With regard to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel H. Lawson), I think we all appreciate the particular views which he expressed in regard to the telegraph rates. He is the owner of a well-known newspaper in this country. The point which he has raised has been to a very great extent in the mind of my right hon. Friend, and it was realised by him that an increase of the telegraph rates would affect adversely, to a very large extent, the provincial interests in this country, and, so far as the future is concerned, the reason why these charges are not made up to the end of next year is that many contracts, which have been already made, must necessarily be taken into account. With regard to the future there is no probability that this charge will be reduced, because these services are rendered at a considerable price, and the charge, it is suggested to-day, is an equitable one, and can be completely justified. I do not know whether Members have considered the possibilities of the future, and what they may be, but so far as taxation is concerned, I see no likelihood of a decrease of it in this country within the next few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) made the suggestion that the number of words in a telegram might be fifteen instead of
  1556
  twelve. I am sorry to say to him that I am afraid that is quite impossible, because it would not be remunerative to the State, and under existing circumstances it is absolutely necessary for us to consider only that, though we naturally wish to consult the convenience of the public, as far as possible. With regard to the question of charges in this Bill, I would like to point out that in regard to inland packets, not exceeding 2 ozs., they come under the old letter rate. Under the old rate packets exceeding 2 ozs. in weight came under the letter rate of one halfpenny for each 2 ozs. Under the proposed rate packets exceeding 2 ozs. will still be liable to be charged at letter rate. That rate will be 1½d. per packet more, and thus between 2 ozs. and 3 ozs. the charge will be 2½d., instead of 1d.
  Mr. PETO: Does that mean ordinary letters?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: It means all packets of any kind except newspapers. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), I understand that there will be an additional charge, so far as the approved insurance societies are concerned, and it will be the duty of those societies to reduce the weight to within 2 ozs., so that there shall not be any additional charge. In reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), I am very glad that the Postmaster-General has received his congratulations. I know that he took a very prominent part in this controversy, and I understand that the changes are acceptable to him, though not very palatable. The fact is that old taxes are bad and new taxes are always worse, but many of those who find these taxes hard must realise their necessity. In reference to the question of my hon. Friend opposite as to private wires, they will not be affected. There is only one other point to mention, and it is the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Price) in reference to the new machine telegraphs. The Postmaster-General gave an explanation to the House on that question, and in regard to machine telegraphs, so far as the Treasury will allow, we shall extend that system throughout the country. I appeal to the House to now give the Bill a Second reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I wish to ask the House to adjourn the consideration of the Lords Amendments until another day, I hope quite an early day, in order that the House may have an opportunity to consider what the proposal is which the Government is about to make to the House. I therefore should like to outline quite briefly now what the nature of the Amendments are that we propose to ask the House to accept and which we propose to ask the House not to accept, and then resume the discussion when we get to the individual Amendments, if that, of course, is agreeable to the House, and I think in the long run that will be found to be most convenient. In another place the character of the Bill was entirely changed. The Select Committee—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) in his place—in considering this question, had before them, in the first instance, a proposal for a much larger scheme. It was put forward by my right hon. Friend sitting near me (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and it was received by the Select Committee with a good deal of approval. His proposal, then, was for a complete reconstitution of the different authorities who now deal with pensions, and the absorption of their various functions by one new Government authority. I need not detail to the House all the institutions and authorities which now deal with pensions and allowances, but the existence of Chelsea and of Greenwich Hospitals, and the existence of the Royal Patriotic Organisation, cannot be left out of account. My impression is that in ordinary circumstances—that is to say, if we had no great war on our hands and the Departments concerned were not very much occupied—the Select Committee would have accepted the proposal of my right hon. Friend; but we came to the conclusion that we were not then in a position to bring before the House a large scheme to absorb all the functions of the different bodies who now deal with pensions.
  We determined, therefore, to adopt a scale of flat-rate pensions, which were sufficiently generous to cover a great num-
  1558
  ber of those who will become entitled to benefits, and we proposed the humbler scheme of a new body to be founded on the Royal Patriotic Corporation, and to be primarily supported by voluntary funds, as is the case with that Corporation. We therefore propose to establish a statutory committee of the corporation, including in its constitution a considerable representation of the Corporation, but having also on its body a number of representatives of the Government. The whole Bill was framed on the principle that it would be a voluntary body, and that it would not be a Government authority. Whether we were right or wrong in that view is not now the relevant question. What I am endeavouring to bring to the mind of the House is that the Bill as introduced into this House, and as carried through this House, was not a Bill which was intended to found a new Government Department, which was not framed with that object, and its provisions would not carry out that object. The Bill passed through the House substantially in the form in which it was originally introduced. When it got to another place an entirely new set of ideas was brought to bear upon the measure. By amendment of this Bill, with a certain idea behind it, it was sought to constitute a new Government authority to deal with pensions. Here, again, I am not dealing with the merits of the proposal. It may be right or it may be wrong to set up a new Government Department to deal with pensions, but I shall submit to the House when the time comes that you cannot set up a new Government Department by amending a Bill which was framed upon the voluntary basis. The whole scheme and system of the Bill is not adapted to that purpose. If the House desires, and if Parliament desires to have a new Government authority to deal with, pensions, that authority must absorb the existing authority. We cannot have a Government Department at Chelsea administering pensions with considerable latitude and a Government Department under this Bill also administering pensions and dealing with the same people, and likewise with considerable latitude in dealing with public money. We shall have public money flowing out at every tap, and we shall have no co-ordination between the authorities who will be in the position of spending public money. Again I say, whether it is right or whether it is wrong, it is not relevant to my present purpose. My present purpose is to state to the

  1559
  House that, in the opinion of the Government, the purpose which was intended to be carried out in another place cannot properly be carried out by amendment of this Bill.
  If we are to have a Government authority you ought to start with the intention of having a Government authority which will deal with Chelsea and deal with Greenwich, and set up one large authority which would have the whole control of the question of pensions. As I have said, I think on the whole if we had time there was more to be said for that scheme than for any other, and reconstitute the whole of your existing pension authorities. I do not think personally we have the time, and I do not think the scheme could be dealt with by the different authorities satisfactorily at the present moment. That is the argument which convinced the Committee of which I was a member, and I still adhere to it. I think the course we proposed was the right course, namely, to establish a voluntary authority which, so far as is necessary, will be assisted by Government Grants but which will not look to the annual Votes of this House for its ordinary expenditure. Having said so much, I should like to say that when the time comes we shall propose to ask the House to accept a number of the Amendments made in another place which are minor improvements of the Bill, and we shall ask the House to disagree with the main Amendment which reconstitutes and renames the statutory authority and strikes out all association with the voluntary side and makes the authority a complete Government authority. There are one or two Amendments which have strengthened the position of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and those I should be only too ready to ask the House to accept. I think though they go a little too far when they ask that the Board should have power to delegate to any district or local committee, whether appointed for any particular locality or not, any of its powers or duties under the Act. That is carrying the principle of recognition a little farther than I think I can ask the House to accept, and I shall accordingly move the rejection of that Amendment. But the other Amendments which invite the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the new committee to have due regard to representation are Amendments which I think the House may reasonably accept.
  1560
  With this explanation I would ask the House to take a few days to consider the whole question and make up its mind upon three alternative courses, and, as I hope, having made up its mind, accept the proposals of the Government. Recapitulating the three alternatives, they are, first, the withdrawal of this Bill altogether and to start with a new Bill which would deal with the whole question of pensions, including Chelsea and Greenwich. That is a course I cannot recommend, as I do not believe the work could be well done under existing circumstances. The second course is to accept the Amendments made in another place and to set up a new Government Department dealing with identically the subject matter which two Government Departments are already dealing with. That is a course which I also cannot recommend. The third course which appeals to me is to restore substantially the Bill into the condition in which it stood when it left this House and establish what is primarily a voluntary organisation assisted by Government Grant, and when we have got experience of its work to look forward at a later date to a new big Bill when we have more leisure and opportunity which will absorb all the functions of the pensions bodies.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that it is not the intention to accept the Amendments passed in the other place which affect the principle underlying this Bill. So far as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is concerned there was a definite statement made when the matter was under Debate in July by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board who was then in charge of this Bill, that so far as this Fund was concerned it was simply to be advisory and not in any way to interfere with the constructive work of the statutory Committee which was to be the governing body. Therefore I think the other place was under a misapprehension as to the constitution and powers of this Royal Patriotic Fund, because if they were going to interfere with the work of the statutory Committee I am quite certain the Members of the House of Commons would not have accepted that body as part and parcel of the advisory committee to this statutory Committee. That is really how I understood the matter was left. The other place now proposes certain Amendments. Having regard to the fact that the Government propose to strike out some of the

  1561
  Amendments which are affecting the principle of this Bill, then so far as some of us are concerned I think we are all prepared to accept the suggestion which the Chancellor has made and to adjourn the discussion of some of those minor Amendments which do not affect the principle and pass the Bill practically as it stood when it left the House of Commons. When the matter was under discussion on 18th November when it was proposed to set up a Pensions Committee, the Colonial Secretary, who first suggested that the Committee should be formed, stated that the wishes of the House of. Commons should exercise direct influence so that a representative Committee should be appointed. If the House of Commons is the body to have the direct influence then those Amendments which have been passed in the House of Lords have really struck at the very principle underlying this Bill.
  We have had circulated this morning to the Members of the House a report of the working of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for the County of London. I am not going to deal with the report, but I should like to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will examine the constitution of the committees which are working London he will find that they contain the very vicious principles to which we object. If the right hon. Gentleman should like a practical or definite statement with regard to that, I should be very pleased to make it when the Amendments are under consideration, because I have a strong objection myself to the manner in which these committees are appointed. They are selected from one class of the community and there are the very vicious principles which we strongly object to, and for those considerations I am very glad the Chancellor is going to strike out some of these Amendments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not delay the consideration of those Amendments, the matter is very urgent. I am receiving daily letters and having interviews in my Constituency asking me when these pensions for dependants are going to be made. We are informed they cannot be fixed until the committees are set up, and therefore I trust that the further consideration of these Amendments will not be delayed beyond Thursday of next week. I understand that the Finance Bill must be under consideration upon Tuesday and Wednesday, and I hope that the Lords Amendments will be considered on Thursday.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: There will be little objection in the House to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the consideration of the Lords Amendments should be deferred for a few days, but I think there will be less satisfaction with, the suggestion that we should reject the main Amendment of the House of Lords. So far as my colleagues and myself are concerned, we incline to the view that that Amendment improves this Bill. It is another instance of the House of Lords, attempting to get thorough Parliamentary control. The proposal of the Government is to reinstitute a charitable body to administer funds which in part are State funds. Surely that in these days is a vicious principle to find forthcoming even under a Coalition Government. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, I understand, has not raised a penny from charitable sources since 1903, and I believe that as recently as two years ago it had to come to the State for assistance. I think there was a suggestion two years ago that they were in a position in which they ought not to be, and an appeal was made for some amount of State assistance. When this Bill was introduced it may have been the case that only pensions of a supplementary sort, to be found in the main by the charitably disposed, were in view. Under such circumstances a statutory body, drawn principally from corporations, such as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, might have served the purpose. The scope of the Bill, however, has been enlarged, and now includes the duty thrown on the statutory body of taking care of disabled soldiers in the matter of training and employment. That is a most important work, and the statutory body will have to concern itself with some thousands of men. I am not at all sure that a body so constituted as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is a proper body to deal with the training and employment of thousands of disabled soldiers.
  I believe the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that there should be considerable funds forthcoming from the Prince of Wales' Fund. The Committee of Management of that Fund, so my information goes, is not disposed to find the funds which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to receive from that source, and I am in agreement with that decision. Following on that decision, it is obvious that more funds must be found by the State. I doubt whether anyone in this House will say that the care and training

  1563
  of the disabled soldier is a matter which should be divorced from State duty and control. This surely means that we cannot allow such an important work to pass into the hands of any corporation which will be outside the complete control of this House. That was the intention of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Bill will remember that I moved an Amendment with a view to securing that a full and complete report should be made directly to this House. When this House parted with the Bill the report of this great statutory body was to be made as a kind of annexe to the report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, as though this important statutory body was a mere subsidiary body to that corporation. That ought to show to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as we on these benches are concerned, the Bill as it left the House was not satisfactory.
  The great work of caring for the demobilised able-bodied soldier must be linked up with the work of caring for the disabled soldier. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may tell us that there is not time, but there must be time for the preparation of a scheme for dealing with the demobolised able-bodied soldier. Sir George Murray's report is quite explicit on this matter—that you must not divorce the work of training the disabled soldier from the work of the training and employment of the demobilised able-bodied soldier. I foresee the possibility, or it may be the necessity, of linking up these two classes of work. Imagine the linking up of the work of the training and employment of the demobilised soldier with the work which it is proposed shall be done by the statutory body. Is it not perfectly clear that this must be a Government care, and not the care merely of charitably disposed organisations, no matter how efficient, or how well-disposed they may be? Having regard to the possibility of an extension of the functions, the necessity indeed for that extension, and the clear evidence that you must not separate these functions, in my view the argument is unanswerable that this is a work which must be under the direct care and control of Parliament, and that therefore the body shall be one set up by the Crown acting through Ministers. For these reasons I think the House will be well advised in resisting the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should disagree with the main Amend-
  1564
  ment of the House of Lords. To reconstitute this particular organisation and place it in a superior position to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and similar bodies will do those bodies a grievous injustice, and give them a setback in their work. It would be better to place all these bodies on an equal footing, inviting them to send their most representative people to take part in the work of the statutory body, constituted in the main by the Crown, and under the ægis of the Treasury, with someone on the Front Bench constantly to answer the questions which will inevitably arise in the administration of the large funds that will be under its control. It is quite clear that to accept the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to go back on the best traditions of the House and on those canons of democratic control to which we ought to adhere.
  Colonel YATE: I wish to express my great regret at the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) in depreciation of the good work done by the various committees of the London Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association—remarks which I consider most uncalled for and utterly unjustified.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I said distinctly that I was mot going to criticise their work. It is not that; but I do strongly criticise the constitution of these committees, and I will give my reason if the hon. Member wants it.
  Colonel YATE: I did not understand that, and I am glad to hear the explanation of the hon. Member. As regards the work of these committees, no one can say a word against it. As to their constitution, the secretaries and presidents are mostly ladies, and the work done by them constitutes a debt which can never be repaid. I thought it was a most unjustified remark which the hon. Member made in depreciation of the work done by the ladies concerned. With reference to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not quite understand which Amendments are to be withdrawn. Is Clause 2, Sub-section (3), the one that is to be withdrawn, or is Clause 6 to be withdrawn as well? The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so general that we have no information to go on as to what the actual proposals of the Government are.
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: I do not wish to cover the ground taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldstone), with the greater part of whose speech I entirely agree; but I gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to leave out the power of devolving the functions on existing organisations. I hope that that will be reconsidered. I have no doubt there will be many local organisations perfectly willing to do the work, and I am equally sure that there are a large number of people who are entirely unwilling or incompetent to do it. They have not the time to do it, hut are perfectly willing to entrust the work to the local charitable authorities, which are doing it for them, as they think so well, at the present time. Under these circumstances, it would be a great mistake to strike out of the Bill this power, which, after all, the local authorities need not exercise unless they think fit to do so.
  Mr. CURRIE: I wish to make two practical suggestions. The first is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since he attaches great importance to the element of voluntary support to this fund, should bear in mind that anything he does to weaken the position of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association will very likely end in a diminution of the amount of private benevolence towards the fund. The second is that anything he does to damage the association will probably land the Government in very serious difficulties in the actual carrying on of the work in the meantime.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I have been requested by members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to ask the Government to consider whether they could not allow that association the right under the Bill of appointing somebody to act as their representative. We all know the admirable work which they have done in the past, and we may be quite sure that that work will in the future be excellent in itself and thoroughly acceptable in all parts of the country.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

MUNITION WORKERS.

  HOUSE RENTS INCREASED.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. YEO: Some two days ago I drew the attention of the House to the question of the raising of rents. At the request of the Minister of Munitions we put off the discussion until this evening. I desire to express my regret at the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's absence to-night, and I am sure we all hope that he will soon be restored to health and strength. I know there are in every part of this country good and bad landlords. Whilst I say that, I should welcome with joy the privilege of signing an order to-night to commit one or two of those that I know to the Tower of London. I warn the landlords in this House that their action in raising rents at a time when this country is engaged in a life and death struggle, when the noblest and best of her sons are giving their life's blood to defend hearth and home from German horrors, to defend their wives and children, and also the wives and children of the landlords, is wrong. Many of the landlords, in order to show their appreciation of the excellent work that the soldiers are doing in the trenches, have sent notices saying, in effect, "We are proud of you. You are fighting to keep us from the German invasion. To show our appreciation of what you are doing at the front, we have decided in your absence to raise your rent 1s. a week, or to turn your dependants into the street." I suggest to-night to the Government that not only should a strong word come from the Front Bench, but that a small measure should be brought in to make it less possible during the War that our gallant men and their wives and children should be worried and harassed by the landlord at this stage whilst the men are away from home. I also want to warn the House and the landlords that, in my opinion, this kind of thing is going to sow industrial discontent and unrest. It will not end whilst the War is on. I do not desire to defend those tenants who do not want to pay the rent for the houses in which they live. I am not here to champion their cause. But I am here to say that it is unpatriotic for the landlord to increase the rent of houses in order, as

  1567
  he says, to pay the Budget taxes. That is what he is doing. It would, I think, be a good thing if in this country we could start an anti-rent campaign, similar to the one they had in Ireland some years ago.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The No Rent League.
  Mr. YEO: I know it would take some doing—a lot of doing in London. London is the most apathetic part of the kingdom when the Londoner has to consider his own interests. There are many things in which he is not interested, and this matter of rent appears to be one of those things, and one of which the Londoner has to be reminded. The men and women of this country are being urged to economise, to save. They are paying more for their tea and tobacco, and various kinds of things to help the Government, and the country, to carry the War to a successful conclusion. I have scores of letters in my hand showing how many landlords appreciate what Tommy and Jack are doing—whilst they are sticking their "bobs" on the rent. If this House does not consider it a duty to utter some protest I think the people themselves ought to take the matter into their own hands and show the landlords the way they should behave. Apart from that, look at the trouble already existing in the munitions areas—in Glasgow, Partick, Tooting—
  An HON. MEMBER: And Birmingham.
  Mr. YEO: Yes, and Coventry, and a number of other places. The Minister of Munitions is urging all these people in the various districts to work their hardest and play their part, and then there comes along the landlord, the man who loves his country—
  Mr. THORNE: Not the bleeders, surely?
  Mr. YEO: Well, the man who desires, as much as any one of us in this House, to have his property protected and his wife and children kept from injury by German bullets. I ask the House: Do hon. Members think that what they are doing is "playing the game"? I know hon. Members snigger and laugh, and even on my own side ridicule the matter when one gets up to talk on a subject like this. Let me remind them I care not for them or any one else. I shall do what I think right in this House so long as the Speaker does not call me to order. I hope they understand that? I am not going to get up here
  1568
  and be laughed at and made a fool of. Seeing there is no increase in the rates of many of the districts, and that many of the boroughs have reduced their rates, and have taken off 2d., 3d., and even 4d. in the pound, what justification can the landlord show at this time for putting up the rent of these women whose husbands, fathers, or boys are at the front, saving from the German invasion the lives and property of those who are now asking them to pay 1s. and 1s. 6d. a week extra rent? I have read it in a book in this House that "modern oppression is mostly financial." That is perfectly true. Let me quote John Bright:—
  "We should be careful lest we put upon the people that which they will be unable to bear, and which will cause them one day to break out in a revolution against the Authorities of this country."
  We ought to have Fair Rent Courts in this country to prevent the arbitrary raising of rents and the capricious eviction of the workers or weekly tenants. I have protests from tenants from all over the Kingdom, who have been warned in this fashion:—
  "We beg to give you notice to quit, and to deliver up possession of the house and premises, No. so and so, you occupy, on or before Monday next, if you are not prepared to pay 1s. a week increase."
  There are also notices like the following served upon the tenants:—
  "In consequence of the extraordinary demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to meet the enormous expense of the War, we are reluctantly compelled to revise the rent of our houses."
  In one of the streets to which a notice of this kind applied twenty-nine men have gone to the Front. They have forfeited the enjoyment of home and the fellowship of their wives, children and friends, and are sacrificing all. What for? The house does not belong to them. They have gone to protect the wives and children, and the landlords are so short-sighted that they cannot see what they are losing by endeavouring to turn out and put into the street the dependants of these men. There are, I know, in this country many kind and generous landlords. But I think that those landlords who have decided to put on these increases are short-sighted, narrow-minded, have not the best interests of the country at heart, and are not going about in the best way to show the men at the Front their appreciation of what they are doing. I ask these people that they will not agitate and worry the tenants by increasing their rent, if they do not want to see a scene of discord and discontent, and if they want to show their appreciation of the men of all classes who have united and are doing their part to

  1569
  bring the War to a successful conclusion. It is "up to" the landlords to show their patriotism by at once withdrawing the notices to the tenants. Failing that, I appeal to the Government to see whether it would not be possible to at once bring in a short measure, if only for the time of the War, to prevent landlords putting on these extra rents.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I endorse all that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said about the men who have gone to the front, but I want to draw the attention of the Government to a case in which they are personally interested. Those of us who represent areas where munition works are being carried on know that at this moment we have huge influxes of population that have to be housed. I hope when we get a reply that we shall have—and I believe we shall—a statement of some of the things which the Government is doing to meet the difficulty. In many cases, however, the landlords—I do not say all—are serving notices upon the tenants to get them out of the houses. The hon. Member who has just spoken mentioned the fact of rent being raised a 1s. per week. I hold in my hand official notices that have been served by a man—and this man represents a whole district—in Erith. The first notice served was on 3rd December, 1913, which said:—
  "I have received instructions to give you notice to determine your tenancy of the house you occupy, and which you now hold at a rental of 9s. 6d. a week, and to inform you that as from that date the weekly rental will be 10s. 6d. if you decide to remain on."
  That was the notice served in December. One might possibly think that that would have met all the requirements of the landlord, but I hold in my hand another notice served upon the same tenant. These are the munition workers—men who must reside in the areas if the Government is to have the work they desire turned out. This notice is dated 19th September, and stated that the agent has received instructions from the landlords—I suppress the names, but I can give them if they are desired—that as from Monday, 27th September, the rent of the house occupied will be 12s. weekly, if the tenant desires to remain, etc. Therefore the House will note the rent has been raised from 9s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. and within comparatively a few months further put up to 12s. If the tenant pays, as he is paying at the present that 12s. per week, unless something is done, there is no reason, having been successful in the case of the two previous notices, that before very
  1570
  long another notice will be served putting the rent up still higher. Ejectments are being moved for in that district, and in the neighbouring places of Dartford and Crayford. I am glad to say the magistrates and the County Court judge have declined to turn out the tenants on the ejectment order. In some cases they have postponed it, and I wish to mention the action of County Court Judge Parry in particular. I have here a letter sent me a couple of days ago from one of these cases where ejectments had been moved for and the County Court judge had declined to eject. Of course the man was a munition worker and had been in the house some time and paid his rent. The landlord cannot get the ejectment order and he serves a notice on the man to raise his rent, not 1s. a week—that is too modest: a bagatelle—but to raise it from 8s. to 12s. per week, so that as he cannot get possession of the house to raise the rent one way, he will, by a heavy increase in the rental, get it in another way. I think these cases are of a most striking character.
  There is no need to labour the question and to give an innumerable number of cases as one might do. What the House and the Government have to see is that these people, already overcrowded, unable in many cases to get houses, should not be treated in the manner they are being treated. Many of them have come into the localities at the demand of the Government. We have in places along the Thames, where the demand for munition work is great, tens of thousands of extra persons coming into those localities. I therefore most earnestly press upon the Government to take this question in hand, and I feel confident that if they will do what is necessary, even resorting to legislation, if it is requisite, they will be doing a great thing in order to get the work that they desire turned out, and they will be relieving a large number of people from the stress that they are now put under by these notices that have been served upon them.
  Mr. BARNES: It is somewhat of a sad, melancholy reflection to my mind that the Government have only just begun to take a serious view of this question of the rents, when rents have begun to take some effect upon recruiting. They have been urged time and time again, I should say right away, from almost a year back, to deal with this question upon its merits but hitherto they have followed a policy of

  1571
  masterly inactivity. I remember, on the 10th February last, I called the attention of the Prime Minister to a declaration made by the president of an association—I think it is called the Householders' Association of Glasgow, or someting of that sort—which had been made on 14th January. The declaration was to the effect that now was the time to raise rents, since people were getting accustomed to the rise in prices. I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the statement, and he did not agree with me as to the full significance of it, but he said that if it were borne out by events, or if I could bring forward any concrete illustration, showing that that policy was to be given effect to, then the matter would have the serious consideration of the Government. In consequence of that statement by the Prime Minister, a week or two later, I put a question down to the Secretary for Scotland. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here. I ventured to give to him privately a concrete example of that policy having been given effect to. It was in the form of a letter which will stand repetition. The letter is from a factor, and is as follows:—
  "Dear Madam:—The Government having increased the tax on property by 1s. 3d. in the £ for the present year. I beg to give notice that I am obliged to increase the rent of the house occupied by you to £21 per annum."
  The rent hitherto had been £19 per annum. I know it has been said recently, in extenuation of the rise of rent, that there have been increases in the cost of material and in wages, and generally speaking in the cost of building houses, more now than a year ago. That is perfectly true. But here is a glaring case, before there was any large increase, at all events in wages or cost of material, where, on the admission of the man himself, he intends turning over the burdens placed on him and his class in common with other classes of the community, on to the already overburdened tenant, and, probably, as my hon. Friend said, make a profit even upon the increased burdens that have been put upon him and thrown by him on to other people. I returned to the charge later. I have been putting questions from time to time, and so far there has been nothing except the Prime Minister's reply to me less than a fortnight ago that they were still watching and awaiting events. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo) in having more success than I have in inducing at last the Government, through
  1572
  the instrumentality, I believe, of the Minister of Munitions, to take the view of these cases which ought to have been taken long ago.
  I want to call attention to one or two glaring cases. I have in my hand a sheaf of notices issued to a number of tenants occupying one block of houses in Glasgow. The rents of these houses had been at the rate of £13 16s. per year. There are forty-two of them. Here are the identical notices served on each one of these tenants in one of the poorest districts of Glasgow, and the tenants are given notice that on and after 28th August the rent is to be raised to £3 14s. 9d. per quarter, which I find comes to £14 19s. per year, and I would not be at all surprised to find that the fact of it being 1s. under £15 had some significance so far as the landlord's pocket was concerned—probably the assessment. But the refinement of cruelty comes in the last paragraph of these notices. It says:—
  "Notices of removal should reach us not later than 30th July, 1915."
  Observe, these notices are dated 27th July, 1915. Probably they would be posted on the night of the 27th July, and therefore they would reach these tenants on the 28th, and these tenants are given notice that if they are not willing to pay this increased rent they are to give notice that they are to clear out, if you please, and this is to be given by the 30th, which is two days later. Just imagine the plight of these poor people! This block of houses is situated in Hillfoot Street, in the east end of Glasgow, and therefore in a poor residential district. But I know that many of the men living in this block of houses are travelling away to the lower reaches of the Clyde, are travelling six or eight miles the other way, are travelling to Paisley and various other places outside, and only get home at the week-end. I am putting the case of the husband and father who is still at home and in a position to maintain his family. For him it is bad enough, and the probability is that his poor wife will get the notice when he is away, and probably before he comes home at the week-end his wife, by actual default, not being in a position to say whether they are going to leave, only two days' notice having been given, from the very fact of her still being there at the week-end, would be liable to pay this increased rent exacted by the landlord. I say that is a scandalous state of things—a state of things which this House should not in any way encourage,

  1573
  but, on the other hand, ought to do something to discourage. But how about the case of the poor woman whose husband is away at the Front? I have been told to-night of a demonstration in Glasgow—there have been a good many demonstrations—but there was a demonstration, I am told, in which some thousands of poor women trudged from Partick, in Glasgow, to the Town Hall with the inscription on their banner:—
  "Our husbands are fighting Prussianism in France, and we are fighting the Prussians of Partick."
  Nothing, I think, could more convincingly illustrate the position in Glasgow during the last twelve months than that inscription on their banner. Their husbands and their sons have been pouring out their life-blood to defend this country, to defend the property of the property owners of this country as well as the homes of the people, and while they have been doing that, and laying down their lives, these unscrupulous landlords come along and take advantage of their necessity.
  I am going to give more cases. Hitherto I have dealt with Glasgow only, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland has been good enough to ask me to put the cases of some others of more general moment, and the first is from Wolverhampton. It is that of a woman named Mrs. McLoughlin, the wife of Lance-Corporal McLoughlin. She has seven children, and rents a house at 66, Granville Street, Wolverhampton. She is now threatened by ejectment by the landlord's agent, who has the suggestive name of Mr. Fibosh. Mr. Fibosh has given this poor woman, whose husband is now fighting for his country at the front, notice that she is to clear out of the house unless she agrees to pay an increase of 1s. per week on a weekly rental of 5s.—that is, unless she pays 20 per cent, increase on the present rate she is going to be evicted. The woman says she is willing to pay 6d. a week more, in spite of the fact she has had some illness in the family, during which she went back with her rent, and she has not recovered from that illness yet. She knows that moving from her cottage will incur expense, and in order to avoid that expense she has offered to pay another 6d. per week to Mr. Fibosh. I made a little calculation in regard to the Glasgow case with its block of forty-two tenants, and I find that if all these poor people pay the increased rent the rental from that block of houses will rise from £578 to £630—that is to say, the landlord of that property
  1574
  nets out of the needs of these forty-two poor tenants an additional £52 a year, which is probably enough to cover all his increased taxes, although he is not subjected to a single halfpenny more expense for increase of wages or cost of material. I think I have now said enough about the Wolverhampton case, which I think is quite strong enough. In this case the poor woman was willing to pay another 10 per cent., which is probably enough to pay the increased charges put upon the landlord, but nevertheless she is threatened with eviction if she does not pay another 10 per cent. Let me now read an extract from a letter which has been received from Plymouth by the hon. Member for Sunderland. Of all places Plymouth ought to be saved from anything of this sort. I have had experience of Plymouth, and so have many of my hon. Friends. We know it is a town filled with good, loyal trade unionists, which has sent thousands of men to the front, and has always sent the best of its sons. The letter says:—
  "There seems to be a general movement in this direction as though by agreement. I have enclosed a copy of a notice which has been served on a tenant from which it would appear that there is a systematic movement on the part of landlords to avail themselves of the present dearth of houses in order to force up rents. Inquiries in the slum area of Vauxhall Street, reveal the fact that an additional 6d. per room is being charged to the persons residing there, who are mainly persons employed on the quays in a district where labour is mostly casual."
  In Bristol there has been an increase of between 6d. and 1s. 6d. In Chatham, a place similar to Plymouth where there is a general scarcity of houses, there has been a general increase in rents. Coventry, which is full of munition workers, with an increased population of 30,000 or 40,000, has experienced an alarming increase in rents, and even the rents of municipal houses have risen to 6s. 6d. per week. In East Ham the present considerable rents are being put up 1s. per week to all new tenants. In all these places the poverty of the people does not protect them. There is a general tendency to raise rents and there are no empty houses. I will read a letter which I have received from the Rothwell Urban District Council:—
  "Referring to your circular upon the housing of the working classes, my council made closing orders for two houses which were beyond repair. The occupants replied that they could not find any empty houses in the district to which they could move. My council had an inspection made, and the inspector reported that there was practically no such thing as an unoccupied house in the district, consequently the rents had been increased from 4s. 6d. to 6s. 6d. a week."
  I conclude by supporting the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo) that something should be done

  1575
  and done speedily in this matter, because this condition of things is having a bad effect upon recruiting all over the country. People are sick and tired of being asked to make sacrifices and being talked to about equality of sacrifice when all the sacrifice is being put upon their shoulders and others are getting off scot free. Unless something is done there will be trouble. We want men to come forward in sufficient numbers to fight and win this War, and I warn the Government that if something is not done to stop this scandalous abuse there will be a still further slackening of recruiting.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I propose to deal with this matter more especially as it affects Scotland, and in view of the cases put forward on this and other occasions by my hon. Friends who are my colleagues in the representation of Scotland. The question raised specifically in connection with munitions will be dealt with by my hon. Friend who represents the Munitions Department. I think it will be agreed that the circumstances are not altogether ordinary circumstances, and that gives justification for the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) that this matter should be considered carefully, and that it ought to be treated rather as a temporary and emergency matter. In this view I am very much disposed to agree with him. No doubt an emergency has occurred on this question, because the men engaged upon munitions have been aggregated in certain districts. In Scotland one of the districts most affected is Glasgow and its adjacent towns, where undoubtedly you are creating an artificial condition of affairs which rather justifiy the Government in treating the matter as one of emergency, and dealing with it for the period of the War. I have had a number of applications and letters. I have some here which raise this question from the other point of view and which put cases of hardship also from the other point of view, and they must be considered. The landlord, if he is a person with a very small margin, is undoubtedly in a position of difficulty at the present moment in many cases like Glasgow. He may, for example, have to pay an extra half per cent, interest on his bonds, and possibly the interest has been raised by 1 per cent. His cost on repairs is undoubtedly higher, and I think the House
  1576
  will agree that the matter is one of some complexity. Therefore I propose to appoint a small and impartial Committee to inquire into this matter promptly and rapidly. The House will probably agree with me when I say that my own inclination is to make the Committee very small, and not to attempt to represent any interests upon it. I wish to appoint impartial men who are not interested in this matter one way or the other who will furnish me with accurate and impartial information. I think I may be able to get them to deal first of all with the district of the Clyde in Scotland. For that reason I propose that this Committee shall apply to Scotland only as the most rapid way of dealing with the matter.
  Mr. THORNE: What are we going to do in England? Are we going to be bled all the time?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sure my hon. Friend will not be at all surprised if I reply that I find Scotland quite enough to occupy my energies, and England, the predominant partner, I am sure, will be able to speak for herself. I am stating what we are prepared to do in Scotland, where this agitation first arose, and where it is very acute.
  Mr. FIELD: This agitation first arose in Ireland.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin says that is so, I at once accept his statement. I hope that the factors and owners in Scotland, after what has been said, will withhold their hand. I know that the sheriffs of Scotland have postponed a number of cases in the Clyde district, and I think they have acted very reasonably. At the same time I should like to say that I am glad to see that a decision has been come to that in Glasgow, at any rate, rents will not be raised in the case of soldiers' wives, and I hope that view will extend further south. We all feel that this must be dealt with as an emergency matter. At the present time provisions which might be very unacceptable in ordinary times of peace may be accepted now by the House generally. I hope that we shall have a cessation of this trouble for a short time, and that there will be a satisfactory settlement. I am not altogether without hope that the result of this action on the part of the

  1577
  Government may be that the house owners will take a reasonable view of the situation and see the unwisdom of raising rent during this time of national emergency.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The House will understand that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) is more acutely interested in this matter where it affects munition areas, and it is for that reason particularly that he welcomes the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. McKinnon Wood) into matters on the Clyde, because from the information at our disposal, whatever other causes of unrest there may be in that district, we are satisfied at all events that this is a contributory cause and should be cleared up as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend also hopes that the invitation which has been extended to householders generally to defer action in this matter until the Government's policy is more clearly denned in this country will be acted upon, because we recognise the difficulties with which householders are faced in munition areas, and we are doing our best by a scheme which would be quite undreamed of in times of peace to deal with those cases which are of the most pressing kind in munition areas. We have now instructed the officers of the Ministry throughout munition districts to collect complaints of the nature mentioned here to-day. Those complaints are now being collected, they will be returned to the Ministry, and when we have a clearer vision of what they actually amount to and how extensive they are we shall be better able to determine what is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo), if I may say so, would have rendered us a little more assistance if he had given us or forwarded to us rather more of the evidence on which his complaint is based.
  Mr. YEO: I will give the hon. Gentleman hundreds of cases to-night; they are patent to everybody.
  Mr. BARNES: I have already sent hundreds of cases to the Government.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am speaking particularly of the munition areas, and we welcome evidence.
  Mr. THORNE: I will give you the copy of a letter sent from Canning Town.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am dealing with the steps the Ministry of Munitions is taking to deal generally with this question, and I think the House will recognise that we are not lacking in zeal in dealing with it as far as we are able to do so. In the first place, as far as possible, we put our new factories in districts where there is an existing population which will be able to supply both the skilled and unskilled labour without requiring additional accommodation. I could make a statement on the size and the extent of the different factories and the population of workers which we expect will be required, but the figures might be somewhat misleading, because if you were to say, for example, that the extensions in Sheffield required so many thousands of workers, it would not follow that all those would be brought in from somewhere else. As a matter of fact, the scarcity of skilled labour is such that it is quite impossible to expect that we shall be able to bring in from other places all this mass of workers. We must, to a great extent, obtain the workers by spreading those who are already there. The total number of workers required in any particular factory does not necessarily indicate the total of those who will require to be housed.
  Then, by the aid of the Local Government Board, we have conducted an inquiry into every area where there is an extension of munition work. These cases we find fall into two classes. First, there are those in which, entirely apart from the extension of munitions works, there is congestion at the present time, such as at Woolwich, Dartford, Coventry, and other places. It is quite evident, therefore, if you have a munition factory in a munition district where apart from that factory there is pressure on the existing accommodation, you are more justified in providing additional permanent houses than in a district where there is not likely after the War is over to be any increased pressure on the present available accommodation. It is obvious that in some cases we really need, in order to meet the situation, a considerable increase in the permanent houses. In some cases temporary accommodation will suffice. In other districts, I am glad to say, such as the Dartford district, which my hon. Friend mentioned, we can to a considerable extent meet the present emergency by making use of many existing buildings. We have now taken steps in that district to requisition a considerable number of institutions and other places,

  1579
  and we shall, I hope, in a satisfactory way thus provide accommodation within a very short time for a very large number of workers without additionl buildings, and do something to remove the present congestion. In places like Coventry and Sheffield, where there is at present pressure upon the existing housing accommodation, we have in every case invited the co-operation of the local authority. I am glad to say that in these places schemes have already been arranged, entirely apart from any temporary accommodation, for the provision of a considerable number of houses by the local authorities. That is the case in those places to which I have alluded, as well as in many others. We have made arrangements with the local authorities in these places on these lines. The Ministry of Munitions recognises that where additional housing is provided for munition workers it is quite a fair thing that the Ministry should make some contribution to the extra cost over and above the pre-war cost. We have come to an arrangement with the local authorities that we will make a contribution towards the extra cost the War has involved, and they will then obtain a loan in the ordinary way.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any limit to the contribution?
  Dr. ADDISON: I would rather not mention the figures. Of course, we do not contribute anything towards the cost which they would have expended, say, in July before the War. We are only concerned with the extra cost.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are you going to pay the 40 per cent.?
  Dr. ADDISON: I would rather not give the figures, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press me to give the details of the arrangements. We are making a satisfactory contribution towards the extra cost. We have to provide a great deal of temporary accommodation. The Ministry is directly responsible for its provision. There is to be in Sheffield, in addition to the permanent scheme, a very large scheme for the provision of temporary houses, and I am glad to say that they appear to be of quite a picturesque and satisfactory kind, whilst at the same time, considering the difficulties of the situation, being fairly cheap. We have
  1580
  appointed a costs and accounts department, whose sole business will be to see that all the costs are checked, and that the Ministry of Munitions gets what it pays for. I perhaps might give one or two details in the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. There is at Coventry, for instance, a scheme for the provision of 600 permanent houses, and the reason for that is that Coventry is already congested. Then the Coventry Garden Suburb Society are also providing an additional 120 houses. There is, in the case of Glasgow, one scheme which has been adopted in connection with one of the large firms whereby 6,700 additional houses will be provided, and there is another scheme for the provision of 150 permanent houses at Moss End.
  Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he is going to do to stop the rents being increased at the present time?
  Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend must see that if we provide additional houses, say in Coventry, for 45,000 workers, it will at all events greatly relieve the pressure.
  Mr. THORNE: That will be six months hence.
  Dr. ADDISON: Oh, no; they will, I hope, be provided before Christmas.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will that reduce rents already raised?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am only dealing with the matter from the point of view of the munition areas. We have now set up machinery for collecting information throughout the whole of the country, and the legal position is being explored. It remains to be seen whether it results in any practical proposals. I would direct the attention of the House to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday: "The Government would not hesitate, if necessary, to ask Parliament for any powers to deal with the situation." I think that is a fairly complete and extensive commitment, and I am quite sure that he will act up to his promise. You must ascertain the facts and see what they really amount to before you formulate your proposals.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman take some practical steps where ground rents have been raised from 1,000 per cent.

  1581
  to 1,800 per cent., and where ejectment orders hang over tenants, to see that evictions do not take place?
  Dr. ADDISON: We can only deal with the matter from the point of view of the munition areas.
  Mr. THORNE: If it were a question of workers going away from work, you would deal with them pretty soon.
  Mr. FLAVIN: We will deal with them in Ireland.
  Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend will see that active steps are being taken to deal with this matter. There is no doubt what-
  1582
  ever that by these schemes we shall certainly, in the more crowded areas, provide accommodation for the workers required in the factories, and to a great extent relieve the pressure upon the existing accommodation.
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.
  Adjourned at Eight o'clock till Tuesday next, 19th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

WAR.
  NATIONAL BUILDINGS.
    PROTECTION AGAINST ENEMY AIRCRAFT.
    PROTECTION AGAINST ENEMY AIRCRAFT.
  FINANCE (No. 3) BILL.
    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (PROFITS).
    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (PROFITS).
    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    INCREASE OF PERCENTAGES (BOARD OF REFEREES).
    INCREASE OF PERCENTAGES (BOARD OF REFEREES).
    POSTAL RATES.
    POSTAL RATES.
  TREASURY BILLS.
  TREASURY BILLS.
  AMERICAN LOAN.
  AMERICAN LOAN.
  WAR STOCK (TRANSFER BY DEED).
  WAR STOCK (TRANSFER BY DEED).
  NAVAL ORDNANCE GUN WHARVES (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  NAVAL ORDNANCE GUN WHARVES (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  ARTILLERY AMALGAMATION.
  ARTILLERY AMALGAMATION.
  THIRD LINE DEPOT.
  THIRD LINE DEPOT.
  COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS.
  COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS.
  COMPULSORY SERVICE.
  COMPULSORY SERVICE.
  ESCAPED PRISONERS.
  ESCAPED PRISONERS.
  HOME DEFENCE.
  HOME DEFENCE.
  MENTALLY INJURED SOLDIERS.
  MENTALLY INJURED SOLDIERS.
  RE-ENLISTMENT.
  RE-ENLISTMENT.
  MILITARY HOSPITAL, PEMBROKE DOCK.
  MILITARY HOSPITAL, PEMBROKE DOCK.
  ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT.
  ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT.
  CATERPILLAR TRACTORS.
  CATERPILLAR TRACTORS.
  FORCES LANDING AT SALONICA.
  FORCES LANDING AT SALONICA.
  SERVICE BATTALIONS (PROMOTION OF OFFICERS).
  SERVICE BATTALIONS (PROMOTION OF OFFICERS).
  PERMANENT COMMISSIONS.
  PERMANENT COMMISSIONS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS.
  FARM LABOUR.
  FARM LABOUR.
  FIGHTING NEAR LOOS.
  FIGHTING NEAR LOOS.
  STEEL HELMETS FOR TROOPS.
  STEEL HELMETS FOR TROOPS.
  GALLIPOLI (CASUALTIES).
  GALLIPOLI (CASUALTIES).
  OPERATIONS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
  OPERATIONS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
  MILITARY GREATCOATS.
  MILITARY GREATCOATS.
  OFFICERS' PAY.
  OFFICERS' PAY.
  FODDER PURCHASES.
  FODDER PURCHASES.
  HAY PRICES.
  HAY PRICES.
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (EXPENSES).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (EXPENSES).
  RATION ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
  RATION ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
  LOST UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT.
  LOST UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT.
  RIFLE BRIGADE (PRIVATE ALBERT HART).
  RIFLE BRIGADE (PRIVATE ALBERT HART).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PARCEL DELIVERY).
  MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PARCEL DELIVERY).
  LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ECONOMIES).
  LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ECONOMIES).
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (SICK LEAVE).
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (SICK LEAVE).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (EMPLOYMENT).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (EMPLOYMENT).
  NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY.
  NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY.
  Tobacco Cultivation (Ireland).
  Tobacco Cultivation (Ireland).
  Sugar Prices.
  Sugar Prices.
  Inland Revenue Affidavits.
  Inland Revenue Affidavits.
  University Scholarships (Ireland).
  University Scholarships (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum.
  Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum.
  Local Government Board, Ireland.
  Local Government Board, Ireland.
  Eustace Estate, Grenanstown.
  Eustace Estate, Grenanstown.
  Cocoa Imports.
  Cocoa Imports.
  Outdoor Relief.
  Outdoor Relief.
  Food Production.
  Food Production.
  National Insurance Acts (Ireland).
  National Insurance Acts (Ireland).

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland—Report of Proceedings for the Year 1914 under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, the Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Act, 1909, the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, and the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907: Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Munitions of War—

1. (Controlled Establishments)—The Munitions (Ordering of Work) Regulations, 1915, dated 9th October, 1915;

2. (War Service Badges)—The Munitions (War Service Badges) Rules, 1915, dated 9th October, 1915:

Post Office (Money Orders, Inland)—The Postal Order (Inland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, 1915, dated let October, 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE BALKANS.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the House will remember that my noble friend behind me, Lord Haversham, at our meeting on Tuesday, expressed the hope that a statement on foreign affairs might be made in this House concurrently with that which has just been made by the Secretary of State in the other, and that desire of his was enforced by speeches from other noble Lords. Accordingly I am prepared to make a few observations. But before doing so I desire to express the hope that those remarks may not lead to anything in the nature of a regular debate on the situation. There are particular reasons which make it undesirable that, such a debate should take place at this moment. The position, as your Lordships are well aware, in South-East Europe at this moment is one of crisis and difficulty, and although one might be sure that no noble Lord in this House would say a word which in his belief could make that crisis more acute or add to that difficulty, yet a mere discussion or any attempt to place an interpretation upon a statement made by Ministers is liable—we cannot deny it—to create some possibilities of misapprehension, not only here at home, but in other parts of the world. Although, of course, we do not for a moment dispute the right and the duty of Parliament to discuss and, if necessary, to criticise the action of the Foreign Office in all matters, yet we do feel most definitely that at this moment such a discussion and such possible criticism could hardly be of service to the cause which all noble Lords have at heart, and might be productive of actual mischief.
It is obvious to us all that the situation has been gravely modified during the last few weeks by the adhesion of Bulgaria to the cause of Germany and Turkey. The collocation of Bulgaria with Turkey might be calculated to cause something like mirth to a cynic, but it can only cause profound sorrow to those who remember all the sacrifices, the hopes that have been entertained, and the ideals that have been indulged in during the last five-and-thirty years of the history of Bulgaria. It is necessary, my Lords, to recall to your recollection the circumstances, dating from the very first days of the war, when Serbia became a prominent and active figure in the struggle against the Central Powers. Ever since then the Allies have been pre-
1046
occupied by the situation which was left in South-East Europe by the settlement of 1913. I use the word "settlement"; but the settlement of 1913 in its results was unsettling. The Treaty of Bucharest left Serbia without any direct access to the sea, which is what she most desired and stood in need of; it left Bulgaria profoundly discontented by the outcome of the second Balkan War; and it left Greece nervous as to what the future might bring forth on her northern boundaries.
We, the Allies, all through have had in our minds and have cherished the hope of the promotion of Balkan union. And I may say here that the State of Rumania, although not strictly speaking one of the Balkan States, has shown herself prepared to play a part, even at some sacrifice to herself, in promoting that Balkan union. Our guiding principle, as is well known to everybody in this country, has been as far as possible to encourage the principle of nationality in Smith-East Europe. Where the inhabitants of a district, whether by origin, whether by language, or whether by faith, appeared to belong in the main to one of the great racial divisions of the Balkan Peninsula, we have desired that that territory should be added, where possible, to the State representing that race. That in itself is surely a worthy object, and whatever criticism may at any time be directed against our conduct of foreign affairs, I cannot believe that the Government or the Foreign Office will ever be found expressing repentance fur having endeavoured to carry that idea into effect, or for trying to promote to the best of our power the independence of the several Balkan nations and to foster feelings of mutual friendship among them.
The obstacles and difficulties, of course, have been and are enormous. Take, for instance, the country of Macedonia. In Macedonia there are Moslems—and in this connection it is important to note that although there is, of course, a Turkish race, yet Islam is not a matter of race, but is an ecclesiastic polity altogether independent of racial origin—there are many Bulgars, there are also many Albanians, there are Greeks, there are a certain number of Valachs, and in Northern Macedonia there is a preponderance of Serbians. Add to this mixture of races the historical claims to the possession of particular districts advanced by one or another, dependent often upon past contests and bygone

1047
victories; add the custom which obtained for a number of years of a wholesale migration of peoples according as the ruling power of a particular district or neighbourhood changed; add also the fact that in some cases large bodies of people have been assimilated through conquest to a race to which they do not themselves belong; consider further that faction fighting and border raiding have entered into the normal life of the country for hundreds of years past—and we can then appreciate what the difficulties are of bringing about an agreed settlement of territorial acquisition either in Macedonia, which I have taken as an instance, or in many other parts of the Balkan Peninsula. Further than this, again, each country has been unwilling or unable to depend upon the prospect of obtaining its desires at the conclusion of the war, but has felt itself dissatisfied by anything short of immediate actual occupation of at any rate part of what it has coveted. It is indeed hard, my Lords, bearing all these things in mind, to reach a conclusion of the kind that we have desired—namely, that of a Balkan agreement founded upon some interchange of territory, some sacrifices to be made by each country in turn, hard sacrifices in not a few cases—but yet, as I have already said, we do not repent of having worked our hardest in that direction. There has been on the part of not a few of the countries a hearty desire to surmount those difficulties and to make those sacrifices.
Let us now look at the other side, and at the ideals that are held by those to whom we are opposed. It is easy to see from what I have said that there are a number of cards, which might seem to be winning cards, in the hands of those who are playing a precisely opposite game to ours; or, to use a different metaphor, that those who have desired not to sow seed for a harvest but to sow tares find, in South-East Europe, a soil favourable for their enterprise. Germany, Austria, and Turkey, for ever so many years past, have gone to work in precisely that opposite way. Their object, their purpose, has been not to unite but to divide the Balkan States. They have gone on the bad old principle of Divide et impera. We all remember the operations of the ex-Sultan, Abdul Hamid, in that direction, and the heirs of his power have proved themselves not lees adept and not less enthusiastic in the same sense. It has also been the regular purpose of the Austrian Government, and if possible even more of
1048
the German Government, to promote dissension and not union in South-East Europe; and now we have to note, with regret, that Bulgaria has taken her part in the same enterprise, and is prepared, apparently, to play an active part in it. We did not originally assume that Bulgaria was or need be hostile to us in the first instance. Were we wrong in refusing to make that assumption? I do not believe that we were, and I do not believe that even now, if the real opinion of the people of Bulgaria could be taken, they desire to be hostile to the Allies. But it is not only true, as has often been said, that people get the Government which they deserve, but they must be assumed to support the acts of the Government which they actually have; and, therefore, on the people no less than on the Government must rest the responsibility for those acts and also the consequences which may follow them.
And now, my Lords, we see Serbia subjected to third invasion. She defeated the first invasion by Austria in the quite early days of the war. Austria withdrew from what she described, as a punitive expedition, which had resulted in heavy loss to herself without inflicting any punishment to speak of upon Serbia. Then I am sure we all maintain fresh in our memories the story of the second Serbian invasion, when no less than seven Austrian army corps, after penetrating some distance into the country, were hurled back with immense losses in the field and in prisoners, when that Austrian Field Army was practically broken up, and when the events of the first fortnight in December last produced one of the finest chapters, not merely in this war, but in any war that has ever been fought in any part of the world. Now Serbia finds herself confronted not only by a third Austrian invasion, but by a number of German troops, with Bulgaria hostile on her flank. In those days, at the time of the second invasion, it was notoriously and physically impossible for us to render aasistance to Serbia, and we could do nothing but express our admiration of her wonderful efforts.
Now it is important to note the attitude and the purpose of the Greek nation and the Greek Government in view of obligations which she has towards Serbia. The exact interpretation of those obligations has been made by Greek public men in and out of office. Their speeches can be

1049
read in newspapers, and it would serve no useful purpose to say anything on them here. But I may, I think, venture to paint out this—that from what I have just said of the different objects entertained by us and our Allies and by the Central powers and Turkey, it must be concluded that the interests of Greece are precisely identical with those of Serbia. It has been our desire so far as possible to assist in maintaining those interests, and with that purpose we sent as promptly as we could such material help as Was available in the from of a contingent of French troops and one of British troops, which were disembarked at Salonika. Your Lordships will remember that the Greek Army was mobilised—perhaps almost necessarily mobilised—after the Bulgarian mobilisation, and when the first contingent of Allied troops arrived at Salonika the Greek Government entered a formal protest against their landing there. But as they have continued to disembark, facilities for that continued disembarkation have been given, and the reception of the force on Greek soil has been such as we could have desired. This need in no way be marvelled at. Greece and Serbia are united by a Treaty, and, Serbia now being assailed by Bulgaria, to grant facilities for the Allies to give such help as they could to Serbia could scarcely be unwelcome to Greece. As you will have seen from the newspapers, we have been acting throughout in military concert with France, and so soon as the co-operation of a Russian force is available, that will be forthcoming.
As regards the future, I think I cannot do better than quote textually some words which have been used this afternoon by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons. My right hon. fend said—
"The military measures that are best adapted to meet the requirements of the new situation in the Near East are the subject of continuous attention by the military authorities of the Allies, and will be taken in closest consultation with each other. It is not in my province, and if it were it would not be expedient, to make any public disclosure of military plans. I can only say that they will, we believe, be based on principles of sound strategy."
I do not desire to add a single syllable to that statement by my right hon. friend. But in conclusion I would merely say this,
1050
that this untoward event of the adhesion of Bulgaria to the cause of Germany and Turkey, and this renewed attempt to crush Serbia before a marked change can take place in any theatre of the war will only serve to make sterner and fiercer the determination of the Allies to carry through the war to a definite conclusion of absolute victory, whatever the time needed for that may be and whatever the cost. We feel most distinctly, my Lords, that nothing has occurred in any part of the world to weaken that resolve, and we will maintain that resolve to the end.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I think my noble friend the Leader of the House will feel that he has given great satisfaction to your Lordships in making the statement with which he has just favoured us. As my noble friend has complied with the request which I ventured to make on Tuesday, I will now do my best to comply with request which he makes to me and to other noble Lords—namely, not to enter into debate. I have no desire to do so. I see the impropriety and great inconvenience of entering upon anything like controversial or debating ground. But I would point out to my noble friend, in passing, that in other Chambers not very far off I mean in France—very great freedom is allowed, and arguments are used there with great frankness and plainness. Therefore the objection of my noble friend is not altogether weighty, but I gladly comply with his request, all the more because I feel sure that by and by—it may be very soon—if any noble Lord here wishes to raise the interesting points—historic, diplomatic, economic—which my noble friend has come near to, the noble Marquess will do his best to give an opportunity for such a discussion.
My noble friend called this new Serbian campaign and the Balkan alliance with Germany which produced it "an untoward event." I think it is much more than untoward. It is the opening of a new set of military operations. It may be not only an untoward but an extremely momentous event; and my own crude expectation is that it is only too likely to prove so. I wish to say this one thing which I believe is present—my noble friend did not touch upon it—to everybody in the country. People are asking themselves—I confess I ask myself—whether, by adding a Balkan campaign to our operations in France and

1051
to the enterprise, however it is to be called, in the Dardanelles, we are not by this proceeding dissipating and dispersing the military forces which we need to achieve effective success in what is, after all, say what you will, the decisive field—I mean the Western front. People are likely to ask what is the use of anxious language about inadequate recruiting on one hand and the setting up of a new, vast, and unmeasured demand on the other.
I am very careful not to ask a single question the answer to which might be of use to the enemy or a breach of confidence with our friends; but I wish we could have heard, first, what is the number of the Allied forces that are to be used in this Balkan campaign; secondly, what are the terms of Russian co-operation; thirdly, what are the terms of Italian co-operation; and, lastly, whether anything could have been said to us as to the prospect of Rumanian and Greek adhesion, because everybody can see that the adhesion of those two Balkan Powers would make an enormous difference in our military situation. I am not going to say more now. I hope I have not abused the opportunity which I asked the noble Marquess to give us, and if anything more can be said from the Front Ministerial Bench I, for one, should be grateful.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I am certainly not going to say one word by way of initiating discussion on this subject, but I should like to ask a question, prefacing it by saying that if there are any good public reasons for not answering it I have no wish to press for a reply. What I should like to ask is whether anything definite is known as to the terms that Bulgaria has made with Germany. It has been stated definitely in a Greek newspaper which is understood to represent the views of M. Venezelos that a definite Treaty was made last July between Bulgaria and Germany, and that the terms of the Treaty involve practically the extension of Bulgaria at the expense of Greece and Serbia—in fact, almost the wiping out of Serbia as an independent State. If anything is known on this point I should say that in the general interests, and particularly in those of the Greek population, it is very desirable to give it the utmost publicity.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I fear that I cannot give the noble Earl any precise information on the subject of
1052
his question. He has stated with perfect accuracy that a statement has been made of the existence of this Treaty between Bulgaria and Germany. I have also seen it stated that the Bulgarian Government say that no such Treaty exists of the kind which has been mentioned. Therefore for the present, at any rate, it is the word of one set of people against the word of another. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl any more information than this. It is undoubtedly the well-founded belief of a large number of well-informed people that an agreement of that kind does exist, although its precise terms have, of course, not been in any way made public.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: MY Lords, the noble Marquess has made a very interesting statement, and has asked us in the public interests not to comment upon it. I am sure that every one in this House will respond to that desire, and for myself I will not say one word upon the subject of affairs in the Balkan Peninsula. But as regards the remarks of the noble Marquess, there is one observation I should like to make. We are not allowed much criticism of the Foreign Office or of anything. Only a few nights ago my noble friend Lord Strachie tried to raise a discussion on the management of the affairs of the country by the Foreign Office, and the noble Marquess asked him to refrain, which naturally he at once did. In times like these, when we are asked not to speak we remain silent. But I would say this to the Government, when time after time they deprecate criticism, that there is only one thing that can justify it, and that is success.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, I desire more or less to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord who has just sat down with reference to abstaining from criticism. The appeal made to us to-day by the noble Marquess cannot be gainsaid, but I think we are entitled to ask whether his request does not have a limited application. We should be foregoing entirely the functions of Parliament were we to abstain altogether from criticism of the momentous affairs that are occurring, and for myself I certainly reserve my right to raise or to take part in a discussion on this matter upon an occasion that will not be embarrassing to the Government, as I understand would be the case were we to develop the statement made by the noble Marquess into a general

1053
debate at the present juncture. What I fear in connection with this abstention from debate is that this policy of repression will be carried to such an extent that sonic day it will end in an explosion. The public mind is becoming alarmed. It is disappointed, of course, as is the Government itself, as the noble Marquess has admitted, in connection with affairs in the Balkans; and if discussion is to be repressed time after time I think the situation, not only as regards the public itself but as regards public men, or some of them, will get out of hand. I hope that all that the Government desires is that we should abstain at this particular juncture, and that it is not expected of us that we should continue to forego our rights of criticising and asking for explanations regarding a situation that is causing us much concern.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks which have just fallen from the noble Lord opposite. I am sure the noble Marquess who leads the House will presently rise and tell its that the Government have not the least desire to escape criticism, and that at the proper time, the time when it will not be injurious to the interests of the country, they will be prepared to welcome debate and full consideration of all their actions. It is only at this particular juncture that debate is undesirable and may be mischievous. The war has lasted for fourteen months, and I cannot remember any juncture during the whole fourteen months in which I have not heard something of the same kind. Debate is always unwelcome.
I want to know what we meet here for in the present circumstances. We do not meet here for legislation. If there is any object in our meeting at all it must be one of two things, either information or counsel; either to obtain information that one may be enlightened, and the public may be enlightened, about affairs of the greatest moment, with regard to which we are all feeling the deepest anxiety, or else that suggestions may be made here which may be of some use in the future conduct of national policy. If it is not one or other of these objects for which we meet, we might all be better employed somewhere else. May I be allowed to say, without appearing to indulge in carping criticism, that if we came here to-day for information, noble Lords who are enlightened in the
1054
sense of information of any kind that has been communicated to us to-day must have been curiously ignorant of the state of affairs in South-East Europe, must have abstained for a long period from reading their daily newspapers. Obviously we did not derive from the statement made in this House more information than we already possessed. I think the modicum of information here vouchsafed to us represents something less than that which is possessed by any intelligent person in the country who has tried to follow affairs. I remember that on the last occasion that I listened to a Government statement in this House I was almost tempted to make the same remark. I am sorry now I did not do so. It was on the occasion when a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for War gave us a review of the position of affairs especially from the military point of view. As far as a statement of facts was concerned this was belated, and so far as a forecast was concerned it has not at any rate yet been verified by results. We are not here to get any information—that is evident. We do not get any. Then are we here for counsel? It is very difficult to make any suggestions in face of appeals like the one made to us to-clay by the noble Marquess. And yet I cannot entirely abstain front commenting upon one or two points in the situation.
I am not vain enough to suppose that my advice will count for very much, but I should like to give expression On this occasion, and before it is too late, to certain considerations and anxieties which to my mind, and to the mind of many people in this country, are worthy of the attention of the Government. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, pointed out the anxiety with which we cannot help regarding the possible opening of a new and possibly large campaign at a time when our resources are strained to the uttermost to keep up the campaigns in which we are already engaged. There is another point in that connection which seems to me to be of even equal moment How about the enterprise, as the noble Viscount calls it, at the Dardanelles? It is very difficult and delicate question to discuss, and I fully admit that no man can form a really sound opinion upon it without possessing knowledge of many details which must be known to the Government, but which certainly are not known to me, and probably are not known to other noble Lords. I am not

1055
attempting to say what is the right policy to pursue in that matter. What I am sure about is that there is no time to be lost in deciding what policy is to be pursued; and while I do not attempt to touch upon the strategic situation, may I be allowed to refer very briefly to arguments which I have heard so frequently and in quarters so authoritative that I cannot help thinking they must be weighing to some extent on His Majesty's Government and yet are arguments which in my humble opinion appear to be extremely dangerous.
To speak quite frankly, I should have thought that whatever evils had resulted from the disastrous developments in the Balkans there was at least this advantage, that it might have given us an opportunity which may never recur of withdrawing from an enterprise the successful completion of which is now hopeless. There may be, I will admit, reasons known only to His Majesty's Government why that course cannot be pursued. I do not want to press for those reasons, but when I hear statements that it would be a terrible thing to abandon our Dardanelles adventure because this would have so bad an effect in Egypt, in India, upon our prestige in the East, I cannot help asking myself whether it will not have a worse effect if we persist in that enterprise and it ends in complete disaster. These are considerations which really ought to be urged at a time like this, and if any one says to me, "Oh, yes, but what a terrible thing it is to refer to these possibilities," I must say, my Lords, that I do not think any harm is done by frankly facing a situation of that kind, even in a public speech, especially when the discussion is raised by a person in my position, not occupying any official position, not representing an official Opposition, a mere "wild man" in politics, if I may use a common expression. I feel deeply the delicacy of the situation and the difficulty of dealing with these matters, but I feel also that we have gone on too long living, so to speak, from hand to mouth in the conduct of our policy and in our strategy in this war, and that a fearful responsibility rests upon us now—upon those who have been silent for months, though often doubting whether they were justified in being absolutely silent—if there is anything we can say which may lead to the Government taking a decided line while there is yet time, and we do not say it, and matters drift on and afterwards we have cause to regret our silence.
1056
I have only one further remark to make. The noble Marquess reviewed the difficulties of the Balkan situation. I fully appreciate the difficulties and the obstacles, as he described them, which confronted His Majesty's Government in their policy. I think we also fully appreciate the good intentions by which the Government were animated. But it is really very difficult not to feel some disappointment in the result when we consider what the cards were which the two parties which have been struggling for supremacy in Balkan policy respectively held. After all, if you take the independent States of the Balkans—Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria acid Serbia—they had all reason to fear our enemies, every one of them. Germany, Austria, Turkey alike were States the hostile, the evil, intentions of which towards the independence of one or all of the Balkan States were calculated to make their advances be regarded with the greatest suspicion. Whatever the difficulties of our position were, we had this immense advantage, that we were not regarded by any one of those States as possible aggressors. We had a clean sheet, a clean record, especially of late years, in our relations with them. We had befriended them. We could not be suspected of having an axe of our own to grind in the Balkans. It does seem disappointing that when we started, no doubt with great difficulties to contend against, but with that great advantage, we should find that one after another of these States are falling away from the Power which of all others had the best character from their point of view and had the least bad record in the past where they were concerned, and are gradually drifting away into the orbit of the States whom they would, in view of the past, naturally regard with the greatest suspicion. We cannot discuss the details of this unfortunate development. We do not know them. We can only judge by results. The results are profoundly disappointing.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the speech to which we have just listened is, I venture to think, not a had illustration of the inconvenience which is bound to result from the kind of discussion which is taking place here to-night. That speech is remarkable above all for this—that my noble friend, speaking with all his great weight of authority, made to His Majesty's Government this notable suggestion, that they should aban-

1057
don the Gallipoli Peninsula and transfer their troops to some other theatre. I dare say I could find a great deal to say upon that subject, but my noble friend must be aware that it would be out of the question for me or for any one else who sits upon this Bench to get up in your Lordships' House this evening and, as the outcome of the calm and dispassionate review of the situation given to the House by the noble Marquess who leads it, to announce that His Majesty's Government had taken a resolve either for or against the proposal of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I never suggested it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Exactly. We are therefore put in the Lion of having to allow that notable suggestion to go by without any definite expression of opinion of our own with regard to it. But I really rose more for the purpose of saying two or three words in reply to those noble Lords who have protested—I think quite naturally—against the idea that we are in any sense to debar them from full opportunities of criticising our conduct and discussing the whole of the questions which arise in connection with Balkan affairs. We make no such claim. We quite understand that if we have made that request upon the present occasion it is to be one, as I think was said by the noble Lord behind me, of strictly limited application. We fully admit that you have a eight to raise these questions and to call upon us at the proper time for full explanations. But I venture to urge as strongly as I can that at this moment it would be most improper and unpatriotic to press us for such explanations.
Your Lordships know enough of the present situation to perceive that at this time it would not be reasonable to press us further. The present situation is novel and critical. There are new developments and new factors. The entrance of Bulgaria into the field as one of our opponents is a new and certainly a most unfortunate factor. The attitude of Greece, not yet quite fully defined, is another new factor in the calculation. But, quite apart from that, look at the military situation. It was touched upon with great force by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Lord Morley). He pointed out that in addition to our vast commitments in the Western theatre of war, and in addition to our commitments in the Dardanelles, we are now, to some extent at any rate, involved in military operations
1058
in Greece. That creates, I venture to think, a new military situation and a very grave one; and your Lordships have already been told by the noble Marquess who sits behind me that that situation is now being examined in all its bearings by the military authorities of the Allies. While that examination is proceeding, and while the strategical aspects of the case are being dealt with by those who are competent to judge of them, I venture to submit as strongly as I can that it would be most unfortunate that we in this House should pass judgment upon those incidents or attempt to reveal in anticipation what is likely to be the future conduct of the operations in which we are now engaged.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think that everybody will realise the force of the considerations which prompted the noble Marquess opposite to make the reply he has to my noble friend Lord Milner, but I trust. I may be permitted to make one suggestion. It is obvious, from what has fallen from various noble Lords this afternoon, that in these grave matters there are circumstances in which at all events there are doubts which they would desire to have removed, and that there are possibilities of their being able to give counsel not otherwise accessible to His Majesty's Government. I may be allowed to recall to your Lordships that earlier this year there have been occasions when very important points have been raised, and when the Government took refuge in a somewhat similar appeal that they should not be pressed on the ground of public interest. I refer especially, without going into the details, to certain debates which were raised in the month of January on points with which it was then earnestly desired we should not proceed, but which have since become matters of common discussion; and it is quite obvious that had they been taken up as suggested at that time a great deal of difficulty would have been saved. While fully entering into the view of the Government, I would make this one observation. What has fallen from my noble friend Lord Milner, whether it is wise for us to discuss it now or not, undoubtedly does represent an immense amount of public anxiety at this moment, and if this very difficult situation should continue I would ask whether the Government would not consider the possibility of allowing one discussion in secret session, which would at least give an opportunity—
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH indicated dissent.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Lord Courtney shakes his head. I know there are objections to that course. But you have, after all, to decide between two difficulties—either that independent members of this House must not criticise or counsel the Government at all or that you must give that opportunity of doing so in a perfectly friendly spirit without the usual publicity. It would, of course, be an innovation, and I do not press it. But I ask the Government at all events to consider whether that is not a means of getting out of a situation which certainly is one of unusual difficulty at the present time.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as has been made clear in the recent discussions which we have had on the question of Order there is no right, except by leave, to speak again when there is no Motion before the House; but as the noble Viscount has raised the particular point of a new form of debate in this House it is well that I should say a word on the general question. I might point out, what I think does not entirely seem to have occurred to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, that it always happens—it is bound to happen—that the very moment at which public curiosity is most excited, and the very moment at which either here or in another place there is the greatest keenness and the strongest desire to ask questions with a view of gratifying a quite natural curiosity, that is the very moment at which it is of necessity most impossible for the responsible Government to give the information desired. People do not now ask questions about events that happened seven, or eight, or nine months ago. In some cases there might be objections to giving full explanation even of events which occurred so long since. There might be strong military or naval objections, or possibly in some cases political objections. But, however that may be, there is no strong evident public desire to ask such questions; and the questions which noble Lords and hon. Members and correspondents in the Press desire to put are in almost all cases the questions which on public grounds it is least possible to answer.
My noble friend behind me, in making his very reasonable appeal for a general
1060
liberty of discussion, spoke of the possibility of questions embarrassing the Government. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that that has nothing whatever to do with it. There is no question of whether or not the Government are embarrassed. We do not expect any one to care whether, as a Government, we are embarrassed or not. What does matter is the effect, either abroad or at home, of discussing particular matters at particular moments. I suppose it is only possible for those who, from the offices they hold, have access to information not possessed by everybody to know what an infinite amount of harm can be done, is done, and has been done in particular cases by indiscriminate discussion, whether in Parliament or in the newspapers. The House, I dare say, is more willing to believe that in some cases newspaper discussions have done an amount of injury which can hardly be exaggerated. Far greater care is no doubt taken in both Houses of Parliament to avoid inflicting harm of that kind. But we are able to say on our consciences that a Parliamentary discussion may do at least as much injury, and in some cases it is liable to do more, because the weight that is attached to an observation by a distinguished public man is probably greater than that which attaches to a statement even in the most eminent of newspapers. And it is, perhaps, vain to repeat, because the noble Viscount opposite regarded it as something like a regular evasion, that we do not want to put a permanent closure upon discussion.
I have endeavoured to explain why it is that we have, on more than one occasion, been obliged to appeal against discussion. It is because, as I say, the moment chosen is the most inconvenient, almost by the nature of the case. As regards the proposition made by the noble Viscount opposite, we have not had time to consider the possibility of a session of either House being held in private, which would be, of course, of a totally different character from an ordinary Parliamentary sitting. But, speaking for myself, I am bound to say that the idea does not appeal to me as a feasible one. I believe that the great body of opinion in both Houses, and certainly outside, would be strongly against any such expedient. It would be merely regarded as a kind of debating society meeting, producing, I dare say, speeches of great importance and interest in themselves;

1061
but, after all, it is open to any noble Lord or Member of Parliament to bring his views not merely before the Government but before the public generally by the usual channels, through the Press or by speeches outside, to precisely as much purpose as—indeed I should have thought to more purpose than—would be effected by a private discussion of the kind suggested. And I am afraid that the noble Viscount would find, so far as the Government were concerned, that the amount of what is necessarily secret information which would be stated at a meeting of that kind would not be substantially greater than that which he is able to obtain at an open meeting of the House.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I am not going to touch upon the question of a secret session. I should shake my head to anything of that sort just as emphatically as did Lord Courtney. But I am bound to say, having listened to this debate, that I think it would require a Bernard Shaw to know what the noble Marquess meant by what he said just now. He began by stating that no questions were to be asked in this House when the situation was interesting. As I understood him, he did not mind going back to something that had happened seven or eight months ago; the Government would be prepared to give us some information about that; and we could give expression to what we might have to say about it by way of counsel. But it is no good talking about spilt milk. Discussion has been deprecated because the situation is said to be delicate. The situation may be delicate for His Majesty's Government—in fact, I think it is very delicate for them. A great many people think that things are not going well. I am certain that the Government are only putting off the inevitable day, for sooner or later these questions will have to be gone into. The noble Marquess below me was good enough to say he made no claim that no questions should be asked and no information given. I should think not. During the last few months the constant appeal has been put to the Government, "When are you going to get a little more comfortably into the saddle?" I do not agree with everything that has been said to-night, but I associate myself in principle with what fell from Lord Milner. He asked a very pertinent question. Here is a situation of great difficulty with regard to Bulgaria. You started on the venture
1062
in a light-hearted and vain-glorious way. I believe it was said that we were going to send 100,000 men there to bring in 1,000,000 men. The 1,000,000 men have been brought in, but unfortunately they are against us. Anybody who knows anything about what is going on in the Near East must see that a new situation has arisen which does give His Majesty's Government an opportunity to consider whether it will not enable them, with proper dignity and a wise regard to all the circumstances, to get out of what I believe the whole country considers—though His Majesty's Government may not—the unfortunate adventure of the Dardanelles. Of course, we cannot be given a decision now; but we all want to know whether the Government are considering anything of that sort.

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY on STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, this is an emergency Bill introduced to meet the difficulties created by war conditions in recruitment to the Indian Civil Service. As your Lordships may be aware, under the Government of India Act, 1858, admission to the Civil Service of India is confined to the avenue of an open competitive examination, and this examination is conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners under rules formulated by the Secretary of State for India in Council with the advice and assistance of the Commissioners. Since the outbreak of the war a very large proportion of the young men who were studying for entrance to the Indian Civil Service and who in the ordinary course of events would have presented themselves for examination this year and following years have felt it their duty to join either the naval or military forces of the Crown, and to-day many of that number are gallantly fighting in one or other of the various fields of operation.
In the early days of the war it was thought that to meet this difficulty effectually the extension of the age limit, which is now 24, would suffice. The age limit is already fully high, and it has beer, found with the continuance of the war

1063
that the grant of an age concession is neither suitable to the situation nor adequate to meet it. Other methods were suggested to meet the difficulty. One was the granting of service marks at the open competitive examination, marks to be awarded to the candidates in proportion to the length and nature of their service with the Forces. But after consideration both the Government and the Civil Service Commissioners rejected this method for various reasons. Amongst other reasons, it is doubtful whether legally such a method could be introduced in accordance with the 1858 Act, which lays down that only on grounds of proficiency in branches of knowledge can candidates be admitted through the open competition.
These suggested methods having been rejected, the Government have decided, in the abnormal circumstances in which we find ourselves in regard to recruitment for the Indian Civil Service, to ask Parliament to authorise the suspension in part of the statutory system of open competition for a time. We ask Parliament to do this on two grounds. Both grounds are, I think your Lordships will consider, necessary and reasonable, and I also confidently anticipate that they will be so considered by public opinion in India. In the first place we ask for power to take steps by the surest means to prevent, owing to the depletion of candidates, any deterioration in the class of officer that is to be recruited now and onwards in immediate years for the Indian Civil Service from the high standard which has characterised that Service in the past, a standard which I am sure your Lordships will agree has contributed in great measure to the high efficiency of administration in India. Secondly, we seek power to devise a method by which those who are now gallantly fighting at the Front for the Empire should as far as possible be protected hereafter from losing their careers as Indian Civil Servants owing to their patriotic action in joining the Forces.
This Bill endeavours to secure these ends, and it substitutes for the open competitive examination a qualified form of selection for not more than three-fourths of the total number of vacancies to be filled during the continuance of the war and for two years after the war has terminated. An open competitive examination will be held annually for at least one quarter of the vacancies, so that candidates who for one reason or another have not undertaken
1064
naval or military duties may have the ordinary opportunity of entering the Service. This proportion will enable a not inconsiderable number to compete, and among them Indian students at our Universities who could not, if they so desired, enter the combatant ranks of the Army or Navy. As regards the rest of the vacancies, those to be filled by selection, this selection will be carried out under rules made by the Secretary of State in Council with the advice and, assistance of the Civil Service Commissioners, and I hope this will be a sufficient guarantee to your Lordships that the power be properly and equitably exercised. It is intended— though it is not placed in the Bill, which is properly drafted in a wide sense—that the rules which will be formulated hereafter will provide that only those European candidates will be eligible for entry by selection who have rendered service with Forces of the Crown of certain length and nature. The rules will also provide that a minimum standard of education shall be laid down by the Civil Service Commissioners, and upon their advice the test by which that will be arrived at will be decided hereafter. Lastly, I would point out that in order to carry out this form of selection there will be established a strong and representative Committee.
One word as regards the effect that these proposals will have on the Indians who have hitherto entered by the open competitive examination. We are most anxious in suspending this examination, even temporarily and partially, that no injustice should be done to Indians in entering the Civil Service by this channel. Your Lordships are aware that the Indian community regard as of great importance this privilege, of many years standing, by which upon full equity of treatment Indians are enabled to enter the Indian Civil Service by a competitive examination with their European fellow-subjects, and we are most anxious, in temporarily making this change in the method of recruitment, that by no means, either this year or in the years to come, shall the Indian proportion suffer in its relation to that examination. We therefore contemplate, if with the examination of one-fourth there is not as a result the same proportion of Indians successful as has been the case in former years, that that number will be made up by selection hereafter. This is, of course, not in the Bill. But this course will be taken so

1065
that even treatment as for as possible will be meted out to both European and to Indian. I think these constitute the leading features in the rules which are in contemplation to be formulated to give effect to this Bill. They have not yet been framed, and there is no necessity for that to be done until such time as the Selection Committee has to be set up with a view to recruitment by this channel. The Civil Service Commissioners will, of course, assist the Secretary of State in Council in formulating these rules. You will see that this, of necessity, is but an imperfect and temporary method of recruitment, but I think on the whole it is the best that could be devised to meet the peculiar difficulties of the case.
To those who may be apprehensive that by this form of selection young men may be recruited to the Service who are of imperfect educational attainment, I would say with all confidence that whatever they may lose during this and forthcoming years by absence from the Universities to which in ordinary circumstances they would be attached they will more than make up in the training they will have received of those other higher qualities of character during the tremendous ordeal through which they will have passed in their connection with the Forces—qualities which I venture to believe they will imbibe and mature, and which will fit them to a singular degree for the increasingly difficult work of administration in India. If there are any points which I have not explained in regard to this Bill, which, as I say, is necessarily drawn in a broad sense, I shall he glad to give what explanation I can. I now submit the Bill to your Lordships' approval, and ask you to read it a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Islington.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I would like to be permitted to make a few remarks upon this Bill. I recognise at once that the circumstances are quite exceptional. The young men alto have been preparing at various Universities for the competition for the Indian Civil Service have answered their country's call and joined the Forces. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that many of those had spent two or three years in their preparation, and a large number of them would no doubt have succeeded in the com-
1066
petition. I think the Government of India were wise in suspending the examination for a certain time on the ground that the most suitable candidates for the Service are prevented from competing by the fact of their having joined the Forces. The object is to secure for the Indian Service a sufficient supply of competent men. I suppose that at no time within recent experience has India required the services of competent and experienced men more than it does at present, and more than, in all probability, it may do in the immediate future.
As to that aspect of the question I would venture to suggest, though the matter is not raised by this Bill, that those members of the Indian Civil Service who have been allowed to join the Forces and have been relieved of their Indian duties should at the earliest moment be recalled from military service. It may conflict with their feelings to leave the Army and rejoin their civil avocations, but in my opinion their need is far greater in civil life in India than it possibly can be in the Army at the present time. As the object of the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill is to secure a sufficient supply of Indian Civil Servants in the difficult times that are approaching, I would suggest that he should make use of this obvious means of calling to the Indian Service those who are already members of it and will be most efficient in their positions in India.
Regarding the Bill itself, I understand that three-fourths of the vacancies that are to occur during the next few years are to be filled, not by the usual method of competition, but practically by selection. That is about the best arrangement that could be come to, but the selection must be very carefully made. As I understood the noble Lord, the selection is largely to depend upon the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission came within the careful scrutiny of the English Civil Service Commission of which I had the honour to be Chairman, and by a unanimous vote we found it desirable to recommend to the Government that the Civil Service Commission stood in need of strengthening. It did not seem to us to be a body possessing sufficient authority to be entrusted with the duties which now fall upon it. If, therefore, this most important business is given over to them, I would suggest that

1067
the recommendations of, the Royal Commission upon that point should be taken into consideration by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and that he should ensure that the Civil Service Commission should for the purpose in hand be strengthened in the manner which we ventured to point out.
I am afraid that the noble Lord's suggestions as to the appointment of native members of the Service will lead to some dissatisfaction. Only one-fourth of the number in any year are to be chosen by competition. The numbers of natives will be found within that one-fourth, if any of them are successful at all. My remembrance is that in more recent years the number of natives who have succeeded in the Civil Service has been comparatively small, but I venture to think that certainly one-fourth of the original number will not afford sufficient scope for native competitors. If it does not afford sufficient scope for native competitors the noble Lord, as I understood him, suggests that the Committee of Selection will of their own accord appoint or nominate a sufficient number of native members. I venture to think that it will be impossible for any Committee of Selection to do that in England; that must be done in India, and it naturally falls within the functions of the Viceroy, who can command the best information upon that point. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord. But I would suggest that this Committee of Selection, when it deals with natives, should operate in India and not in England; it should operate in the country where everything can be known about the native applicants for appointment and where a large choice is to be found. The necessity for some such measure as this is apparent. I do not think there is anything else I have to say, but I take it that it will be open to any members of your Lordship,' House when the Bill goes into Committee to make such suggestions as may occur to them. In the meantime I beg to say that I shall vote for the Bill.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, Clause 1 of this Bill contains the ambiguous phrase which has found its way into various measures and has formed the subject of some discussion in this House—namely, that the Bill is to continue in existence "during the continuance of the war." In this particular Bill there is, I think,
1068
less objection to that phrase than in any other. But when the subject was mooted on another occasion by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn and by myself, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said the matter would be considered and he hoped to be able to tell us soon what had been decided. I should have liked to ask the noble Marquess whether anything has been clone on the subject, but as he is not now in his place I will not press for an answer to the question. As to the proportions referred to in the Bill, can the noble Lord tell us on what they have been formed? Three-fourths seems to be a rather large proportion. Perhaps he can tell us why that particular proportion was fixed.
LORD ISLINGTON: The proportions of one-fourth and three-fourths will be of the whole of the vacancies that will exist when the recruitment takes place. It is impossible at present to say when that recruitment, by selection will take place. It may be found in the first year that there will not be a sufficient number of young officers back from the Front who at the same time would be eligible to enter the Indian Civil Service. The one-fourth and the three-fourths will be based upon the whole number of vacancies that there will be as a result of the war, or possibly two years after the war. I do not think I can at the moment make the point any clearer to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CROMER: The words are "not less than one-fourth." It would therefore, I take it, be possible to have more than one-fourth appointed by competition. One-fourth presumably is the minimum?
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes, I think that one-fourth may be regarded as the minimum. My noble friend Lord Mae Donnell raised one or two points which I should like to answer, otherwise there might be a misapprehension. In regard to his proposal that officers should be called back, I may say that those who have been sunder probation this past year and who have either just passed their examination or are in process of passing their final examination number thirty-nine, and there are only thirteen who have joined the Forces. Some of those have joined the Territorial regiments out in India. I may say here that of the thirty-nine who have gone through their probation at the Universities,

1069
a large proportion, I am given to understand, were very anxious to join the military or naval forces but were restrained by the Government on account of the importance of sending out, as far as possible, the full number to India to enter the Service. The noble Lord indicated in his speech that he understood from me that the selection would be done by the Civil Service Commissioners. If I gave that idea, it was cncous. The civil Service Commissioners will assist the Secretary of State in Council in establishing the educational qualification but the actual selection will be carried out by a representative Selection Committee appointed for that purpose.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

EGYPTIANS AND THE ALIENS ORDER.
THE EARL OF CROMER THE EARL OF CROMER rose to ask whether the Statement that has recently appeared in the Press to the effect that Egyptian residents in England are treated as alien enemies is correct.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, about a year ago some discussion took place in this House as to the treatment of Orientals who were alien enemies. I pointed out at the time that I thought it very undesirable that Egyptians should be treated as Ottoman subjects, though of course technically they were. I considered it extremely desirable from a political point of view that everything should be done that was possible to separate the Egyptians from Turks. But nothing was done at the time. That was, I believe, because the Government were in possession of information that a Protectorate would shortly be proclaimed in Egypt. As a matter of fact the Protectorate was afterwards proclaimed, and though I am not lawyer enough to say whether the fact that the Protectorate was proclaimed makes all Egyptians ipso facto British subjects I can conceive that that may be the case, and that makes it politically even more desirable that no distinction should be made between Egyptian subjects and British subjects.
On December 22 last year the Home Secretary issued through the Press Bureau a notification that "now that the suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt is terminated. Egyptians cease to be alien enemies." I certainly therefore thought the whole thing was settled. But I saw a
1070
letter the other day written to The Times by an Egyptian Copt with whom I am not personally acquainted but whom I know by reputation. He says that Egyptians in London have just received a Metropolitan Police Notice stating that—
"Turkish subjects of military age (17 to 55 are now liable to internment. If therefore, you do not obtain exemption from the Home Secretary, your internment will take place shortly."
I should like to ask whether that statement is correct. I very much hope it is not; but, if it is, all I can say is that there must have been some serious blunder, and that it is another instance of what has been so frequently heard of lately—namely, a want of unity and co-operation amongst the various authorities of the Government.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the apparent explanation of the circumstance to which my noble friend has drawn attention is that on the fourth of this month instructions were issued to the Metropolitan Police to proceed with the internment of Ottoman subjects and owing to some mistake, which has not yet been explained, Egyptians have, in consequence of those instructions, been in some instances served with the notice mentioned in the letter to The Times to which my noble friend referred. Thus mistake, the exact extent of which has not yet been ascertained, has now been corrected by the issue of a new Memorandum which I will read to the noble Earl.
On the twelfth of this month the following Memorandum was issued—
"Referring to the Memorandum of the 4th instant as to the internment and deportation of alien enemies, it is to be noted that Egyptians, as described in the Memorandum of December 22 last, are, not subject to internment or repatriation and are not to be served with notices."
Between the date of the Declaration of War with Turkey and the issue of the Proclamation of the Protectorate Egyptians were treated as ordinary alien enemies, but after the proclaiming of the Protectorate these instructions were, of course, altered. Further instructions were issued with regard to this point, and if in any case they have not been attended to it is, as I have already explained, owing to carelessness or a mistake on the part of the Police.
My noble friend on a previous occasion pointed out the obvious absurdity of

1071
treating every technically Ottoman subject as an enemy, and in that everybody who has a most rudimentary acquaintance with the East will, I am sure, fully agree with him. As a matter of fact I have taken a certain amount of interest in this question myself for some time, and I am glad to be able to assure my noble friend that there are very few Ottoman subjects interned at the present moment in this country. Such Ottoman subjects as are interned consist almost entirely of sailors and stokers who have been taken off ships and who are in a destitute condition. In January of this year Syrians, Greeks, and Armenians who had received certain Police certificates under the Consolidated Aliens Restriction Orders have not been interned and have been informed that there is no necessity to apply for exemption. As regards other Ottoman subjects who have appealed for exemption, they, in almost every case, have been exempted from internment upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. That Committee has in very few instances indeed recommended internment, and if they have done so it has only been for some special reason. I might add that most of these applications were from Jews established in this country, and whenever a Mahomedan applied for exemption his application was treated with as much consideration and leniency as in the case of the others. I am able to speak with a little authority upon the question of the consideration with which these men have been treated, because the Advisory Committee to which I alluded did me the honour of referring certain cases to me—a large number, in fact—and I satisfied myself, so far as my investigations
1072
could carry me, that in every case these men were treated with complete consideration.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his very full reply. It is clear that a blunder was committed. I am glad it has been rectified and I hope it will be publicly known, because as it stood the matter was likely to be misunderstood and cause discontent in Egypt. What has occurred confirms the view which my noble friends and I took, that these matters of dealing with Oriental races should not be left to Chief Constables and others, but that they should have advice from those who are better acquainted with the subject than themselves.
LORD NEWTON: That has already been done; but I hope that the fact of my noble friend having put this Question will draw attention to the manner in which this subject is being generally treated by the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, as there is nothing on the Paper for Tuesday next, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Wednesday next, October 20.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.