Sitting of 14 September 1915

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on Thursday, 29th July—met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1915–16 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Sum required to be voted for Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 329.]
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1915–16).
Estimate presented of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 330.]
WAR CHARGES.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 19th July; Mr. Molteno]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 323.]
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Copy presented of Regulation, dated 27th August, 1915, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 31st August, 1915, granting a Retired Allowance to Richard Percy Armstrong, Officer, Liverpool, Customs and Excise [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IMMEDIATE LIFE ANNUITIES.
Copy presented of Table showing the sum for which an Immediate Life Annuity of £1 will be granted under the provisions of the Government Annuities Act, 1882 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 11th August, 1915, made by the National

3
Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Exempt Irish Migratory Labourers' Benefits) Regulations, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 331.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 14th July, 1915, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Employment tinder Local and Public Authorities) Exclusion Order (Scotland), 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 332.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
Copy presented of the Unemployment Book (War) Regulations, 1915, made by the Board of Trade on 20th August, 1915, in pursuance of Section 91 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
Copy presented of Sixth Annual Report of the Port of London Authority for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Seven Orders in Council, dated 18th July, 1915, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copies presented of Two Orders in Council, dated 12th August, 1915, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 20th August, 1915, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACTS.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 28th July, 1915, entitled "The Bahrein (Amendment) Order in Council, 1915" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Two Orders in Council, dated 12th August, 1915, under the Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the University of Oxford on 25th May, 1915, and sealed on the same day, amending Statute IV., Section 1, paragraph 3, Clause 4 (c) of the Statutes of the University [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 334.]

MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals in Ireland made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, by the Lord Lieutenant, as far as relates to offences, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals, made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, by the Secretary for Scotland as far as relates to offences and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Rules, dated 29th July, 1915, made under Section 8 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, by the Minister of Munitions as to Badges [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports (Annual Series Nos. 5461 to 5463 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 72) Warrant, 1915, dated 11th August, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Twelfth Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 19th August, 1915, amending the Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Copy presented of Amending General Orders, dated 28th July, 1915, for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 335.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 11th August, 1915, with reference to certain classes of Shops in the city of Aberdeen (excepting Woodside Ward) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 24th August, 1915, with reference to certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Port Glasgow [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) for the year 1913–14 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 336.]
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Medway Conservancy,—Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 31st March, 1915 [by Act];

2. Supreme Court (Rules),—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 12th August, 1915 [by Act];

3. Copyright (British Museum) Act, 1915,—Copy of the British Museum (Delivery of Books) Regulation, 1915 [by Act].

NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
Third Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 328.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    ADDITIONAL TAXATION.

      SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state when he will introduce his proposals for additional taxation?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I hope to make my Budget Statement early next week.

    WAR LOAN VOUCHERS.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of sales of 5s., 10s., and £1 vouchers?
    Mr. McKENNA: The sales of scrip vouchers for 5s., 10s., and £1, and of scrip certificates for £5 up to 4th September, the latest date to which statistics are available, are estimated at not less than £2,473,500, but this figure will require revision as the returns are not yet complete. Separate statistics for the respective denominations of vouchers and certificates are not immediately available.
    The above figure does not, of course, include the applications for stock certificates received through post offices or banks which amounted by 4th September to £30,614,000.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make a statement in regard to the continuance of the investment of these small sums?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot at the present time, but I shall be prepared to make a statement later.

    INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what organised efforts are being made to utilise the labour and services of such interned alien enemies as are willing to do work in the making of munitions or other remunerative industrial work?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No organised effort has been made to employ aliens as distinct from true prisoners of war. My hon. Friend will probably be aware that aliens cannot be forced to work. They are, however, in some cases, employed locally, as in the erection of huts at Eastcote and the Isle of Man, but there is little money available for expenditure by local authorities on road construction and such work. Aliens are also employed in some cases on hay-making, tailoring, shoe-making, clerical work, and on repair work under the direction of the Royal Engineers at places of internment. For this work they receive payment. It has been suggested, I believe, that there is some prohibition by the German Government against interned aliens undertaking work, but I know no foundation for such suggestion. Subject to the limitations I have indicated, there is every desire to make use of the time and labour of interned aliens in every possible way. The proposal to employ aliens upon the production of munitions of war would not, I apprehend, find general favour either in this House or in the country; and in any case it would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. KING: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the efforts which are being made by our Allies to utilise the labour of prisoners in a productve way, and has he made inquiries of the Foreign Office or through the usual channels that we may profit by their experience?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, all those matters have been taken into consideration and we have made those inquiries, and I have indicated in my answer that we are endeavouring to utilise the services of prisoners in the manner suggested.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many female alien enemies have been repatriated; how many have been granted exemption from repatriation; how many, if any, have been interned;
    8
    and what lines have been followed in dealing with the property of repatriated persons?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): From 14th May to 10th September inclusive, 4,460 female alien enemies over the age of eighteen and 2,924 children under the age of eighteen have left the United Kingdom. Separate statistics as to the sex of the children have not been kept. Up to the 13th September, 3,176 female alien enemies have been officially notified that their applications for exemption from repatriation have been granted. In a large number of other cases the Advisory Committee has recommended exemption, and these are being dealt with as quickly as possible. No women have been interned as prisoners of war. Arrangements have been made by which, on application being made, property in this country belonging to an alien enemy who is returning to her own country can be placed in the custody of the Public Trustee.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary if he will say what lines have been followed in dealing with the property of interned alien enemies; whether in any camps interned persons are allowed to purchase clothes, books, meals, or other things from outside; whether any money or cheques or cheque books are permitted to interned alien enemies; and whether he can say whether British policy in these matters is on similar lines to the treatment of the property of British citizens interned or otherwise resident in Germany and Austria-Hungary?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The property of interned persons remain theirs, subject to the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order in regard to prohibited articles such as motors, cameras, etc. The purchase of clothes, books and other things from outside is allowed subject to censorship and supervision. Money is required to be deposited with the commandant or in a camp bank, and may be drawn upon as needed; cheques may be drawn for reasonable purposes, but cheque books must be in the custody of the camp authorities. Judging from the information available, British policy in these matters is more lenient than that in force in Germany or Austria-Hungary.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are these interned alien enemies allowed to get English gold

    9
    and, if so, would not notes be good enough for them? Are they allowed English sovereigns?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should think not.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we show more leniency in this country than we are shown in Germany?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think we can take Germany as a standard.

    TOTAL ARMY CASUALTIES IN TWELVE MONTHS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is able to give the casualties for the first complete year of the War; and whether the War Office have yet determined any means by which further casualties shall be announced at regular intervals instead of being elicited at irregular intervals by question and answer?
    Mr. TENNANT: The practice which has been indicated as desirable in regard to statements of total casualties has been to give them from time to time when the exigencies of the military situation permit, and not at regular intervals. There are still objections to making periodical announcements of the aggregate casualties; and my Noble Friend considers it desirable that discretion should be reserved to the Government as to when such statements may be made. Subject to the above remark, I may inform the House that the total casualties for the first year of the War—i.e., up to 21st August—are as follows:—

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    Killed; Died of Wounds, etc.

    4,965

    70,992

    Wounded

    9,973

    241,086

    Missing

    1,501

    53,466

    16,439

    365,544

    Total

    381,983

    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between the Expeditionary Force in the Mediterranean and the Army on the Continent?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot at the moment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will put a question down.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT (LONDON) CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what decision, if any, has now been reached in respect of the suggested transference of the Anti-Aircraft (London) Corps from the Admiralty to the War Office?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No decision on this question has been arrived at; but, as my hon. Friend will have noticed, Admiral Sir Percy Scott has been appointed by the Admiralty to take charge of the gunnery defences of London against attack by enemy aircraft, and has already taken up his duties.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand that the Government is now for the first time seriously considering the defence of the Metropolis?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot be supposed to accept the suggestion contained in that question.
    Sir F. LOWE: Has the manner in which Paris has been defended against aircraft been fully considered by the Admiralty, and have any steps been taken to adopt adequate defence measures for the City of London?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be manifestly impossible for me in the public interest to enter into any discussion on that topic.
    Sir F. LOWE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be improper for him to consider the manner in which Paris has successfully defended itself against these air raids? It seems to me that it would be in the public interest that we should do so.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any valid reason why the appointment of this distinguished gentleman was not made earlier?
    Mr. KING: May we take it that the appointment of Sir Percy Scott indicates that this service will be under the Admiralty and not under the War Office—that it will be retained by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Sir Percy Scott has been appointed by the Admiralty, and for the time being, at any rate, this is under the Admiralty. I have said I can give no undertaking about earlier proposals.

    RURAL INDUSTRIES (EX-SOLDIERS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the recommendation of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society that steps should be taken to secure that, at the end of the War, those soldiers who desire to find outdoor employment in the country may have an opportunity of doing so in a scheme of afforestation combined with small holdings and other rural industries; and whether he has taken any action in this or other respects to make provision for the employment of soldiers at the end of the War?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The matter is now being considered by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and I hope to have their Report shortly.

    EAST AFRICA (BRITISH POSITION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is able to make any statement about the British position in East Africa?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I can make no statement on this matter, as there is no information of importance to give. There have been some minor affairs, in which both sides have suffered some loss, but the season is at present unsuitable for extensive operations.

    MUNITIONS.

      DRINK TRAFFIC IN SCHEDULED AREAS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether any counter attractions to the drink traffic have been set up in any of the areas scheduled by the Board of Control; and, if so, where and of what nature?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) are encouraging the provision of canteens for munition and transport workers. A considerable number of
      12
      employers have themselves provided canteens. Approved organisations have forty canteens in working, and are in process of establishing thirty more, while a still larger number are in contemplation. The canteens are of various character; some provide solid meals, others light refreshment. At some works hostels have been established, some of which provide food and recreation.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the Board of Control not going to attempt to set up any kind of counter attraction than canteens?
      Dr. ADDISON: Yes; my reply indicates that other counter attractions are set up.

      MUNITIONS ACT.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions if he intends to introduce a Bill amending the Munitions Act.
      Dr. ADDISON: As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not see any reason for introducing an Amending Bill.

    PUBLIC SERVANTS (DEFERRED RETIREMENT).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the operation upon junior servants resulting from keeping in their posts senior public servants in Government employment after the latter have attained the age entitling them to pensions; whether he is aware that junior servants are thus prejudicially affected not only in pay and advancement but in their rights in respect of gratuities and pensions; and whether this case is having the attention of the Treasury?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The circumstances to which my hon. Friend calls attention have not been overlooked, but under present conditions such considerations must be subordinated to the urgent need for economy in administration.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, since in another place in June last a resolution providing for retirement at sixty-five was adopted it is proposed to apply that rule to officers in this House?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I must have notice of that question. I do not think it arises out of this question.

    CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any steps to investigate the percentage of goods wagons in use running loaded and lying idle; whether they are only running laden or partly laden about 3 per cent. of their time; and whether, in view of the delay in the transmission of goods as well as munitions of war, he proposes to take any steps to facilitate the loading and unloading and diminish the time wasted in shunting?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I am afraid the statistical investigation suggested by my hon. Friend cannot be undertaken at the present time, and I am therefore unable to test the accuracy of the statement referred to in the second part of his question. Munitions of war have priority on the railways, and I have not heard of any delays in their transport; but I am afraid some delays to other traffic are unavoidable at the present time, although every effort is being made to minimise them.

    GENERAL ELECTION.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can make a statement as to the date of the General Election; and (2) state when the Bill providing for special registers for Parliamentary elections will be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that I can make no statement at the present time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it will be possible to make a statement?
    The PRIME MINSTER: No, I cannot.

    FAIR RENTS COURTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce any emergency legislation dealing with the necessity of Fair Rents Courts?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to my previous answers to my hon. Friend on this question, but the matter is being carefully watched.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the Prime Minister say whether anything will be done before the November terms?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is being carefully watched.

    Teaching Gaelic
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state for the last complete school year the number of schools where Gaelic is taught, the amount of Grant paid per pupil, the number of said pupils, the number of teachers, and the amount of special Grant to the same?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In the last complete school year for which figures were available the additional Grant for Gaelic under Article 19, B.7, of the Code was paid to eighty-one schools with an aggregate average attendance of 3,311, and the Grant of £10 in respect of Gaelic-speaking teachers under Section 17 (9) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, was paid to 163 schools. There were also twelve classes in Gaelic, with a total of 275 students, recognised for Grant under the Continuation Class Code. These figures relate as a rule to the school years ending during 1914.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  VOTE OF CREDIT.
    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
      Mr. CHAPLIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can state what business he proposes to take to-morrow and during the rest of the week?
      The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow I shall move a Vote of Credit.
      On Thursday we propose to take the Report of that Vote.
      It will be for the convenience of the House if I add that we propose to sit three days a week—Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the Prime Minister say whether he contemplates making any general statement on the military position, having regard to the fact that a statement is already promised for another place?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am going to move a Vote of Credit to-morrow, and I shall then review the situation.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position of the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill, and when we may expect to consider that?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It is in the House of Lords at present.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is coming down?
      Mr. RONALD McNEILL: As the House is to sit three days a week will the right hon. Gentleman make the same arrangements in regard to notice of questions?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will the Prime Minister to-morrow deal with the question of recruiting?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot anticipate what I shall say to-morrow.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Captain GUEST: As representing a group of Liberal and Unionist Members,
    16
    I desire to ask whether the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity to discuss National Service at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared at present to make any statement.
    Captain GUEST: I think it is only fair that we should be allowed to say that we had made an attempt—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, but not make a statement.
    Captain GUEST: Will the Prime Minister give any answer to the deputation which is anxious to wait upon him in order to save the necessity of such a debate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think this is a matter which can be conveniently dealt with by way of deputation.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will Tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House this day be referred to the Committee of Supply.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will To-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    The Orders of the day were read, and postponed.

  MOTION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT.

    COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered

    17
    the question of holding a secret Session of this House, in order that Members may receive information in regard to the position of affairs which it is not advisable to give to the public. I may say so far as I am concerned that I have not made up my mind, but the matter has been discussed by so many Members and has been debated so frequently that I think it would, perhaps, be convenient if the head of the Government could see his way to indicate whether the Government are prepared to take a step of this kind in order that Members can be made aware of the situation. I propose it upon this ground, that it is exceedingly difficult for private Members, who are pressed on all sides to act up to their duty, to be quite sure whether they can make any effective or advisable intervention. It is for this reason that I suggest to the Government that perhaps we should have a clearer idea of what we ought to say when we address public meetings, and what kind of questions we ought to submit to Ministers in this House, if the Government were frank in the House with the representatives of the people in disclosing facts which are not within our purview at the present time.
    Mr. DILLON: Before the Prime Minister answers the hon. Member, it might be convenient if I put another question to him at the same time. I desire to know whether his attention has been drawn to a statement which appears in all the London newspapers this morning, and particularly in the "Times," which is signed professedly by a number of gentlemen, who describe themselves as "officers in His Majesty's Service, now on active service"? It is in the nature of a manifesto, calling on the Government and this House to adopt compulsory service. I desire to know whether it is in accordance with the well-recognised principles of this country that officers on active service, describing themselves as officers on active service, should during War time address to the public Press manifestoes dealing with public political matters of acute political controversy? I am one of those who have desired that this question should not be raised at all so as to excite anything in the nature of a public controversy, calculated to break up the unity which has so admirably and so wonderfully characterised the people of this country since this War broke out. But it has been forced forward by certain gentlemen and certain agencies, to which I do not intend at this moment to allude, and it is notorious that
    18
    at this moment the people of this country are on the eve of what I cannot help describing as a great catastrophe, if they are pushed by these agencies into what may be a bitter political controversy. And I do appeal to the Prime Minister and the authorities at the War Office, if we are to be driven into this misfortune in this House, whose business it is to deal with the politics of this country—or at least it used to be recognised that it was its business to do so—then that the Army at least should be spared.
    I feel bound to give notice to the Prime Minister that, if this kind of thing is going to be tolerated, I shall ask on the floor of the House whether the same facilities will be given for non-commissioned officers and the rank and file of the Army who object to conscription? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] I have had communications from them; I know that they exist; and I beg of you to take warning by what has occurred in this House at this moment. Do not, for God's sake, introduce these contentious questions into the ranks of your Army in face of the enemy. I think that it is most unfortunate, having broken the late Government, and having brought in as representative a Government as you can get, that you will not trust this matter to the Government, but must have these agitations engineered by newspapers, and this interference with the discretion of the Government on this question. But if that must be, then do not at least introduce the question into the ranks of the Army itself. There are in the Army a great many men who do not believe in conscription. I do not know which way the majority would go, but is it proposed, or can it be contemplated by any rational sane man in this House, that you should put it to the test of the Army to find out whether they are in favour of conscription or not? Yet that is what these men are doing. I have felt conscientiously bound at the very outset of our proceedings to draw attention to this fact, and to say that, unless you are prepared to accord to the non-commissioned officers and rank and file of the Army the same facilities as these men have arrogated to themselves, because they are Peers and Members of Parliament, this thing must be stopped, and ought to be stopped, in the interests of the Army itself, in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the cause which we are all united in seeking to support. I beg of these Gentlemen who are determined to

    19
    force on this disastrous controversy to believe, at least at the outset, that those of us who are determined to oppose this proposal, until at any rate an overwhelming case is made out for it—and no case has been made out for it yet—I beg of them, in the interests of the cause which they have at heart and which, I trust, they will give us the credit of believing we have equally at heart, that they will give credit for good intentions to all who may differ from them on this matter, and that they will go on taking every necessary step to keep this controversy, if it must come off, from the ranks of the Army itself.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am extremely glad that the hon. Member opposite has raised this question, which has, of course, been agitating the mind of every man who is at the same time a Member of this House and serving in the Army or Navy. The question is whether we have a right to retain our liberty of thought and liberty of action as politicians while at the same time we wear His Majesty's uniform. I made up my mind completely on the subject, and until the Government take some very firm step, or until the War Office cashier me out of the Army or out of the Navy, I am prepared to reserve to myself, both here and in the country, the right to express what I think on every question, political or military, that may come before this House. I take up that position not simply because I want to run counter to the views of hon. Members who do not agree with me, but because it has always been the habit of Members of this House who belong to the fighting ranks of either Service to come here to express their views. If you go back to history, to the days of the Great War 100 years ago, to the time of the American struggle for independence from 1776 to 1784—if you look back into our records of those days, you will find a great many hon. Members, colonels and generals in the Army, coming to this House and voicing opinions, very often directly opposed to those of their immediate chiefs in the Army or the Navy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not when on active service."] Yes, while on active service. They came back from America and expressed their views on these questions, and I now maintain that we have the very heavy duty laid upon us to express our views, because, whereas in those days only a minute proportion of the electorate of the country were fighting in the field, now you have
    20
    millions of electors fighting in the field, millions of men who are accidentally deprived of the franchise in this country, but who are none the less citizens of the country, and who ought to be able to influence the views of Members of Parliament in the only way in which they can do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Through their officers."] Through their officers, or by such means as are open to them. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gwynn) and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire
    (Sir H. Raphael) are, so far as I know, the only Members of this House who have had the courage, or the sense of responsibility, to enlist in the Army as privates. If hon. Members opposite or the Government are going to deprive us of the right of expressing our views in this House—
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Member has mistaken the whole point of my speech. I was most careful not to challenge the right of any hon. Member in this House to express his opinion, but this is a manifesto addressed to the newspapers, which is a totally different matter.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: This is a manifesto signed by Members, who often receive circulars to which they attach their signatures. It is a very common practice in this House. It is signed by Members of this House, who have a perfect right to tell the public what their views are. Through the accident of my being abroad, my signature did not appear to that. Having just recently returned from France, I am absolutely convinced that it is not only in the interests of the electors abroad, but also in the interests of the whole of this country, that there should be a free and frank expression in this House of the views of the Army in the field. I add my view to the expression of opinion already given by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who is in favour of a Secret Session, so that we can speak out. I think that whether you have a Secret Session or whether you have a public Session, it is absolutely necessary that this country should cease to play the rôle of the ostrich, and should speak out on these matters, even though it may give temporary satisfaction in Berlin. I am convinced that it is only by means of free speaking, by expressing our views frankly and fearlessly, that we can secure a satisfactory ending of this War.
    Captain GUEST: The speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway seemed

    21
    to give a very false impression of the attitude of the steps taken by the group of Members with whom I am associated in regard to this question. I think I may be borne out if I just remind the Prime Minister that from the commencement, although we are a band of very determined men in support of our view, we have been equally determined to avoid adding to the flame of the agitation which at present exists in this country; but the fact that other people are agitating seems to me to afford no reason why we should resign and give up our efforts. We have endeavoured from the very commencement to avoid any connection with any manifesto. The communication in the "Times" of Saturday last, which requested leave to deputise or memorialise the Prime Minister, was put there not by any instigation of ours, but by some breach of confidence, which occasionally occurs. We still ask you to give us a day for this matter, and for this matter only. We have got things to say which we think have been left too long unsaid; and, as regards the attitude of the Army, some of us who have been with it will do our best, when the occasion comes, to put its point of view.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I only rise for a moment, lest my silence, sitting as I do on the same bench with the hon. and gallant Gentleman may appear to give consent to the views which he has expressed; not that I am opposed to compulsory service; on the contrary, I have always been in its favour. I was a supporter of Lord Roberts. I often wondered how it was that the advice given by that distinguished man had so little support in this country. I have often thought that if his view had been taken in time it is more than probable that we should not have been engaged in this War. Now that we are engaged in this War, and this demand is made upon the Government, I own that there is a reason which, to my mind, is absolutely overwhelming, why we should leave it to them to decide whether compulsory service is needed in the interests of the country or not, and it is this: They are possessed of the fullest possible information on every branch of this question, which we, who are not in the Government, lack. I may make some exception perhaps, in favour of the hon. Member who has seen service himself, but with regard to the general run of Members of the House of Commons, they cannot for a moment be possessed of the knowledge which is absolutely requisite
    22
    for forming a just and right opinion on this subject. These are the views that I hold, and I wish to dissociate myself entirely and completely from the views which the hon. Member has set forth.
    Mr. HODGE: I hope that the Government will not give way to clamour on this question. I think that the experience of the past week or two demonstrates that it is not men we want so much as material, and to my mind those who are taking part in this clamorous agitation are doing a great disservice to the country. I do not know that it is necessary to say more than that; but I think, from everything that has taken place, that those who are carrying on this violent and clamorous agitation are doing a disservice to the country, because they are going to disunite us in face of the common danger, at a time when it is necessary that we should show a united front—not only to the enemy but for the benefit of our Allies. If we are going to resuscitate political differences—because that is what it comes to—I am really afraid that it will have an injurious effect upon our Allies. I dare say that most Members of this House have realised that a great disservice was done by our Pacifist friends in France, because our French Allies believed that their movement was much stronger than it really is. I, in conjunction with a few friends, went to Paris a week or two ago for the purpose of demonstrating the weakness of that movement and we allayed to some extent those suspicions which this agitation, that I have described as clamorous, is going to revive in the minds of our French Allies. This agitation ought not to be encouraged in any shape or form, and I trust that the Government will say most decidedly and strongly that the time has not come for giving effect to any ideas which have been promulgated by those who are in favour of so-called National Service. We all know that the need of the moment is material and not men. You cannot equip the men you are getting, and why clamour for more. We need an immense variety of munitions, and we want three hundred thousand more men for that work. You cannot send men to the front and have them in the workshop at the same time. If you want munitions for the men at the front, you cannot take men away who are needed to supply those munitions. I for my part trust that the Government will state their position in language which cannot be misunderstood by those who are seeking at the moment to disunite us.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have listened to a rather interesting speech from my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), who is in temporary command of the Labour party. He has invited the Government to refuse a discussion on this question and straight away he commences himself a discussion on the very thing. I disagree with my hon. Friend and with my hon. and gallant Friend who sits beside him, and with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in the conclusions they have come to in this matter as to the merits of the subject, but where I agree with them is that I think, as the controversy has now developed, it is impossible to prevent discussion in the House of Commons and for the following reasons: We have had going on for a considerable period a discussion in the Press. In a large number of newspaper organs we have had leading articles, and we have had more or less inspired statements regarding the attitude of the Cabinet, and, at the same time, we have had communications from a large number of public men both for and against on this controversy. Then we have had a meeting of the Trades Union Congress, with which I presume my hon. Friend who has just spoken has some influence. They have naturally and quite properly expressed an opinion on the subject. We have even had statements as to discussions in the Cabinet. We have seen tabulated lists of members of the Cabinet, showing so many in favour of Conscription and so many against Conscription, and so many uncommitted or sitting on the fence. [An HON. MEMBER: "And passed by the Censor."] Yes, and I understand passed by the Censor. We have had also public statements by Ministers of the Crown. We have had a preface the other day to a book not yet published, in which there is a challenge given to the Cabinet, given to Parliament and given to the country, to adopt Conscription, and, on the contrary, we have another member of the Cabinet speaking at a recruiting meeting in his constituency deliberately controverting the propositions put forward in this prophetic and inspired preface.
    Surely in these days it cannot be said that the House of Commons is to be the only place in the country where this subject is not to be discussed. I quite admit we have not much left of our representative capacity since we are nearly at the end of our time. By Statute passed by ourselves we are to die next January, when
    24
    we should go to the country. Indeed, if you take the old septennial system, you will find that by constitutional usage very rarely did any Parliament exceed the period to which we have run. Consequently we are a moribund Parliament. But, even so, it is the only Parliament that there is and it is the only one we are likely to have, because we are now, after having diminished our life, about to be asked to prolong it indefinitely; but, even on that basis, surely it is for the House of Commons to give some guidance to the country. We know that the Cabinet is disunited, and yet we are asked by my hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party and by a number of other people in this House to trust the Government implicitly, after the differences of the Government have been advertised not only to this country, but all over the world. Surely that is an impossible situation. It is necessary to have a discussion and it is also necessary in the House of Commons to have a discussion based upon information, and if it is only possible to have a discussion based upon information, then let us have a Secret Session of the House of Commons. I am quite sure such a discussion held in this House on the question will have a great influence upon the country, and if we are to have a wise decision on the matter it will surely be in a better position to come to such a decision after a well-informed discussion in the House of Commons. In other words, we shall have a decision which will command confidence and tend to preserve national unity.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I think the speeches to which we have listened must assure the Prime Minister that discussion of this matter is absolutely necessary. I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon) to say that he did not wish this matter discussed in this House; but the House is the very place where it ought to be discussed. What is the object of Parliament, if we are to come here and discuss only those matters on which we are agreed. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway does not agree with certain hon. Members opposite and on this side shows that it is necessary that there should be a discussion in which they may be convinced, or in which he may convince them. The hon. Member who is leading the Labour party tells us that we do not want more men, but that what we want is more men for munitions. That may be so. I am not in the secrets or confidence of the Govern-

    25
    merit. I do not know if it is so; but, if it is, why do we have pink forms and registration, and why is everybody going all over the country holding recruiting meetings? And is it not the fact that Lord Kitchener, a short time ago, informed us that we wanted 300,000 men; and is it not also the fact—and I heard it myself—that Lord Kitchener made a speech in the Guildhall saying that he was able to equip recruits and that recruits were necessary, and should come forward at the present moment? Therefore, the hon. Member has made a mistake. He does not know what he is talking about. He has made statements which are not correct. The only person who can correct him and possibly myself—for I may be wrong—is the Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] If not the Prime Minister, then it must be either the Prime Minister or Lord Kitchener. I do not know anyone else who can do so. They can only do so if they will state whether they do or do not want men. For myself, I do not think there can be any question whatever that we do want men.
    Under those circumstances, what is the use of refusing to discuss one of the most important and vital questions which can be raised in this year or any other year? We are here to support the Government as long as they do their best to bring the War to a speedy conclusion. We think that in order to do that you must have National Service. We may be wrong, but surely that is a question that ought to be discussed, and the House of Commons is surely the proper place to discuss it. If not, why come here at all, and why not let us go back to where we came from. What is the use of coming here to say ditto, whether we agree or not, to anybody who gets up on the Front Bench and tells us what to do? In the middle of the war in the Crimea there was a discussion, and I am not at all sure that there was not a Vote of Censure moved on the then Government. There are some of us who think the Government are too slow. There are some of us who think they invite people to take command of aviation after a paper has told them it ought to be done. I think we are justified in asking for a discussion on this subject, and there are many of us who are determined to press this question until we get a proper and fair discussion in this House.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I think that whatever view Members of the House may take of the important question which is now before us we shall all be agreed, at
    26
    any rate, that a Motion for the Adjournment is not perhaps the best opportunity to place our views before the House. At the same time it must be admitted that Members cannot be complained of for any occasion they may take in asking for more information on this subject. It has been discussed, and is being discussed, outside the House. That is largely due to the fact that the Government themselves have not taken the public into their confidence, and have kept to themselves information which might reasonably have been given to the public. The result to-day is that Members of this House are not qualified in my opinion to express a really important and logical view on the present situation. The moral of this Debate, I think, is that the Government ought to take the House and the public into their confidence more than they have done. It seems to be a case in which the Government cannot make up their mind on this as on many other questions, such as cotton, aliens, and other matters, on which this House had month after month to press upon them before they came to a decision. Here we have within the last two days a Government which is supposed to be united, and we have from the Minister of Munitions a statement which I think is of grave importance and a statement to which, so far as my knowledge goes, I subscribe most heartily, because its intention is to let the nation know the serious difficulties with which we are faced. Then we have a member of the same Cabinet last night replying to the Minister of Munitions—because that is what the speech means—and practically saying, "Do not be alarmed; put your feet on the mantelpiece and smoke a good cigar; everything is going well." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] That is the meaning of the speech. "I knew," he says, "when the War broke out, that it was going to last two years." I wish he had shown more industry in seeing that our Army was equipped. The right hon. Gentleman is present; perhaps he will explain.
    It is not right for the Cabinet at the present moment to allow outside opinions to dominate and discuss this urgent and important question. Let the Cabinet give us the information which they have. Let them appeal to us not to discuss this question for a certain time, and I venture to say the House will respond. Let the Prime Minister say he is convinced that no further action is necessary, and the House and the country will accept his

    27
    statement. But do not let us have the public outside discussing this and other questions, and the Cabinet practically giving no lead at all. Let the Cabinet give a lead in this vital matter. Let them tell the country what is required. Let them tell the country whether they are satisfied. Let the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with the Minister of Munitions or with the First Commissioner of Works. But in Heaven's name, if they are going to make speeches, as Lord Palmerston once told his Cabinet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Melbourne!"]—Lord Melbourne once told his Cabinet, they should all say the same thing. The country is puzzled, and the public are getting anxious. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to solve this matter in the only way in which, in my opinion, it can be solved now, by giving the House of Commons, at as early a date as possible, an opportunity of expressing its views, and letting us at the same time hear the views, if they have any, of His Majesty's Government.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I was asked to be one of those who joined in signing the paper which has been alluded to by the hon. Member who commenced this Debate, and to accompany a deputation to the Prime Minister on the subject. I replied somewhat in this fashion: "There is only one man at the present time capable of saying when National Service is necessary and imperative, and that is Lord Kitchener. I personally deprecate most earnestly any trying to force the hands of the Government and interfering with Lord Kitchener." I felt perfectly certain that when the right time came, when all the preparations and calculations had been made, Lord Kitchener would go to the Cabinet and say, "We must have this thing," and the Cabinet would not dare to refuse it. I agree with many of the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hodge), except when he laid it down as an absolute fact that we do not want more men in the Army, but that we want men to make munitions. I make the same answer to him. There is only one man, or perhaps there are two men—the Minister of Munitions and the Minister for War—who can say how many men we want for munitions and how many as soldiers. The matter ought to be left to those two men to decide. There are many calculations to be made before this subject can be thoroughly thrashed out. In the first place, you want to know what munitions you
    28
    want and how many men you require to turn them out. You want to know—and you will get it from the pink papers, I believe—how many men will be available at any particular time. The calculation has to be made of how many men you can turn out at any given time—that is to say, how many men you can feed, clothe, arm, and drill. It is useless to discuss whether or not a measure is necessary until you know all these facts. There is only one man who will have all these facts at his fingers' ends when the calculations have been worked out, and that is Lord Kitchener. I think it would be much better for the country if all discussion, both in this House, in the newspapers, and in the country, were put a stop to, and if all the people would wait with patience till the one man who does know the business finds it the right time to speak out.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: It is all very well to say that the Government ought to stop all discussion, but how can you stop the discussion of the subject which fills the mind of every man in the House? Whether or not the House of Commons should discuss it, I think the House of Commons should determine, led by the only Leader of the House of Commons—the Government. If the Government tell us that we ought not to discuss it, I think they will find that they have a large majority in the House of Commons willing to consent not to discuss the matter. That is a point upon which the Government are bound to give us a lead. But if we are to have a discussion let it be a discussion in the face of the public. We want no secret Sessions, of which unauthorised versions will get to the public. Members representing constituencies should state their views openly, and say what they think for the benefit of their constituents and of the country.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If we, as Members of the House of Commons, are merely to accept the views of the Government, we might as well go home or do more useful work elsewhere. The Government have had a free run for the last thirteen months. They have conducted the War under a sense of secrecy and a censorship unparalleled in the history of this or any other country. I venture to say—and my opinion has been confirmed by what I have heard in the last six weeks of so-called holiday—that the country is beginning to be a little bit tired of the censorship and the holding back of information. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Hickman)

    29
    said that we ought to be guided by Lord Kitchener. Let us know what Lord Kitchener thinks. On a question such as that of compulsory service I should be prepared to be guided very largely by Lord Kitchener, but I am not prepared to be guided by what somebody else may say Lord Kitchener ought to think. That is the difference between us. If Lord Kitchener goes to the House of Lords and tells us how many men we have recruited, and how many we need to have recruited; if he says on his responsibility as Secretary of State for War and with knowledge of all the facts that it is undesirable that we should have compulsory service, naturally Lord Kitchener's statement would have great power. But if we, as Members of the House of Commons, are simply to be told that because Lord Kitchener has said nothing, therefore we are to assume that Lord Kitchener thinks compulsory service is not necessary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the only argument we have had against the proposed Debate—that because Lord Kitchener has said nothing, therefore we are to say nothing. Really I cannot see the good of our being elected Members of the House of Commons in order to say "ditto" to the nothing of somebody else. There are other questions besides that of compulsory service. I think the Government had better realise it; and that their policy of secrecy cannot go on very much longer. The country is determined to know how this War is being carried on. It is the country's War, and not the Government's War. It is the country's men who are soldiers and sailors; it is our sons and our brothers, our friends, who are fighting, and not merely those of the Government. I think before very long the country will demand, and the House of Commons will demand, that we shall know everything, and that nothing shall be kept from us. There are many things besides the question of compulsory service that we would like to mention. There is the subject which at all events some of us desire to raise, that of the protection of London—raised at Question Time. There is the subject of the condition of our aviation forces. These things have been put to one side for the last twelve months. The country is not putting them to one side. The country is talking about them and thinking about them. The House of Commons is the only place where, on these important questions, neither thought nor speech is allowed.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I observe that many of my hon. Friends, and almost, the whole of the Press, seem to be very fully and completely informed as to what, happens at Cabinet meetings. It is with feelings of humiliation and shame that I have to confess that I am not so well informed as to the individual views of Cabinet Ministers on subjects on which no Cabinet announcement has been made. I saw in the papers—as did some of my friends—lists purporting to give the views, of Cabinet Ministers on subjects on which the Cabinet has come to a decision. Some of the views given are in favour of that decision, and some are contrary to it. For my part I am inclined to disbelieve all these reports. I have never yet in the past found rumour and conjecture in the Press a sound guide as to the opinions of the Cabinet, or as to secret decisions of the Cabinet. I notice also that on the part of some of those who are dissatisfied with the decision of the Cabinet there is an attempt to represent that the Cabinet, cannot make up its mind, that the Cabinet cannot come to a decision, that the country is waiting for the Cabinet to give a lead on the important subject to which reference has been made to-day. I was under the impression that the Cabinet had given a decision—a quite definite decision. Before this House rose I heard the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question, that the Cabinet did not propose to introduce Conscription. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]. I distinctly heard that statement made—that the Cabinet did not at that time propose to introduce Conscription. Naturally the Cabinet cannot come to any decision; which will be absolutely binding for the future—for different times and in different circumstances. But so far as I was able to understand, the Cabinet had come to the perfectly clear and definite decision that they did not propose to introduce Conscription at that time. It is possible that under different conditions and at a different time it may come to a different decision, but until it announces a different decision I hold—and I think I hold correctly—that the Cabinet has come to the decision that it does not intend to propose Conscription. Therefore I fail absolutely to understand the attitude of mind which tries to represent that the Cabinet has not come to a decision in this matter, or cannot come to a decision. Doubtless on this and other important subjects the Cabinet will do its best to inform itself upon all aspects of the subject. Especially at a time when there is an agitation about a

    31
    subject, I think the Cabinet is doing the right thing thoroughly to inform itself upon all aspects of the subject. The fact that the Government does take steps to inform itself does not seem to me to indicate that the Cabinet cannot come to a decision.
    I have said nothing at all of the merits of Conscription, and I do not propose to say anything upon the merits of that very important subject; but I notice that the discussion has strayed very considerably from the very important points raised by my hon. Friend opposite. So far as I understood him, he did not propose to raise in any manner the merits of Conscription. All he proposed to do was to raise the question of the propriety of certain distinguished members of His Majesty's Forces entering into public discussion and controversy, addressing memoranda on these important questions to the Press, and fostering public agitation on this subject. That is a very important and a very delicate question. I think the intervention of members of His Majesty's Forces, in highly controversial questions of this kind is contrary to our constitutional practice and tradition. But these are exceptional times. Three millions of the electors of this country are now serving in the Army. That is a very large proportion. At a time when Parliament is not so representative as it has been in the past—and it may be still less representative in the future—it may be desirable in some form or other to ascertain the views of that enormous proportion of our electors who are now serving in the Army. But the mischief done by this small number of members, who happen at the same time to be Members of this House, is that they, without any right at all, arrogate to themselves in this matter to represent the Army. They suggest that they represent three millions of our fellow subjects who are serving in the Army.
    4.0 P.M.
    They make that claim perfectly clearly. They made it to-day. It was suggested that some members—not the majority—of the Army are opposed to Conscription. Immediately there were loud cries of indignation from those who are in favour of Conscription, from those who happen to be Members of this House and also to be serving the Army, and who claim that they alone represent the Army and alone are entitled to speak for the Army. They are not in any respect entitled to speak for the Army. They have never been elected by
    32
    the Army. They are doing a monstrous disservice to the Army by their putting themselves in a position to claim to speak for the Army, because then they force other people in the Army to claim the right to speak for themselves. I think also they introduce violent political controversy into the Army at a time when it should be thoroughly united. In my view—and I do not claim to have any views on technical military matters—the only way to win this War is to have a Government that you trust—and to trust it! You cannot win this War by discussions in this House. That is the very last means whereby you can win this War. There is only one way, and that is by having a Government you can trust, and trusting it. It is possible that some Members of this House have come to the conclusion that the present Coalition Government can no longer be trusted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Here I find evidence of a most monstrous volte-face. When this Coalition Government was formed there was a great deal of suspicion about it on the part of many of my hon. Friends. As matters have turned out they have accepted the Coalition Government, and acquiesced in it. I think it may be said that the Coalition Government has a full measure of their confidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] But it is amazing to find those who fathered the Coalition Government, those who claim to have been the dictators at whose mandate it was appointed, turning against their offspring, and becoming enemies to it. [HON. MEMBER: "Who?" and "Name!"] It is only on the theory that these people have formed the deliberate plan of wrecking the Government, and of endeavouring to raise in this House as many embarrassing questions as they can with the object of wrecking it, that I can read reason and logic into the methods they have adopted.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I should not have risen now to stand in the way of other hon. Gentlemen were it not, as I understand, the fact that under our procedure this Debate must come to an end in the course of the next nine minutes, and I thought it would not be respectful to the House if I did not say a few words before the Debate compulsorily closed. I confess—and I say so with all respect to the House—that I do not think it has served any very good object. It began with the suggestion from one of my hon. Friends

    33
    who sits behind me that we should meet in Secret Session, in order, I suppose, that facts with regard to the conduct of the War, which it is not expedient to make public to the country at large, should be made known to Members of this House. That suggestion has been made before, and when it was first made I said that, although it was entirely out of consonance with our Parliamentary traditions, if I found that it commanded anything like general assent, the Government would, at any rate, give it respectful consideration. Now, Sir, I have received no indication of any sort or kind in any quarter of the House that such a procedure would be welcome or palatable to Members: and, indeed, under the conditions in which Parliamentary life in these days is conducted, without imputing any disposition' or inclination on the part of anybody to a breach of confidence, nothing is more certain in the world than that imperfect, incomplete, inaccurate and distorted accounts of what had taken place would be given, and that no commensurate object in compensation for that great evil would be gained. So much for that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) called attention to a communication, with which I was unacquainted, which appears to have been made to the Press by some officers on active service with the Army, with regard to the vexed question of compulsory service. I do not know anything about it myself, but in regard to that, and to other observations which have been made in the course of the Debate as to the duties and disabilities of Members of this House who are on active service, I should like to make, if I may, one remark. Under normal conditions a Member of this House who is on the active list is seconded. When war breaks out, particularly a War like this, when the country calls, and naturally calls for the service of every man who has held or holds His Majesty's commission, I think it would be unfair and contrary to the public interest that any such rule should be applied. But, on the other hand, I must say this, that when hon. Members gallantly serving at the Front come back on leave and resume their seats for a short time in this House, while it would be most unfair that their lips should be closed, they ought to feel themselves, and I believe for the most part do, under a very strict sense of responsibility. Let them remember that they sit here not as representing the Army. They sit here as representing the constituencies which send them here. The Army as an
    34
    Army has no representation in this House, and it would be most unjust—and I think all of them on reflection would admit it—that, because they happen to be in the Army, gallant officers who are serving their country who are also Members of Parliament should claim to come here with any special mandate to represent opinion in the Army. It might be a fatal thing for the Army; it would be a very bad thing for the House of Commons.
    Captain GUEST: That has not been claimed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to hear it disclaimed. I wish to say myself, speaking as head of the Government, that it is a claim I will never admit, with the utmost respect, of course, and we show all respect to the first-hand testimony of men serving their country in the field. The Debate has ranged over a very large variety of topics, relating for the most part more or less directly to what I am sorry to say has become a question of public controversy, namely, the best way in which this country is to meet the call, which we all recognise, to bring the War to a successful end. You could not have a more unsatisfactory way of dealing with a problem so vital and so far-reaching than this sporadic and desultory discussion on a Motion for the Adjournment.
    Captain GUEST: We ask for a day for it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking of the speeches that have been made to-day. I entirely associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition. [Cries of "No, no," and laughter.] It is said—I do not know with what justification—that there were evidences of symptoms of division among us here, but I had hoped there was at least complete unanimity opposite. [Laughter.] I have only got half a minute more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] In that half minute I will say this: this is a matter which has not escaped the attention of His Majesty's Government. When the Government, without undue delay, with as much deliberation as the gravity of the subject demands, arrive at their conclusions, they will present them to the House, and they will become the subject of Parliamentary discussion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes after Four o'clock.

WAR.
  INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES.
  INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES.

Preamble
The Earl VANE (M. Londonderry)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of FEVERSHAM—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY.
Petition of Charles Stewart Henry Vane Tempest Stewart, Marquess of Londonderry, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. 104, viz:
1. (Colonies) Annual—

No. 851. Sierra Leone (Report for 1914). (July 30);

No. 852. Grenada (Report for 1914–1915);

No. 853. Bermuda (Report for 1914). (September 9);

2. Mines and Quarries—
I. Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines under the Coal Mines Acts, the Metalliferous Mines Acts, and the Quarries Act, for the year 1914—

1. Scotland Division, H. Walker;

2. Northern Division, J. R. R. Wilson;

3. York and North Midland Division, T. H. Mottram;

4. Lancashire, North Wales, and Ireland Division, A. D. Nicholson;

5. South Wales Division, W. N. Atkinson;

6. Midland and Southern Division, Hugh Johnstone. (August 2);

II. Annual Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, with Statistics, for the year 1914. Part I. Divisional Statistics, (August 10);
3. Currency and Bank Notes Acts, 1914.—Treasury Minute, dated 19th July 1915, relative to currency Notes Certificates. (August 3);
4. Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)—Seventieth Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland for the year ended 31st December 1914. (August 4);
5. Commercial, No. 1 (1915) (Suez Canal)—Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1912, 1913, and 1914. (In continuation of "Commercial, No. 1 (1914) "[Cd. 7466]). (August 5);
6. Meteorology—Tenth Annual Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury for the year ended 31st March 1915 (the sixtieth year of the Meteorological Office). (August 5);
7. Explosives Act, 1875-Thirty-ninth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives for the year 1914. (August 5);
8. Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation—Eleventh Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the year 1914. (August 5);
9. Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894–1906—Return of all British and Foreign Ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers during the period from 1st July 1914 to 30th June 1915 to be provisionally detained as unsafe. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 7617]). (August 5);
10. Dublin Hospitals — Fifty-seventh Annual Report of the Board of Superintendence of the Dublin Hospitals, with Appendices, for the year 1914–1915. (August 6);
11. Railway Accidents—

I. Summary of accidents and casualties reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months

785
ended 31st March 1915, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871; together with reports to the Board of Trade by the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers and Sub-Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department upon certain accidents which were inquired into. (August 6);

II. General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1911. (September 9);

12. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—

I. Appendix to Annual Report of the Horticulture Branch for the year 1913–1914. Maps. (August 9);

II. Annual Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer for the year 1914. (August 17);

III. Final Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into Swine Fever; with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix. Part IV. Final Report Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, (August 20 );

IV. Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to consider the Production of Food in England and Wales. (August. 28);

13. Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5452. Chile (Consular District of Coquimbo, 1914;

No. 5453. Spain (Canary Islands, 1914);

No. 5454. Russia (Consular District of Batoum, 1914;

No. 5455. China (Nanking, 1914);

No. 5456. Netherlands (Surinam, 1913);

No. 5457. France (Corsica) 1914. (August. 9);

No. 5458. Argentine Republic (Trade of Rosario and District during recent years);

786

No. 5459. United States (Trade and Commerce of the Territory of Hawaii for the year 1913–1914);

No. 5460. China (Trade of Hang-chow, 1914). (September 11);

14. India (Accounts and Estimates, 1915–1916)—Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India. (August 10);
15. Dominions Royal Commission—Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions. Minutes of Evidence taken in the Maritime Provinces of Canada in 1914. (August 10);
16. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland)—

I. Report and Tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers, 1914. (August 11);

II. Abstracts showing the Acreage under Crops and the Numbers and Descriptions of Live Stock in each county and province, 1914–1915. (August 25);

17. National Insurance Acts—

I. Reports of Decisions on Appeals and. Applications under Section 67 of the Act of 1911 and Section 27 of the Act of 1913. Part. II. (August 13);

II. Order, dated 17th August 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Glasgow Boundaries Extension) Order. 1915. (August 25);

18. Railway Returns—

I. Returns of the Capital, Traffic, Receipts and Working Expenditure, &c., of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom, for the year 1913 (pursuant to the Acts 34 & 35 Vict. cap 78, 51 & 52 Vict. cap. 25, and 1 & 2 Geo. 5. cap. 34), with a General Report thereon, and Summary Tables for a series of years;

II. Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1914. (August. 17);

19. Irish Land Commission—Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April 1914 to 31st March 1915. (August 17);
20. Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire (Royal Commission)—Sixth Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inventory the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Wales and Monmouthshire, and to specify those which seem most worthy of preservation (August 20);
21. Agriculture (Scotland)—Agricultural Statistics, 1914, Vol. III, Part II. Returns of Produce of Crops in Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom. (August 21);
22. Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887—Return of the Number of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June 1915. (August 23);
23. Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland—Report of the Departmental Committee on Food Production in Ireland. (August 23);
24. Government Chemist—Report of the Government Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March 1915; with Appendices. (August 27);
25. Treaty Series (1915)—No. 8. Agreement between the United Kingdom and Russia for the Reciprocal Waiver of Consular Fees on Certificates of Origin relating to Exports. Petrograd, July 3 (16), 1915. (August 27);
26. Evictions (Ireland)—Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June 1915. (August 28);
27. Public Records (Ireland)—Forty-seventh Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records (Ireland) for the year 1914. (September 2);
28. Board of Education—

I. (Elementary Education—Annual Report for 1914 of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education. (September 3);

II. (Public Education in England and Wales)—Statistics of Public Education in England and Wales. Part II. Financial Statistics, 1912–1913. (September 3);

788

III. (Universities, England and Wales)—Statement of Grants available from the Board of Education in aid of technological and professional work in Universities in England and Wales. (September 7);

29. Osborne—Report by the House Governor and Medical Superintendent for the year to 31st March 1915. (September 6);
30. Factory and Workshop (Industrial Fatigue)—Interim Report on an Investigation of Industrial Fatigue by Physiological Methods, by A. F. Stanley Kent, M.A., D.Sc. (Oxon), Henry Overton Wills Professor of Physiology in the University of Bristol. (September 6);
31. European War—Correspondence relating to the Occupation of German Samoa by an Expeditionary Force from New Zealand. (September 10);
32. Local Government Board (Scotland)—Twentieth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1914. (September 10);
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5461. China (Foochow, 1914);

No. 5462. France (Consular District of Brest, 1914);

No. 5463. China (Ichang, 1914):

Education (Scotland)—

1. Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 19th August 1915, amending the Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, 1915 (pursuant to Section 67, Education (Scotland) Act, 1872);

2. Regulations for the preliminary education, training and certification of teachers for various grades of Schools, 1915:

Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army—Revised Rates for Billeting, dated 27th Au gust 1915:
Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act, 1915—Order in Council, dated 28th July 1915, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—

I. Orders in Council approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act—

1. Seven Orders, dated 28th July 1915;

2. Two Orders, dated 12th August 1915;

II. Order in Council, dated 20th August 1915, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to the transfer to the General List of Officers of the Royal Navy, of Officers on the Supplementary List who perform meritorious service during the War:

Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1890 and 1913—

I. Two Orders in Council, dated 12th August 1915, made under the Acts;

II. Order in Council, dated 28th July 1915, entitled the Behrein (Amendment) Order in Council, 1915:

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877—Statute made by the University of Oxford on 25th May 1915, and sealed on the same day, amending Statute Tit. IV, Section 1, § 3, Clause 4 (c) of the Statutes of the University:
Munitions of War Act, 1915—

1. Munitions (War Service Badges) Rules, 1915 (Scotland) —Rules, dated 29th July 1915; made under Section 8 of the Act, by the Minister of Munitions as to Badges;

2. Munitions Tribunals Rules (Scotland)—Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Act by the Secretary for Scotland as far as relates to Offences, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters;

790

3. Munitions Tribunals (Provisional Rules) (Ireland)—Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals in Ireland, made ill pursuance of Section 15 of the Act by the Lord Lieutenant as far as relates to offences, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters:

Copyright (British Museum) Act, 1915—The British Museum (Delivery of Books) Regulation, 1915:
National Insurance Acts—

1. Unemployment Insurance—Unemployment Book (War) Regulations, 1915, made by the Board of Trade on 20th August 1915 in pursuance of Section 91 of the Act;

2. The National Health Insurance (Employment under Local and Public Authorities) Exclusion Order (Scotland), 1915, dated 14th July 1915:

3. The National Health Insurance (Exempt Irish Migratory Labourers' Benefits) Regulations, 1915, dated 11th August 1915:

Post Office (Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post)--The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 72) Warrant, 1915, dated 11th August 1915:
Supreme Court of Judicature—Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 12th August 1915:
Friendly Societies—Regulation, dated 27th August 1915, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896:
Superannuation—Treasury Minute, dated 31st August 1915, granting a retired allowance to Richard Percy Armstrong, Officer, Liverpool, Customs and Excise, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887:
Immediate Life Annuities—Table showing the sum for which an Immediate Life Annuity of £1 will be granted under the provisions of the Government Annuities Act, 1882:
Metropolitan Water Board—Twelfth Annual Report, for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899— Amending General Orders, dated 28th July 1915, for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Act:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders by the Secretary for Scotland—

1. Dated 24th August 1915, in terms of Section 5 of the Act affecting certain classes of shops in the Burgh of Port Glasgow;

2. Dated 11th August 1915, in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act affecting certain classes of shops in Woodside Ward, Aberdeen:

Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881—The Annual Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) for the year 1913–1914:
Port of London Authority—Sixth Annual Report of the Port of London Authority for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Act, 1911—Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the Upper Medway, for the year ended 31st March 1915: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PROMISED STATEMENT BY LORD KITCHENER.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I desire to state for the information of the House that my noble friend the Secretary of State for War will, before business to-morrow, make a statement of a similar nature to those which he has made on former occasions.

WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess the Lord President a Question of which I have given him private notice. In common with many others, I should be thankful if he could inform me how the question of the coming into operation of the Welsh Church Act exactly stands to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have to thank the right rev. Prelate for giving me private notice of his intention to put this Question to-day. I am able to state, for his information and for that of the House, that this morning an Order in Council received the Royal approval drawn in the following terms—
"The date of Disestablishment under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, shall be postponed until the end of the present war."
I think that supplies the information which time right rev. Prelate desired to have.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether His Majesty's Government intend to adopt all or any of the suggestions of the Speaker of the House of Commons for reducing national expenditure which were made by Mr. Speaker on the 27th August at Parliamentary War Savings Committee meeting at Penrith.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to explain the reason why I have put this Question on the Paper. No doubt like other noble Lords who happen to he chairmen of Parliamentary Recruiting Committees and War Savings Committees in the various constituencies, I have found myself in the same difficulty as apparently Mr. Speaker was in when addressing meetings, at which awkward questions have been continually put to the speakers who tell the working men that out of their comparatively small incomes they ought to save. I cannot help believing that it would have been very much better if, before inaugurating this campaign, the Government had themselves given a lead in this matter to the speakers and to the people of the country generally. The Lord President of the Council may say, "is a Retrenchment Committee." That is quite true; but that Committee has not reported, and probably will not report—certainly no real action will be taken—until after all these meetings have been held and these appeals made to the working men to come forward and assist by contributing their savings.
I submit that His Majesty's Government should have dealt in a drastic way with this question of retrenchment in national expenditure before starting the present

793
campaign in the country. We should not then have had such questions asked as these—"Why did the Government spend thousands of pounds on a new tea-room in the House of Commons?" "Why was it necessary, there being very little work in the House of Commons at the present moment, to appoint a Chief Whip at £2,000 a year?" "Why have the salaries of some of the Ministers been increased?" Those are awkward questions to answer. The feeling in the country, certainly in the part in which I live, is very strong on this question of economy in national expenditure. The people strongly deprecate the absence of any attempt on the part of the Government to bring about economies. Instead of doing that the Government have created fresh offices and given large salaries to new officials; and under the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill which your Lordships thought fit to suspend—I believe entirely with the sanction of the country, for I have never heard one word against the House of Lords on the ground of interfering with the people's will in this matter—it was proposed to set up further new offices carrying with them large payments to officials without, as my noble friend Earl St. Aldwyn pointed out at the time, any Treasury control. In addressing the meeting at Penrith Mr. Speaker expressed the opinion that something ought to be done in connection with the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament, and I have constantly heard protests made against gentlemen receiving salaries as members of the House of Commons and also pay as Army officers.
I would also draw attention to the farce, which is still going on, of valuing houses in London under the Valuation Act of 1909. Is it not ridiculous that this should continue when we all know that house property has practically gone to nothing in this country? With the heavy taxation which will have to be imposed, and rightly imposed, house property in London cannot be half the value that it was in 1909; yet there are Government officials still going about carrying on this work of valuation at great public expense. Only the other day I received a notice that my house had been valued at a perfectly ridiculous figure, and I was told that I could appeal, not at present, but "later on," thus creating more work for Government officials. I venture to say that before telling working men earning, perhaps, 26s.
794
or 30 s. a week that they ought to save, it would have been better had the Government put their own house in order, got rid of these redundant officials, and given the country a lead in this matter by a reduction of national expenditure.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the House, I think, will hardly expect that I can give anything like a complete answer to the Question which my noble friend opposite has asked. He himself spoke of the work of the Parliamentary War Savings Committee, and he added, quite truly, that that Committee has not so far reported or made any specific recommendation. It is therefore not possible for me, as I think the House will perceive, to attempt to anticipate any recommendations that they may make. Still less is it possible for me to anticipate to-day any part of the financial statement which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make in a few days in another place. In these circumstances I fear that I must ask to be excused from replying to the substance of my noble friend's Question. I need not say that any observations made after consideration by one of so much knowledge and experience as Mr. Speaker would naturally always receive the respectful attention of the authorities. But with particular reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord, I hope he will not take me as agreeing with his statement that no attempts had been made to economise in public directions, but that rather—as he stated, I confess somewhat to my surprise—there had been an increase of public expenditure in various directions. As a matter of fact, close attention has been paid to this question of public economy. I am not going to attempt to indicate the various ways in which that has been, is being, and will be brought about, but. I am obliged to enter this passing protest against the assumption made by the noble Lord that carelessness, or, indeed, something worse, has been shown by His Majesty's Government in respect to public expenditure.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think your Lordships are greatly indebted to the noble Lord who sits by me for having again called attention to this matter. This is not the House naturally where such questions would be primarily discussed. They ought to have been discussed long ago in the House of Commons. I ventured,

795
when this subject was last before your Lordships' House on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Midleton, to speak my mind as to the conduct of the late Government with regard to this matter. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to say that the Government have not failed to give it their attention. All I can say is this. If they had given it their attention as they ought to have done as soon as the war broke out, if they had foreseen as they ought to have foreseen the gigantic cost of such a war as this, and if they had then devoted their minds and energies to a reduction of the civil expenditure of the country, they would have done their duty. But they have failed absolutely to do their duty. The result is that we are now face to face with Civil Service Estimates framed on the extravagant footing to which this country has become accustomed in peace times, and which has really no reference at all to the present position of the country or of its financial affairs. I quite understand that the noble Marquess cannot say anything to-day either with regard to the views of the Committee which was appointed to consider this matter or with regard to the financial proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to place before the House of Commons next week. I do not know why that Committee was not appointed long before it was, and I do not know why, when it was appointed, it took a holiday of a fortnight before it held a single sitting. This whole subject of public economy appears to me to have been neglected by the late Government and to have been approached by the present Government in a manner which fails to show that they really appreciate its importance and its urgency. I hope the noble Lord who has asked this Question to-day will keep his eyes open to the matter, and will continue to press His Majesty's Government as to the action which they ought to take at the earliest possible date.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM CASES.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Lord President of the Council on whose authority it is determined whether an application shall be made for the hearing of a criminal charge in camera.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I understand that the Question which I am going to ask, and which is almost of a formal nature, will be answered by the Lord Chancellor, and I have already indicated to him that the words of the Question as it appears on the Paper are wider than I really intended. I desire to ask on whose authority it is determined whether an application should be made for the hearing in camera of a criminal charge under the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act of this year. Your Lordships will recollect that under an Act which received the Royal Assent on March 16 of this year the right of British citizens to the ordinary procedure of criminal trial was restored to them. It was restored with certain limitations, and it is in reference to one of those limitations that I wish to ask this Question. The limitation is contained in subsection (3) of Section 1, and is in these words—
"In addition and without prejudice to any powers which a Court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings, if, in the course of the trial of a person for a felony under this Section, application is made by the prosecution, in the interests of national safety, that all or any portion of the public should be excluded during any part of the hearing, the Court may make an Order to that effect, but the passing of sentence shall in any case take place in public."
I assume that no one would object to a power of trial in camera where an application was properly made that a case should be so heard in the interests of national safety. But we all regard publicity as the great sanction and safeguard of our legal liberties in this country. Our legal liberties do not depend on some of the high-flown theories that we find in Continental Codes, but on the constant insistence that as regards criminal proceedings they shall, except for very special objects and purposes, always he held in public and therefore subject to public opinion.
The Question I am asking is this. Who is it who decides in a particular case that it is in the interests of national safety that the hearing should be in camera? My own view is that if that decision is given and the responsibility taken by the Department of the Public Prosecutor there is really no safeguard that the true meaning and intent of the subsection will be guaranteed and carried out, because it almost follows that from the Public Prosecutor's point of view it might be advantageous in many cases to have the

797
hearing in camera, not from the point of view of national interests but from the point of view of the prosecuting authority. If, on the other hand, the responsibility is taken by some Minister, such, for instance, as the Home Secretary, who would determine the matter on wide public grounds, then I for one should have no objection and should consider that the words of the subsection which I have quoted constituted a proper provision as regards the public safety.
I noticed not long ago a letter from the Home Secretary in which he stated perfectly accurately—as the Home Secretary would be sure to do on any legal point—the present position under the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act. He said—
"if a British citizen in time of war so acts that his conduct is likely to cause disaffection or to prejudice recruiting he undoubtedly renders himself liable to legal proceedings."
There is no doubt that that is a correct statement of the law. It is a new law, part of what is sometimes called the panic law or the exceptional Law applicable to war time only. No such provision, for instance, was considered necessary during the Crimean War or during the Napoleonic period, although I apprehend that during the Napoleonic period the crisis as far as this country was concerned was at least as severe as it is at the present time. But the words "likely to cause disaffection or to prejudice recruiting" are extremely wide. In one sense, any criticism of the Government nifty be said to be likely to cause disaffection. In the same way, any criticism of the present method of recruiting may be said to interfere with and prejudice recruiting generally. In my own view, nothing has interfered more with what I consider our admirable system of voluntary recruiting than much that has been said and written as regards the compulsory system. I only throw that out as one of the points which make it exceedingly necessary that the authority dealing with this subsection should draw a line between fair criticism and matters that are really important as regards national safety. But for that I apprehend that Lord Chatham, in the American War, might have been subjected to prosecution, and certainly Mr. Fox during the Napoleonic period.
I am sure there is not a single member of this House who is not sincerely earnest in his desire to preserve the ordinary rights of public discussion and of public
798
freedom in this country. Therefore what I ask the Lord Chancellor is, I think, in no sense a controversial question, for I believe we should all be agreed as regards the benefit of publicity on 1he one side and the necessity for restriction under very special conditions on the other. But until one knows with whom the responsibility rests and who actually gives the direction under which the prosecuting counsel acts, one does not feel sure that a wide power of this kind may not be used in a way which might be considered hardly fair in particular instances. Therefore I desire to ask the Lord Chancellor the Question which I have read, in order to know by what authority and on whose responsibility the decision in such cases is given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, it is a very simple and easy matter to answer the Question which has been placed on the Paper by the noble and learned Lord. I think your Lordships must all have felt in listening to the noble and learned Lord's speech that it was not merely the information that was asked for by the Question which he desired to obtain, but that he was seeking, I will not say to encourage, but to provoke a discussion on the merits of the Act of Parliament, under which this procedure exists. I say that for this reason, that an acute and learned lawyer like the noble and learned Lord could have found the answer to his own Question at once by looking at the Act of Parliament, which makes it perfectly plain that in all cases where a trial takes place in camera it can only so take place on the application of the prosecution, and, most important of all, that application must take place at the trial. He knows perfectly well that the application by the prosecution at the trial must be made with the sanction of the counsel for the Crown, the Director of Public Prosecutions instructing him, and, it may be, at the suggestion of any Department behind. It is perfectly impossible to say in any particular prosecution that any one particular person would be responsible for the application being made.
I think it would be well, now that this question has been raised, that your Lordships should permit me to recall to your memory the exact conditions under which this power of hearing in camera takes place. The original Statute for the Defence of

799
the Realm practically provided that every offence should be tried by Court-Martial, the only exceptions being cases which were trivial and which might be tried by Courts of summary jurisdiction. It was then that the Act was passed this year which provided that a case which was triable originally under the first Statute by Court-Martial might be tried by a civil Court with a jury and when so tried the offence should be treated as a felony, the object of that being to enable a bill of indictment to be presented to the Grand Jury without going through the formality of proceedings before the magistrate. In that case there is a provision that, if the prosecution thinks it in the public safety that the proceedings should take place in private, application may be made to the Court, and it is for the Court to determine whether or not the public should be excluded front the trial. The question as to who instigated or instituted the application to the Court is, I submit to your Lordships, a matter of no moment at all, because the Court decides, and not the prosecution, whether the public shall be admitted or shall be shut out. Consequently no advantage whatever would be gained by asking any Government Department to consider a matter which strictly, I suggest, is hardly one for their consideration. Those who have charge of the proceedings have before them all the evidence and know its tendency, and are best able to form a judgment as to whether the publication of the documents or the disclosure of the evidence might tend to prejudice or imperil the safety of the realm. In those circumstances application can be made to the Court, and the Court can exclude the public from its proceedings. That applies to cases where the offence was to be tried as equivalent to a felony.
By a subsequent Order in Council two other classes of cases have been included. One is where the competent naval or military authority, in their discretion, think that the trial should take place before a Court of summary jurisdiction. In that case, again, the prosecution is at liberty to apply to the magistrate who is hearing the case for the same leave, and the magistrate may accept or refuse the application as he thinks right. The third case is more important. Originally power was given to the competent naval or military authority, if they thought right, to enter any place where they believed
800
that matter was likely to exist the publication of which would be dangerous to the safety of the realm, or would prejudice recruiting, or in any way affect the relationship between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of foreign Powers. In those cases there was power to enter and to seize printing, presses, and other material and to destroy them. That was modified by an Order which provided that there should be power to go to a magistrate and apply for a search warrant, and that when the documents had been seized under this search warrant the person who was respondent to the proceedings should be called before the Court to show cause why these things should not be destroyed. In this case again power was given to the Court to declare that the discussion of the whole proceedings should take place in private, and once more that application was at the instance of the prosecution.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not desire to discuss tote wisdom of the Statutes. I am bound to say, having once more carefully considered them, that the only surprise they give rise to in my mind is surprise at their moderation. I am astonished that, when we stand in the peril and jeopardy in which we find ourselves to-day, when we not only have to fight the foe in the open field hut know that their spies are in every land intriguing to enmesh and entangle every Government, we have found it possible to proceed under the comparatively mild and benevolent legislation which has been established.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say, in answer to the Lord Chancellor, that questions of policy have been raised by him which certainly were not raised by me. If his view is, as I understand it to be, that the present legislation is insufficient —that is not my view—then I assume that the Government will take the responsibility of introducing legislation of the character which they think necessary, and not too moderate, having regard to the views which the Lord Chancellor has expressed. I can only say for my part that if legislation of that kind is introduced I shall do my best to oppose it at every possible stage, because I believe that you only promote some of the evils to which the Lord Chancellor referred by attempting too drastic legislation against the feelings of large masses of the people of this country. After all, we are the heirs of

801
free opinion, and there are many people in this country who still believe in the maintenance of free opinion. We all, of course, regret the existence of spies, but it may be that the doubt and feeling of insecurity to which the Lord Chancellor referred is more advanced, as I think it is, by the absence of publicity to a certain extent and the absence, as I consider, of truth in matters which the Government disclose, than by allowing free discussion according to the old principles of free opinion. I have been led into that digression by what the Lord Chancellor said.
The noble and learned Lord has not given any satisfactory answer to the Question which I asked. It is, of course, quite clear that the prosecuting counsel makes the application to the Court, but when an application is made on the ground of national safety it is very seldom that the application is otherwise than favourably entertained. I do not consider that the prosecuting counsel is the person to decide whether or not particular documents or particular matters can be disclosed consistently with national safety. That national safety is an essential element I do not suppose any member of your Lordships' House can doubt for a moment, but the question I asked was, Who took the responsibility? I regret to hear that it is taken by the prosecuting counsel. Though the Lord Chancellor says I am acute lawyer enough to know, I do not at all agree with what he said. I should have thought that the prosecuting counsel in a matter of this kind acted on instructions. My question was, Who gave the instructions? I cannot imagine that it is the duty of any counsel to get up and what I may call invent a case of public or national safety. He acts on instructions, and I ash, Who is responsible for those instructions? I regret to say that I have had no answer.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I rise with the greatest possible reluctance to add a word or two to this discussion. I confess that I am moved not so much by the anxiety of my noble and learned friend to know whether the application to the Court is made by the prosecuting counsel on his own responsibility or on the responsibility of instructions given to him by the Home Office. That is the question which the noble and learned Lord opposite desired to put, and which the noble and learned Lord
802
on the Woolsack essayed to answer. As I say, I am not so much concerned with that. But I am very much concerned with the spirit and the language of the speech of the Lord Chancellor in answering the noble and learned Lord. In this very difficult and important matter in which we are engaged surely we must all feel very strongly the desirability, if possible, of maintaining every safeguard of publicity in the conduct of any prosecution in one of the Courts of Law.
I submit that a case should be made out to the satisfaction of some judicial person as to the necessity of abating the publicity which is our greatest safeguard of justice. I gathered from the answer given by the Lord Chancellor that that was secured by the Statute and the Order in Council made under the Statute, but I am bound to say that it is not clear to me that it is so secured. It is not clear to me that in practice the conduct in the cases that have arisen has been quite up to the level of the conditions laid down by the noble and learned Lord. The Lord Chancellor says that the prosecuting counsel makes the application and that the application must be determined by the magistrate—or by the Court, whatever the Court may be—and that the Court has the power of declining to accede to the application. That is all very well, but some case, one would suppose, must be laid before the magistrate for his decision—some prima facie case, showing that there is danger in publicity, which the application for the restriction of publicity is based upon. The action of the magistrate should be founded upon proof brought before him of the danger of publicity.
In the few cases that I have noticed which have been held under this Act and the Orders made upon it, I have not observed that there has been any attempt to put before the magistrate evidence as to the danger involved in permitting the usual publicity. But I am glad to think—proud to think—that in some of the cases that have occurred the subsequent action of the magistrate has demonstrated that we are maintaining the old principles of our Constitutional Law, and that no danger such as is involved in the present dreadful struggle, and no fear of the crowd of spies who seem to have excited the mind of the Lord Chancellor, has prevented the magistrate from applying himself pretty

803
strictly to an examination of the documents brought before him and coming to the conclusion that the application was not worthy of confirmation. The fact that magistrates have been able to arrive at that conclusion is in itself, to my mind, a very damning condemnation of the action of the Executive in bringing these special applications before them. If the magistrate, on examination of the documents which are said to involve these dangers, has conic to the conclusion that no such dangers are involved, surely there is a great burden of disproof laid on the prosecuting authorities to show that they were not led astray by excited alarms and by misguided fancy in instituting an application which had so lamentably failed. Observe that the whole thing turns on the examination of documents which were open to the prosecuting counsel. It is, I say, a great condemnation of the Executive Government that they should have taken the step of making the application, and the fact that they have failed is the worst vote of censure which could be passed upon them in such a question. I am of opinion that in no stress of anxiety should our old Constitutional guarantees of liberty be in any way abated. I would not have entered at all into this discussion —which I take part in, as I said at the commencement, with great. reluctance—had not the language which was used by the Lord Chancellor inspired me with anxiety as to the temper in which prosecutions of this kind might be instituted and conducted.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I rise because I think it would be unfortunate if the speeches of Lord Parmoor and Lord Courtney were answered only by the Lord Chancellor, by a member of the Government, for that might be taken to mean that the bulk or a great many of the members of your Lordships' House were in favour of the views which those two noble Lords have put forward. I cannot think for a moment that that is the case. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) has on more than one occasion, if my memory serves me right, tried to weaken the provisions of those Acts which were brought forward for the Defence of the Realm. I remember his moving Amendments on several occasions—
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: And he has told us to-day that in his view those Acts are already too strong. With the exception of Lord Courtney, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord opposite has a single sympathiser in this House in the view that he takes. I believe the view which was put forward by the Lord Chancellor represents the feelings of us all. The noble Lord who sits by me (Lord Courtney) talked of the "safeguards of publicity." He said that the safeguards of publicity that are dear to us all must be maintained. My Lords, Lord Courtney and Lord Parmoor are dealing with other days. What were the safeguards of publicity for? They were to prevent poor individuals from being oppressed by richer people; to prevent the poorer classes being trampled down by other classes; to prevent subjects who were weak being trampled upon by a strong Government. In old days there was meaning in the "safeguards of publicity." But we are now in other times. We are not now afraid of a tyrannous Government. Some of us would like the Government to be even stronger. We are not afraid of one class trampling upon another class. All classes in this country are at present engaged in one cause and thinking about one thing in the main, and one thing only. We are not thinking about any class or any individuals. I submit that all this talk about the safeguards of publicity is now out of date; it is absurd. It may be relevant in one year or in two or three years from now. But to-day, my Lords, it is nonsense. What we have to think about to-day is the safety of the country, and that is what every one is thinking about out of doors. I have risen to say these few words because I believe they represent the view with which most of us sympathise, and because in my opinion it would have been most unfortunate had the speeches of the noble and learned Lord opposite and of Lord Courtney been answered by a member of the Government only.

PRECAUTIONS AGAINST AIR RAIDS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Question on the Paper:—
To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the result of the Zeppelin raids on London last week were not a proof that anti-aircraft guns are of little use against aerial attack; and whether the establishment of a landing place for

805
our aircraft on the south side of Hyde Park is not desirable, so that we might follow the methods adopted so successfully in Paris by patrolling regularly the London skies and by posting other aircraft in Hyde Park in readiness to fly should the approach of Zeppelins be signalled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, just before I came down to the House, this afternoon the noble Duke the Civil Lord of the Admiralty asked me to postpone this Question. I quite understand the reasons for this request, because from the announcement which we have seen in the newspapers to-day it is evident that the Department which the noble Duke represents is going to reorganise the whole of its preparations and precautions in this matter. I hope that. when the noble Duke is in a position to make his statement he will be able to answer the suppositions contained in my Question—namely, that up to the present the uselessness of antiaircraft guns has been demonstrated, together with the need of a landing station and a jumping-off station in the centre of London, copying what has been done in Paris. The noble Duke is, of course, aware that for some time Paris has been, owing to the precautions there taken, entirely free from air raids; and it is to be hoped that the noble Duke will be able to inform your Lordships that similar precautions here are about to be taken—though late, better late than never—by the Admiralty.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for agreeing to postpone his Question. I am unable now definitely to promise any statement on the subject. I am, however, aware of the keenness that exists to know full details on this subject, and if it, is possible later I shall be glad on behalf of the Admiralty to make a full statement. It may be some time before any such statement can be made, but as soon as I am in a position to do so I shall be glad to place what facts I can before the House.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Duke will communicate with me when he considers it convenient that the Question should be again put down.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.

LEGISLATION AND THE "END OF THE WAR."
On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN said: I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the. House a question. At the commencement of our proceedings to-day he stated that the Order in Council for postponing the date of Disestablishment under the Welsh Church Act until the end of the war was signed this morning. I do not know whether he is able to tell us what terms were used in that Order as explaining what is meant by the "end of the war." That phrase appears in the Amending Act of last year which empowered the issue of this Order in Council, and it finds a place in a good many Acts that have been passed in the course of the last twelve months. But it appears to me to be a most indefinite phrase, and I ask whether some precise interpretation by Statute cannot be applied to it—as, for example, the date of the ratification of the Treaty of Peace between the belligerents, or something of that kind. It is obvious that the phrase is open to more than one interpretation, at any rate to the ordinary mind. I do not know whether there is any legal interpretation of it, but I have never heard of one. Will His Majesty's Government consider this matter, and, if they think it necessary that there should be a definite interpretation of the phrase, propose legislation on the subject? With regard to the Welsh Church Act it is very important that the precise date should be known. As the noble Marquess is aware, many very important things happen on the date of Disestablishment which could not be recalled if they had once happened.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have frequently drawn the attention of noble Lords opposite to this point, and I understood from what my noble friend Lord Curzon said on a recent occasion that the Government had it under consideration, and that there was to be a general Act introduced at some time or another which would state exactly what was meant by the phrase "the end of the war." That is the case, is it not?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not remember exactly the words in which my noble friend Lord Curzon spoke on this subject, although, like the two

807
noble Earls, I have a distinct recollection of this subject having been raised before, indeed more than once, and I fully recognise its importance. If the noble Earl will allow me, I will consult my colleagues once more in order to see what steps can properly be taken—I confess I do not see why they should not be taken fairly soon—with a view of arriving at some final definition of this obscure date, which, as we all know, appears in various Acts of Parliament, and of which, so far as I
808
am aware, no authorised interpretation has been given either in this or in the of her House.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c., BILL.
The Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading to be resumed on Thursday next.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.