Sitting of 28 September 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 24th September, 1915, affecting certain Shops in the burgh of Dundee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Account showing the money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the money borrowed and the securities created in respect thereof; and the expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Commissioner of Works, respectively, under the Housing Act, 1914, for the period ended 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 354.]
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
Account presented of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1915, and Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 355.]
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, etc., for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copies presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 241 declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with American Gooseberry Mildew and an infected area for the purposes of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order, numbered D.I.P. 242, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order 9519, dated 21st September, 1915, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 4th October, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE OF SOUTH AFRICA.
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of the Union of South Africa (and Rhodesia) for the year 1914, by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for South Africa (Mr. H. E. Gauntlett) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (MILITARY).
Copy presented of Despatches regarding operations in the Persian Gulf and in Mesopotamia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEENSTOWN HARBOUR COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Report from the Committee appointed by the Postmaster-General to consider the omission of the call at Queenstown on the American Mail Service, together with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and a Chart of Queenstown Harbour [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Twenty-third Report of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland for the period 1st April, 1914, to the 31st March, 1915, with references to subsequent transactions and with Accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1914. Part I., Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Church Temporalities (Ireland),— Copy of Accounts of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland from 1st April, 1914, and from 26th July, 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act) to 31st March, 1915, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 356];

2. Public Records (High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Admiralty),—Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of Documents existing or accruing in the High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Admiralty), formerly the High Court of Admiralty, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether anything is being done to obtain from Turkey a list of British prisoners
    706
    captured in the Dardanelles; and, if so, with what result?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Every effort has been made, through the United States Ambassador, to obtain lists of British prisoners of war captured in the Dardanelles, and the Ottoman Government have been warned that, until they fulfil their obligations in this respect, no further lists of Turkish prisoners in the custody of the British Forces will be furnished to them, nor will specific inquiries concerning missing Turkish officers be answered.
    So far we have only received from the Turkish Government the names of twenty officers and men of the crew of the submarine E 15, the names of thirty-two officers and men of the submarine A E 2, and the names of two officers and fourteen men of the Military Forces. In addition to the above, we have received the names of about one hundred and twenty officers and men through the kind offices of the United States Ambassador at Constantinople. It must, however, not be concluded that the Secretary of State for War has not received further information from other sources as to officers and men reported missing from the British Mediterranean Expeditionary Force.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in existing circumstances, there is any machinery in being for removing wounded British prisoners from Germany to Switzerland for the benefit of their health; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of approaching the United States Government with the view of asking them to use their good offices in the matter?
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a project of sending wounded British prisoners to a neutral country
    (Switzerland) has been arranged; and what information he can give regarding it?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. No machinery of the kind indicated at present exists. A proposal was made by the Vatican for such a procedure and has been under consideration, but it has not hitherto been found practicable.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the efforts of the British authorities be in favour of carrying out an arrangement of the sort?
    Mr TENNANT: It is impossible to give an answer either in the affirmative or negative to that suggestion until one knows fully what the suggestion involves.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in order to facilitate the apprehension of escaped German prisoners of war, he will, instead of paying notes or other currency to these prisoners, give directions that payments to them shall be in the form of vouchers which will be accepted in the places of internment in payment for their food and clothing and other necessaries?
    Mr. TENNANT: The token system is now being introduced, and this will do away with the use of money by officer prisoners of war. Payments to ordinary prisoners are in such small sums that it is not considered that the token system in their case is at present feasible.
    Sir ROBERT PRICEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any further information about the number of men of the 5th Norfolks missing since the 2nd August; and whether it is now possible to state whether any, and which, of them are prisoners of war?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of about 200 men reported missing up to date, only seven have been reported to the War Office as prisoners of war. It is possible that some of the others who are recorded as missing may be in direct communication with their relatives, but I cannot give any figure for these men. Every effort has been made to obtain from the Turkish Government full lists of the prisoners of war in their hands, but so far these efforts have not been successful. Perhaps the hon. Member will refer to Question No. 1, answered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that the British Government pays to German officers of the rank of lieutenant and second lieutenant, who are prisoners of war in his country, double as much as the German Government pays to British officers of the same rank who are prisoners of war in Germany, and that the British Government pays to German prisoners of war of the rank of captain and the higher ranks more than one-third as much again as the German Government pays to British prisoners of war of the same rank; and
    708
    whether, in view of the fact that the German Government have by the murder of non-combatants on sea and on land, by the bombardment of unfortified towns, and by numerous other acts of barbarity systematically violated and in effect abrogated The Hague Conventions, the British Government will in future pay to German officers who are prisoners of war in this country the same daily or monthly sums and no more that are paid by the German Government to British officers who are prisoners of war in Germany?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Under The Hague Convention each country pays to the officers that it makes prisoners of war the rates of pay allowed to its own officers. As the German Government is paying only a proportion of those rates to our officers, a similar proportion of our rates is being paid to captured German officers. Under The Hague Convention, whatever payments are made are due to be repaid by the Government to whom the officers belong.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter question: Whether, in view of the fact that the German Government by acts of barbarity have violated and abrogated The Hague Conventions, the British Government will in future pay to German officers who are prisoners of war in this country only the same sums that are paid by the German Government to British officers who are prisoners of war in Germany?
    Mr. FORSTER: The negotiations are still proceeding through the good offices of the United States of America, and I am certainly not without hope that in this matter, at any rate, the provisions of The Hague Convention will be fully observed by all the countries concerned.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the German Government have by their action during the War practically violated almost every provision of The Hague Convention?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think it is better we should be guided by our own standard of ethics rather than that of Germany.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will arrange to

    709
    grant a more generous proportion of leave or furlough to those regiments whose men have been out over nine months and some even twelve months?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that I can only refer my hon. Friend to the full answer I gave on this matter on the 16th September. I know that the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief is strongly impressed with the desirability of giving leave as freely as military exigencies and administrative conditions permit. I cannot, however, think that the present moment is one at which we should be contemplating an increase in the grant of leave. I feel confident that our soldiers, even after the severe strain they have encountered with a cheerfulness which commands the admiration of all men, would not wish to be baulked of the glorious opportunity for which during these many months they must have longed.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed in the papers an account of two men coming home on leave, who, when they got to Boulogne and heard fighting was going on, at once chucked up their leave—and went back again?
    Mr. TENNANT: I had not heard of that, but it is exactly in consonance with what I should expect.

    ARMY BOOTS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Government still hold to the view that it is not possible to grant an all-British specification for Army boots; and whether, in face of the necessity recently referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of keeping as much money as possible in this country, he will reconsider the matter and allow the British Army to be supplied with boots made from British leather?
    Mr. FORSTER: There already exists a specification to which regulation boots are being made in large numbers which specifies that the whole of the leather is to be of British manufacture. Returns showing the leather production of the country have, however, been obtained from time to time, and as a result it is not considered advisable at present to restrict the source of supply by entirely prohibiting the use of any but British leather. The consideration referred to by my hon. Friend is a guiding principle of all War Office contracts under
    710
    present conditions, and so far as is possible goods are obtained from British sources and foreign purchases are avoided.

    SERVICE BLANKETS.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the blankets at present being purchased by his Department for the use of our soldiers at the front are made not wholly of wool but of a mixture of cotton and cheap wool or shoddy?
    Mr. FORSTER: Orders have been placed for a large number of blankets required within a limited period. All offers of blankets according to the War Department specification, under which the blankets are to be made wholly of wool, have been accepted with one or two exceptions where the price asked was excessive. In addition to this orders have been given for blankets made according to samples which have been approved after expert examination. Some of these samples are made wholly of wool. Others have a cotton warp with a heavy wool weft, but there are no inferior shoddy yarns among the samples approved. In no case does the cotton exceed approximately 10 per cent., and the blankets are good warm articles, suitable in every respect for the service.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the quality of the blankets now provided has gone down from what it was originally when the War started?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I do not think it has.

    FORM OF ATTESTATION.
    Mr. PROTHEROasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether (1) Question 16 in the form of attestation (Army Form B 265) has been so altered as to show men enlisting for the Cavalry or Artillery that they are now liable to be transferred to the Infantry, and those enlisting for a non-combatant branch that they are now liable to be transferred to a combatant branch; and (2) paragraph 6 (a) of the notice to be given to men at the time of their offering to join the Army (Army Form B 265a) has been so altered as to show them that they are now liable to be transferred from one corps to another without their consent?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; the alterations referred to have not yet been

    711
    carried out. The form in which the information can best be given is still being considered. I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to the matter and I will see that a decision is reached forthwith.

    ENLISTMENT (BOYS).
    Mr. PROTHEROasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers have been recently instructed by the War Office to treat the age given by a boy on enlistment as his official age and, provided the medical officer certifies him to be up to the standard of 18½ years and fit for service abroad, to send him on active service overseas, although his parents prove by his birth certificate that his real age is 17 years and 1 day?
    Mr. TENNANT: General Officers Commanding-in-Chief have been instructed that soldiers who, by their birth certificates, are shown to be over seventeen years of age are, in the event of an application for their discharge, to be held to serve, and that if the medical officer certifies they are up to the standard of eighteen and a half years and fit for service abroad, they may be sent overseas. A man's actual age is not always a true measure of his physical efficiency, and I think that adequate security against youths who are immature being sent overseas is provided by the requirement of a definite medical certificate of fitness for service abroad.

    INTERNMENT CAMPS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in order to render the escape of German prisoners of war more difficult and to facilitate their apprehension when escaped, he will give directions that all German military prisoners shall wear their uniform, and all German civilian prisoners shall wear some distinctive dress, and that no prisoner, military or civilian, shall be allowed to possess a suit of mufti?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is the rule that all German military prisoners shall wear their uniform, and the civilian prisoners are provided in case of need with a regulation suit of corduroy of a distinctive and peculiar cut. Civilian prisoners who provide
    712
    their own clothing are not called upon to wear a distinctive dress.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Where did the military prisoners get the mufti which have allowed the several recent escapes?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware whether or not my hon. and learned Friend is alluding to prisoners of war, but they ought not to have been able to secure mufti unless they got it after their escape. They would not be allowed to wear it in the prison. It is only civilians who provide their own clothes.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are steps taken to ensure that these military prisoners of war are not in possession of suits of mufti?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer that without reference to the various camps; but I should imagine so.
    Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by a largely attended meeting held at Hertford, on the 18th instant, demanding the immediate closing of the German Army base camp at Great Munden, in the county of Hertford, and the internment of Mr. Muller, its commandant, and the Germans garrisoned there under his command; and whether it is his intention to comply with the demand of the inhabitants as expressed in the terms of the resolution?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have not seen the terms of the resolution referred to, but I can assure the hon. Member that there is no German Army base camp at Great Munden and that no Germans are garrisoned there. There is a hospital camp at Libury Hall in that neighbourhood, where eighty-nine Germans (average age, fifty-nine), and four Austrians (average age, fifty-five)—most of them suffering from serious infirmities—are interned. Colonel W. S. Fergusson is the commandant. Muller is not commandant: he is a German who is not now allowed to leave the camp.
    Sir J. ROLLESTON: Is it anything but a pretence that this is an internment camp?.
    Sir J. SIMON: Oh, yes.

    NAVAL CENTRES (MILITARY OFFICERS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what are the

    713
    duties of the military officer attached to each naval centre; whether he is aware that in many cases this military officer has practically nothing to do, and that his duties are performed, or can be easily performed, by the naval officer at the naval centre; and whether, in order to avoid unnecessary waste of public money, he will abolish the post of military officer attached to naval centres?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that it is undesirable to specify the nature of the duties assigned to these officers. The question of economy has not been lost sight of, and I can assure him that the responsible authorities consider it necessary to maintain the posts in question.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider one or two special cases which I will bring to his notice, where it was found that this particular military officer had really nothing to do?
    Mr. TENNANT: It may be quite true that at the moment the military officer is not wholly employed, or, one might even go so far as to say unemployed, but, inasmuch as his services would be very desirable, and even essential, in case of emergency, it is not considered possible to do away with the post.

    COMMISSIONS (NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND MEN).
    Sir R. PRICEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some commanding officers refuse to allow applications for commissions to go forward from non-commissioned officers and men under their command; and whether, considering the need of good and experienced commissioned officers, the War Office will direct commanding officers to facilitate applications by really well-qualified men?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter has engaged the continuous attention of the Department, and the desire expressed by my hon. Friend is fully recognised. I may state that all commanding officers have instructions to facilitate the applications of suitable candidates for commissions, provided the efficiency of the unit is not impaired by the withdrawal from its ranks of a large number of non-commissioned officers and men at one time.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get commanding officers to send him a list of the number of refusals?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not at all sure that we would not be able to compile a list ourselves without asking the command-officers, but I do not know what object would be gained.

    MILITARY OFFICERS (CIVIL WORK).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of military officers who are physically fit for Home service with the Colours who are engaged on censorship and other civil work under the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: No military officers who are physically fit for Home service with the Colours and who are required elsewhere are employed in the military censorship, nor am I aware of any officers being employed on any civil work in the War Office.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the amount at present being paid in pensions to officers who are re-employed in the Army who are also in receipt of full pay and allowances for the duties which they now perform?
    Mr. TENNANT: To give this figure would involve a very considerable amount of research and clerical labour which I should not feel justified in casting upon the Department.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Third Special Report from the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants); and, if so, can he·give a date?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I said on Thursday, I do not think there is any need to provide a special opportunity. The hon. Member can avail himself of opportunities that occur.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand that the Government have accepted the Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, nothing is to be understood from my answer but what I have said.

    RELATIVES SUMMONED TO WOUNDED (RAILWAY PASSES).
    Mr. WINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will provide, in cases where the War Office or hospital authorities send for relatives to visit the wounded, for a free railway pass being granted or full fare allowed?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool on the 28th June last. The privilege of free travelling is already allowed, but it is necessarily restricted to cases in which the sick or wounded soldier is in a grave condition, and it can only be granted to one relative and on condition that the relative is not in a position to pay the cost of the journey.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the advisability of collecting the Property Tax and Income Tax by means of two or more instalments; whether he is aware that, owing to recent increases in these taxes, the necessity to pay them in a lump sum causes special hardship to those whose income is received in instalments, and especially to owners of house property; and whether he proposes to grant any relief in this respect?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. As a general rule, Property Tax is paid by deduction and the hardship referred to by my hon. Friend does not arise.
    Sir W. BULLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to allow all Income Tax to be paid quarterly, seeing that in many cases the concession to be allowed to pay it half-yearly does not give much relief in cases where the tax payable is greatly increased?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member's question. Does he mean the first payment to be made in the last quarter of the year? If so, the proposal would amount to a postponement of payment of the tax for at least nine months, a course which I could not recommend to Parliament.
    Sir W. BULLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to deal with overtime, inasmuch as a clerk or works foreman has a standing wage but does not get overtime, although he is paid during his holidays and is sometimes given a bonus to compensate him for overtime worked, seeing that he has to pay Income Tax on all he receives, whilst the workman earning over £2 10s. a week is only to be charged on his standard weekly wage; is he aware that some workmen with overtime are now earning from £7 to £9 a week, which is far higher pay than the total receipts of the clerk or foreman; and will he consider how to equalise the charges on these two classes of persons?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is proposed that the assessment to Income Tax of a workman, as in the case of all other taxpayers, should include the whole of his actual income. The suggested discrepancy would not therefore arise.

    CINEMA FILMS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether it is proposed that the tax on cinema films will be levied on the ruling value of the negative per foot?
    Mr. McKENNA: The duty on imported cinema films will be chargeable at specific rates per linear foot, as shown in the Resolution of the 21st instant.

    WAE PEOFITS TAX.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: If the profits of English companies which are derived from working gold and other mines abroad, and which profits may have increased during the War, but are in no way attributable to the War, will be free from taxation as excess or war profits?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Excess Profits Tax, which, as I have indicated, is directed to the raising of additional revenue from the sources best able to contribute, will apply to such companies as the hon. Member mentions.

    PATENT MEDICINES (POSTPONEMENT OF INCREASED DUTY).
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he has considered the representations made to him regarding the practical difficulties in the way of re-stamping by to-morrow the existing stocks of articles liable to the Patent Medicines Stamp Duty, and whether he is prepared to make any announcement on the subject.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise have, by my direction, discussed this matter with the representatives of the trade, and have reported to me that in their opinion a good case has been made out for postponing the operation of the new duty. I propose to ask the House to-morrow to agree to its postponement until the 20th of October.

    LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has recently caused notice to be given to a large additional number of the staff of the Land Valuation Department that their services will be dispensed with on an early date; if so, whether those so notified are mainly men of military age; and whether a portion of these vacancies are being filled by the appointment of temporary men of over military age, and to a certain extent by the appointment of women where practicable?
    Mr. McKENNA: The stage which has been reached in the original valuation of land under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, renders it possible to dispense with the services of a number of the temporary valuation staff, and the reduction in numbers is being effected so far as possible by selecting for discharge men of military age. With regard to the last part of the question, there is no intention of replacing the officers now being discharged.
    Sir J. ROLLESTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many official have been discharged or have ceased to be employed in the Land Valuation Department since 1st March last; how many new appointments have been made since that date; how many officials were still employed in the depart-
    718
    ment on 1st September last, and what is the total amount of their salaries; how many officials are employed by the Commissioners in the Somerset House Land Department, and what was the total of their salaries; whether any attempt has been made to reduce the rental expenses; and, if so, what is the amount of the reduction?
    Mr. McKENNA: The number of Valuation Office officials whose employment under the Board of Inland Revenue terminated between 1st March and 1st September is 1,437. The number of new appointments in this period is twelve. The number of the effective valuation staff on 1st September was 2,620, the salaries amounting to £411,150. Valuation Office premises to the rental value of £2,800 have either already been given up or will be given up at an early date. The number of officials employed on 1st September in the Land Values branch of the Inland Revenue Department was fifty-six, their salaries totalling £9,570.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to take these figures as indicating that the Government has abandoned the taxation of land for the future?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no.

    SUGAR (BEER MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any portion of sugar or its equivalent acquired by the Government for purposes of the State have been used for the manufacture of beer; and, if so, whether such articles could be substituted by Home-grown malt and hops, and the outsending of national payments stopped?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Sugar Commission have sold sugar to brewers, who have no doubt used it in the manufacture of beer. Freedom in the choice of their brewing materials has been allowed to brewers for many years, and I do not consider that any interference with that privilege is called for by reference to existing circumstances.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends, to apply the new tax to brewing sugar, which is already heavily taxed?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, I think brewing sugar comes under the old tax. It is taxed under the old law, and will be taxed under the new.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the value of imported articles used in Great Britain for the manufacture of beer, and the country of origin of each of such articles for the past five years, respectively; whether he will state the average quantity of sugar or its equivalent used for the past five years; if he is aware that the largest and most successful brewery in the world, situate in Ireland, uses malt and hops only; and whether, having regard to the fact that these materials can be Home grown, he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee to inquire into and report upon the probable advantage to the country of preventing money being sent abroad for articles which can be substituted at Home?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no official record of the origin of the various materials used in the manufacture of beer. The quantity of sugar or its equivalent used in the manufacture of beer during the last five years averaged 3,110,000 cwt. per year. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served at the present time by the appointment of such a Committee as is suggested.

  MUNITIONS.

    BOARD OF CONTROL.
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received any report as to the result of the operations of the Board of Control (Liquor Traffic)?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): No formal report has been made to me by the Board of Control, but reports have been received from some of the main contractors to the Admiralty. Whilst a number of these contractors report that the time is too short for any useful conclusion to be formed, the replies from all the firms on the Tyne are to the effect that the result of the restrictions has been satisfactory. It is reported from another very important district that the results have been very satisfactory, and that the prohibition of treating in particular has had a decidedly beneficial effect and is appreciated by the men for the reason that it leads to a less expenditure of money. A small number of firms report that no effect has been noticed.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Does my right hon. Friend not think the time has come when we might obtain a report from the Board of Control, and have Papers laid on the Table relating to this matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I think they might issue a provisional report, and I will see the chairman on the subject.

    TRANSFER CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has any official information showing that a work man who appealed to a munitions tribunal for a transfer certificate on the ground that carried food was bad for his digestion, and that it was therefore necessary for him to live near his home, had the certificate refused, although he produced a medical certificate in support of his claim?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There have been four cases reported of the type referred to by my hon. Friend, all at Glasgow. In two cases certificates were refused in the circumstances set out in the question; in one of these cases the evidence showed that a restaurant was in the vicinity of the works, and in the other that food was provided at reasonable terms in a dining hall on the premises. In a third case where facilities for obtaining food were not available, the tribunal adjourned the case for consideration of their suggestion that arrangements should be made for the man's food to be cooked in the district. In the fourth case a certificate was granted.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has any information showing that a workman who applied to a munitions tribunal for a certificate permitting him to move to employment in another district owing to the fact that his wife's health was suffering from the locality of his present employment was refused a certificate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend's question appears to refer to the case of Joseph Johnson, who sought a leaving certificate from Messrs. Davey Brothers, Limited, of Sheffield, on the ground stated. The decision of the local tribunal was to adjourn the case until the next hearing, with a view to the granting of a certificate if the man could produce a medical certificate as to his wife's health. At a subsequent hearing this medical certificate was duly produced and

    721
    a certificate under Section 7 was granted by the tribunal.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has any official information showing that munition tribunals, in dealing with applications from workmen for permission to transfer their services from one employer to another, refuse such applications in almost every case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So far from it being the fact that in almost every case applications by workmen for a certificate under Section 7 of the Munitions of War Act have been refused, the records of the Department show that out of 125 cases actually decided up to the 18th September, certificates were refused in sixty-five and granted in sixty cases.

    LTST OF OFFICIALS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of Munitions if he will issue a list of the Members of Parliament and officials now employed in the Ministry of Munitions and the salaries which are being paid to them?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it necessary to anticipate the normal issue of a list of the staff of the Ministry, but I will endeavour to give the hon. Member any information which he may desire for his own use provided that it can be furnished without an undue amount of labour. Since the formation of the Ministry a number of Members of Parliament have been rendering valuable assistance—some of them working during the whole of the Parliamentary Recess. In addition to these, many others have been giving a good deal of time to the work of the Parliamentary Munitions Committee. None of them are receiving a salary for their work, and I desire to express the thanks of the Ministry for the services they have freely rendered.
    Sir R. COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not promise the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Macmaster) on the 14th of July that he would issue a list of the officials employed by this Department, and does he now see his way to do that?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A good many of them are working without salaries at all, but I do not see that there is any objection to issuing such a list. If the hon. Member for Walsall and other hon. Members would like it I will see what I can do.

    OIL SUPPLIES (ARMY AND NAVY).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the large sums now being paid for oil for the Army and Navy, any of the oil companies have been placed on the list of controlled firms?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is only possible to declare an establishment controlled if it is engaged in the manufacture or repair of munitions within the meaning of Section 3 of the Munitions of War Act. So the answer is in the negative.

    MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONAKY FORCE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the unofficial reports regarding the Dardanelles Expedition and to the fact that Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatch only brings the information up to the 30th June, he will make a full statement as to the position and prospects of the expedition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Complete statements as to the progress of the operations from time to time have been made so far as is consistent with military policy. As to the position and prospects of the expedition, I can at present add nothing to the statements made recently by the Secretary of State and myself.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that—without desiring information contrary to military exigencies—there is really a very grave desire throughout the country to know more about the Dardanelles, and is it possible for him to give us any hope that he will make even a guarded statement within the next few weeks?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of making a guarded statement, it is a question of making a full statement or nothing at all. At present it is the opinion of the Government that all has been stated that can be stated consistent with military exigencies.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made by the British Ambassador at Petrograd as to the origin of this expedition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is obvious that notice ought to be given of that question.

    DAMAGE BY AIRCEAFT (INSURANCE).
    Mr. GRANTasked if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation which may determine the doubt which exists as to the incidence of liability to repair or rebuild leasehold premises damaged or occasioned by the agency of hostile aircraft, having regard to the fact that in most cases war risks are not mentioned in leases, and that both lessors and lessees are in many cases taking out policies under the Government insurance scheme?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As I have already stated, I doubt the desirability of introducing legislation to determine the incidence of the risk of damage by aircraft, bombardment, or other dangers peculiar to the War.
    Mr. GRANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman express any opinion with regard to this important matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I should hesitate to do that, because I believe it is a matter that the legal authorities ought to express an opinion upon.
    Mr. GRANT: As the Government have taken upon themselves the duties of an insurance company, is it not their duty to give some expression of opinion with regard to this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statement that the Government is acting as an insurance company would be news to me. It would also be news to me that insurance companies give legal advice to their customers free of cost.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether among the insurance companies which his Department has chosen to do the insurance work against air risks for damage by aeroplanes and otherwise is a company called the General Accident Insurance Corporation, with its headquarters at Perth; if so, is he aware that that company has as a condition to all its other accident policies a clause enabling it in the case of any dispute as to a claim to appoint, after a certain number of days from the claim arising, a single arbiter who has full power to dictate the terms of settlement, that delays occur under arbiters appointed by this company of as much as two years without any decision being given; will he say whether this clause is a condition of the
    724
    policies of air risks undertaken for his Department; and, if so, what provision he is making against delays in settling claims that may arise?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The General Accident Insurance Corporation has been authorised to issue policies on behalf of the Government under the Government Aircraft Insurance Scheme. The policies so issued must be in the form prescribed by the Government scheme, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    LORD HALDANE.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if Lord Haldane is now, or has within the last three months been, officiating in any capacity in any of the Departments of the State; and, if so, in which Department and in what capacity?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Lord Haldane continues to be Chairman of the Board of Trade Committee on the supply of chemical products.
    Sir R. COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Lord Haldane is taking any part whatever in the administration of any Department of the State, other than that to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know why that question is put, and I do not feel called upon to answer it.

    LIGHTING REGULATIONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what, if any, regulations govern the use of acetylene or electric lamps after dark by the owners of motor cars; and, if any regulations exist, will he take more severe measures than now appear to be taken to see that these regulations are properly obeyed
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon):
    The Order as to lights in the Metropolitan Police District and City of London prohibits the use of powerful lamps on motor cars and other vehicles. The police give constant attention to the enforcement of the Order. During the last eight months about 1,300 persons have been proceeded against in the Metropolitan Police District, and contraventions have greatly decreased in number in the last two or three months.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take more drastic measures to enforce the drawing down of blinds and the darkening of rooms that face back gardens in suburban districts; and whether he is aware that these gardens are frequently in a state of illumination while the fronts of the houses are in darkness?
    Sir J. SIMON: The matter has been receiving the attention of the police, and I am now making the following Order which will strengthen their hands:—
    "Bright lights in hotels, flats, dwelling houses and premises of all descriptions not coming under the other provisions of this Order must be shaded or windows screened so that no bright light is cast in any direction outside."
    This will apply to bright lights visible from the rear of houses no less than to those visible from the front.

    BELGIANS (SPECIAL PERMITS).
    Sir R. PRICEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a large and increasing number of Belgians are now leaving this country for Belgium via Holland; and if he is taking any and, if so, what precautions against news reaching the Germans in that way?
    Sir J. SIMON: No passenger can leave this country for Belgium via Holland without a permit from the Permit Office, which was established early in the year for the express purpose of regulating and restricting this passenger traffic in the interests of the Allies. In considering applications for permits special attention is given to the question whether the individual is in a position to carry any information which might be of value to the enemy; and unless the Permit officers are satisfied on this point, permits are refused.

    NAVY (PROMOTIONS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant to the warrant and chief writers facilities for promotion to the commissioned rank of assistant paymaster similar to those granted to seamen and the engineer branches of His Majesty's Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I have indicated in previous replies to questions on this subject, the general
    726
    question of providing the necessary number of officers for the accountant branch to meet the normal requirements of the Service was under the consideration of the Admiralty when War broke out, but was deferred in common with a number of others. I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking in regard to the particular matter referred to in the hon. Member's question, the consideration of which could scarcely be dissociated from the general question. I may, perhaps, point out that commissioned warrant rank for writers has recently been established, and that the establishment of warrant writers, of whom twenty-seven are at present borne, has been increased.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many chief artificer engineers, artificer engineers, or engine-room artificers have been appointed engineer-lieutenants since the outbreak of the War; how many temporary engineer-lieutenants have been appointed during the like period; and why the regular engineering staff of His Majesty's Navy have not had a larger share of these appointments?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Twelve chief artificer engineers have been promoted to engineer-lieutenant since the commencement of the War. During the same period there have also been forty-two promotions of artificer engineers or engine-room artificers to acting mate (E), from which rank promotion to engineer-lieutenant will follow in due course, subject to the necessary requirements being fulfilled. Ninety-six temporary engineer-lieutenants have been entered for the period of the War. The latter appointments have been made to meet special requirements caused by the War, and are for the War period only, whereas the promotions previously enumerated are permanent, and affect only the permanent engineer personnel of the Navy. Appointments and promotions in the permanent Naval Service are governed purely by the permanent requirements of particular classes of officers in that Service, and it is considered that to introduce the system of promoting a man to officer's rank temporarily, which is the hon. Member's suggestion, would be very undesirable.

    MEAT SUPPLY.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his

    727
    attention has been drawn to the statments of a deputation representing the meat-canning and preserving interests of Australia which waited upon Mr. Chief Secretary Black, of the New South Wales Government, in which it was alleged that, in the matter of War Office and Admiralty orders for canned meat, Australian producers had been deliberately boycotted by the Committee of Supplies; that the Chicago Beef Trust had received undue preference to such an extent that, while Australian goods were not accepted, the same goods, if sold to an American firm and freshly labelled, were accepted by both the War Office and the Admiralty; and that Mr. Chief Secretary Black, in reply to the deputation, made remarks regarding the treatment of Australian producers and in connection with the distribution of these canned-beef orders; whether, at the outbreak of the War, large orders had been given to Australian firms against whom no complaint was made; whether, in view of the discontent in the Colonies, he will state the reason for the discontinuance of orders to Australian firms; and whether Australian goods were being or had been tendered from American sources?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is the established policy of the War Office to deal, as far as possible, with Australian packers rather than with foreign firms, subject, of course to due regard being paid to considerations of quality, price, and delivery, and this policy has been strictly adhered to. In view of the existing stocks, no orders of importance have been placed for some time, but there has been no discontinuance of Australian orders as such. Agents of American firms have for some years been buyers of Australian meat, and the purchase of spot stocks naturally includes such goods.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that no complaints had been received from Smithfield concerning the administration of the surplus of Australian and New Zealand meat imports, he is aware that the small jobbers complained of privileged treatment accorded to larger firms, and further complained of having to pay down 90 per cent. of the purchase money against an order to an agent, while the agent himself only paid down 75 per cent. to the Government; whether he is aware that the Government have been condemned for paying 2 per cent. commission
    728
    to agents, and that under private enterprise and free competition these agents formerly were content to work for 1, and in many cases even ½, per cent., and that their task is much simpler than formerly; whether he will give the names of the persons or person on whose authority he decided to double the rate of commission for selling New Zealand and Australian meat, ex-ship or store; and whether, in future, he will throw this work open to free competition and destroy the existing monopoly of privileged agents?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am aware, the arrangements which have been made for the disposal of the meat not required for military purposes are working satisfactorily, and I have had no complaints of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. With regard to the commission paid to the selling agents, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on the 1st July last. The agents employed are always, so far as possible, those who would have dealt with the meat under normal conditions.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that almost continuously since the rising of the House in August quantities of New South Wales beef, mostly that produced by the firm of Richards and Company, of Riverstone, New South Wales, had been placed upon Smithfield Market, a very considerable percentage of the quarters suffering from bone taint; whether he is aware that this beef, though originally of prime quality, was now arriving in stale condition from prolonged storage; whether he will state when the beef was killed and at what date it was acquired by the Government; how the Government came to buy it without any kind of test for bone taint; whether they have paid for it; and, if so, what were the prospects of getting any of their money back?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the period referred to very little New South Wales beef has been placed by the Government on the market. I understand, however, that about 25 tons, forming part of a consignment purchased from the firm mentioned, has been condemned. The meat was bought on behalf of the British Government by the New South Wales Government, and I have no reason to believe that in making purchases due care was not exercised by them, but very careful inquiries will be made into the matter.

    BELGIUM (TEMPORARY BUILDINGS).
    Sir KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Great Britain, France, and Belgium are making arrangements for the erection of movable houses, churches, and schools to re-house temporarily the population of Belgium; whether these contracts will be placed with America and will necessitate an expenditure of several millions of dollars; and whether, in view of the slackness anticipated amongst carpenters and joiners during the coming winter months, he will consider the advisability of placing some of these contracts in this country and the remainder in Canada?
    Sir E. GREY: The Belgian Government have, I believe, had a scheme for movable buildings under consideration, but have as yet come to no decision on the point. Neither His Majesty's Government, nor, so far as I know, the French Government, have contemplated any arrangements of the kind. I have no doubt that, if the Belgian Government decide to invite tenders for such buildings, they will give an opportunity to British industry to compete in the ordinary way.

    RAILWAY WEEK-END FACILITIES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade why special trains at ordinary fares were run to Newmarket from Liverpool Street and St. Pancras on 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th September; and why it is possible to run such specials when probationers in Scotland cannot get the usual week-end facilities?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The position as regards the withdrawal of week-end fares has not been modified since the reply given to my hon. Friend's question of 30th June on the subject. There is, however, nothing to prevent railway companies from running additional trains at ordinary fares when no interference with military or naval traffic is involved.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Has the right hon. Gentleman discovered who the probationers are?

    IRISH BUTTER INDUSTRY.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, with a view to retaining all the instructors in dairying, and at
    730
    the same time to effect a saving in expenditure, he will consider the desirability of suspending the inspection of creameries during the War, as, having regard to the present demand for butter, the arrangement would involve no hardship on the creameries while it would save the Department probably at least £1,000 per annum and the instructors could at the same time be employed in research and experimental work which would be productive of useful results for the Irish butter industry?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Department have arranged for some reduction of expenditure in connection with the inspection of creameries by instructors during the War, but they are strongly of opinion that it would not be in the best interests of the Irish butter industry that all such inspection should be discontinued. The suggestion that dairying instructors should be employed on research work instead of the visiting of creameries is not considered feasible.

    SOLDIERS' PAY (FRENCH NOTES).
    Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether soldiers coming on leave from France are paid their advance money in French notes, upon which they lose nearly 10 per cent. on changing it into English notes at the port of embarkation; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made to pay returning soldiers in English money?
    Mr. FORSTER: Official facilities have been provided whereby such men can exchange French for English money at the port of embarkation at the full current rate of exchange.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (FUTURE EMPLOYMENT).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to adapt wounded men rendered unfit for further active service to other duties in connection with the War, in order to release men for the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: The men referred to in the question are employed on Home defence work in garrisons and garrison duty abroad and also with units in training as cooks, batmen, orderlies, storemen, so as to relieve fit men.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to ascertain how many wounded men have been rendered unfit for further War service; and what proportion are able and anxious to follow new employment suitable to their condition?
    Mr. TENNANT: The number of men unfit for further war service is, of course, known, but my hon. Friend will recognise the undesirability of making public statistics on this head. I can assure him that all those who can be employed on suitable military duties are being so employed. There remains those unfit for military duty for whom it is very desirable that occupation should be found. The Statutory Committee to be set up under the Naval and Military Pensions Bill will have this assigned to them as one of their duties. But I think there will still be scope for civilian effort, and I should welcome any practical suggestions which my hon. Friend or any hon. Member can offer.

  ALLIES AND BALKAN STATES.

    ANNOUNCEMENT BY SIR E. GREY.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can now give the House any information regarding the intention of the Bulgarian Government in mobilising their forces?
    Sir E. GREY: My official information from the Bulgarian Government is that they have taken up a position of armed neutrality to defend their rights and independence, and that they have no aggressive intentions whatever against Bulgaria's neighbours.
    It would, perhaps, be well that I should, with the leave of the House, explain quite shortly our view of the Balkan situation. Not only is there no hostility in this country to Bulgaria, but there is traditionally a warm feeling of sympathy for the Bulgarian people.
    As long, therefore, as Bulgaria does not aide with the enemies of Great Britain and her Allies, there can be no question of
    732
    British influence or forces being used in a sense hostile to Bulgarian interests; and, as long as the Bulgarian attitude is unaggressive, there should be no disturbance of friendly relations.
    If, on the other hand, the Bulgarian mobilisation were the result in Bulgaria assuming an aggressive attitude on the side of our enemies, we are prepared to give to our friends in the Balkans all the support in our power, in the manner that would be most welcome to them, in concert with our Allies, without reserve and without qualification.
    We are, of course, in consultation with our Allies on the situation, and I believe that the view that I express is theirs also.
    Our policy has been to secure agreement between the Balkan States, which would assure to each of them, not only independence, but a brilliant future, based as a general principle on the territorial and political union of kindred nationalities. To secure this agreement we have recognised that the legitimate aspirations of all Balkan States must find satisfaction.
    The policy of Germany, on the other hand, has been to create for her own purposes disunion and war between the Balkan States. She first made use of Austria-Hungary to precipitate a European war, with the result that that Empire is now completely subordinated to Germany and dependent upon her.
    Turkey, whose interests would have been preserved by remaining neutral, was gratuitously forced by Germany into this War, and, having been used, is now being subordinated and made dependent upon Germany, in order to realise the German aspiration of German influence from Berlin to Bagdad.
    In the same way, it would naturally be Germany's policy to use any Balkan State she could influence to further this plan, with the inevitable result that that State would eventually be subordinated to her; and, though territorial gains might be promised, it would lose real independence.
    This is directly contrary to the policy of the Allies, which is to further the national aspirations of the Balkan States without sacrificing the independence of any of them.

  SOUTHAMPTON SHIPBUILDING STRIKE.

    MUNITIONS ACT PROSECUTION.
    Captain AMERY: I beg to ask the Minister of Munitions a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is a fact that some 1,700 men at Thorneycroft's Yard, Southampton, engaged on urgent warship construction have been on strike for some days; whether they have struck as a protest against employment of certain men who have been specially released from the Colours on the ground that they are non-union men; and what steps he proposes to take to see that the provisions of the Munitions Act are enforced?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret to say that the facts, as stated in this question, are substantially correct. I should add that the men in question came out on strike without the knowledge or authority of their union and remain on strike, although the union have instructed them to return to work and are making efforts to secure this return. Proceedings have already been commenced against a number of the men, on my behalf, under the Munitions of War Act, and I hope that the case will be heard this week.

  COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE.

    APPEAL BY THE PRIME MINISTER.
    Captain GUEST: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement with regard to recruiting and national service on or before Tuesday next?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot give any such undertaking. The matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and a number of other cognant and relevant matters connected with it, are engaging the most careful and anxious consideration of His Majesty's Government. As soon as they feel themselves in a position to announce their considered policy to the House they will do so. In the meantime, I would venture to appeal to the House, and to all sections of the House—whatever views they are disposed to take with regard to this matter—to abstain from raising it here.
    We are at a very critical moment in the history of the War. We are watching with intense sympathy and hope the gallant
    734
    and combined efforts of the Allied forces, and I do not think a greater disservice could be rendered to this country or to the Allied forces than that at such a moment as this there should be any suggestion go forth to the world that there is any division of opinion amongst us.

    BRITISH SUBMARINE ACTIVITIES IN BALTIC.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether, in view of the announcements which have appeared in the Russian newspapers, he can make any statement as to the work done by our submarines in the Baltic, and as to the name of the commanding officer of the submarine which successfully attacked the battle cruiser "Moltke"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The British submarines operating in the Baltic are under the orders of the Russian Commander-in-Chief. The House will appreciate that in the Baltic, as in the Sea of Marmora, much gallant and successful work is being done by these vessels; but the responsibility for deciding what shall be made public as to their proceedings in the Baltic must rest with the Russian Government.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the name of the commanding officer of the submarine which torpedoed the "Moltke," in view of the fact that he has been decorated by the Russian Government and that no information has been given by the British Government?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Commander Noel Laurence is the name of the officer decorated for his success in torpedoing a particular ship.

  WAR LOAN.

    BANK OF ENGLAND CHARGES.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is a single security listed on the London or on any other stock exchange in the country in connection with which a charge is made to an allottee in respect of the preparation and delivery of his certificate other than

    735
    one particular form of voucher for Consols; whether the terms on which the Government entrusts public business to the Bank of England provide adequate remuneration to the Bank for its clerical trouble; and, if not, whether, in the public interest, he will take steps to increase the Bank's remuneration up to an adequate amount rather than leave investors with the feeling that the Treasury's recent concession to them is in great measure destroyed and defeated by the imposition of a charge?
    Mr. McKENNA: A subscriber to the War Loan has the usual option of taking his allotment in the form of inscribed stock or of bonds without any charge. The small fee charged by the Bank of England is to cover the additional work imposed upon them by the special arrangements made since the issue of the Loan for the convenience of subscribers who wish to avail themselves of this additional facility.

    SCOTTISH PROBATE.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the decease of a Scottish holder of War Loan stock details of the holding have for probate purposes to be sent by the trustees or executors to London, where substantial fees are charged by the agents so employed; if so, will he explain why this work cannot be undertaken by his Department in Scotland; and is he aware that these facts are having a deterrent effect in applications for War Loan being made in Scotland?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope to introduce legislation dealing with this matter.

    NIGHT CLUBS (LONDON).
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has any information as to the recent great increase in the number of night clubs in London, and the very injurious results of these institutions, and whether he will introduce legislation or take some other steps to secure that every night club in London shall be closed at twelve o'clock?
    Sir J. SIMON: This is a difficult question which has been the subject of careful consideration and inquiry, and I am con-
    736
    ferring with the other Departments interested to see whether any further steps are practicable and desirable.

    Martial Law Sentences in Ceylon.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons have been sentenced to death under martial law in Ceylon since the recent racial and religious riots, and in how many cases the sentence has been executed; and whether he can make any statement as to the present condition of the island?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Eighty-three persons have been sentenced to death under martial law, and thirty-four executed, of whom twenty-six were convicted of murder. Martial law was withdrawn on the 30th August, and the condition of Ceylon is now normal.

    Parliament (Duration).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister what are the proposals of the Government as to the duration of the present Parliament, or how soon their decision may be expected?
    The PRIME MINISTER: At present I can only repeat that the matter is under consideration.

    Steamship Companies, Ireland (Freight Rates).
    Mr. NOLANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a communication from the Drogheda Chamber of Commerce drawing attention to the fact that notices to the public have been posted at various stations of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Company and other companies to the effect that an advance in freight would be made by the Belfast Steamship Company, the Belfast and Mersey Steamship Company, the Dundalk and Newry Steam Packet Company, and the Sligo Steam Navigation Company, on and after the 1st day of October, 1915; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of his reply to the chamber; and whether he proposes to take any action in regard to the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received the communication referred to. The freight rates charged by the steamship companies mentioned are not under any statutory

    737
    control, and the matter is not one in which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction. A reply to this effect will be sent to the Drogheda Chamber of Commerce.

    Poultry Keeping.
    Colonel HARRY LAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the expediency of issuing circulars to local authorities throughout the country asking them to encourage the working classes to keep poultry as a means to assist the food supplies of the community, by not en forcing existing restrictions as to keeping poultry in urban and semi-rural areas, and to appeal to property owners not to enforce restrictive covenants in leases and agreements to this effect when they can be advantageously disposed with?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Yes, Sir, the best way of carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion is being considered.

    National Health Insurance Act (Irish Fund).
    Mr. HORNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the approximate amount of the Irish National Health Insurance Fund; and whether any alteration is contemplated, by legislation or otherwise, with the control of the fund by the Irish Insurance Commissioners; and, if so, what is the nature of the proposed change?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): The amount of the fund in the hands of the Irish Insurance Commissioners and of the National Debt Commissioners on the 31st August last was £1,085,550. Legislation would be required for the purposes suggested in the question, and any such proposals would, therefore, have to be submitted to the House.

    Swine Fever.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the number of cases of swine fever reported during the year up to the end of July, and the number of cases reported up to the same date in 1914?
    Mr. ACLAND: From the 1st January, 1915, to the 31st July, 1915, the reports of suspected cases of swine fever numbered 10,205; the number of outbreaks confirmed was 2,673. The corresponding figures for 1914 were 11,489 and 2,565 respectively.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether national school teachers have been paid the fees due to them for school gardening for the year ending 30th June, 1915; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The grants for school gardening are awarded upon reports furnished to the Commissioners of National Education by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. A considerable number of these reports have now been received and payment in these cases will be effected immediately. It is expected that the balance of the payments will be completed at an early date.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.

    PERSIA.
    Colonel YATE: I wish to raise for a few minutes to-day the question of the warfare which is now being waged against us and our Allies in Persia by the Germans in that country, and to ask what steps are being taken to put a stop to it. Persia, as we all know, is supposed to be a neutral country, yet we find that the whole of Persia is occupied and terrorised by armed bands under German officers, who, apparently, are doing their best to raise the whole country against us. The Persian Government is powerless. The Shah himself is helpless. The Medjliss do nothing but talk and try to make as much money as they can for themselves, and the local Governors in the various Provinces have neither sufficient money nor the men to raise a finger against any of these German armed bands, who, apparently, do what they like and go where they like. We have all read in the papers of the anarchy in Ispahan and the flight of the Russian and French residents there. We were all glad to see in the papers on Sunday morning last that all these men, women and children had arrived safely at Teheran. Not only at Ispahan though, but at Shiraz, Yezd, and Kirman and other places also, there are many British subjects employed in the Consular service, the telegraphs, the Imperial Bank of Persia, merchants and missionaries. News as to the safety of these people is most anxiously awaited all through the country. The Indo-European telegraph line, from Bushire to Ispahan has long been cut, and now it is reported that the Central Persian line has been cut as well, consequently a stop has been put to all communications between Europe and Asia.
    All this is the result of open intrigues carried on by Germany and Germans amongst the various tribes since the commencement of the War, and the large sums of money spent by them in inducing these tribes to do as much damage as they can to British interests throughout Southern Persia, even to the extent of inciting them
    760
    to murder British officials and those employed by the other companies I have named. The state of things at Bushire is even worse. Bushire is under the protection of Indian troops, supported by vessels of the Royal Navy lying in the roadsteads. The local tribesmen, owing to the successful efforts of the late Acting German Consul there, named Wassmuss, are in active hostility. It is said that Wassmuss, on the declaration of War, made his way into these districts viâ Baghdad, and at once commenced an anti-British propaganda among the tribesmen. He had almost unlimited funds at his disposal, and by this means he easily induced them to adopt a hostile attitude. In July they ambushed and killed Major Oliphant and Captain Banking, and night after night they attacked and sniped Bushire. They were continually attacking the residences of British subjects and merchants. Attacks were made on the houses of employés of the Imperial Bank of Persia, and valuable property was taken off. All houses have had to be vacated, and the women and children sent away. The latest reports say that there are almost nightly attacks on European property, and the troops, with such a long line to defend, cannot prevent small bands of raiders getting through. The papers about a fortnight ago reported that an attack in force had been driven off, but these attacks may be repeated again and again, and this shows how serious the situation is in that part of Persia. Unless these tribesmen are punished severely, their villages rased and their chiefs taken as hostages, things will go from bad to worse.
    Had the matter been taken in hand earlier, things would not have been so bad. If we had organised a strong force of Persian levies under British officers during the last few years, instead of trusting solely to the Swedish gendarmerie, which is failing us so entirely now the crisis has come, we might have had the situation much better in hand. We have had an excellent illustration of what can be done by local levies under British officers in the repulse the other day of the Persian raiders into Mekran, on the Baluchistan border, by the Mekran Levy Corps. I do not mind saying that this levy was originally raised by myself when I was Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan. It is composed of Baluchis and the Brahuis,

    761
    of much the same stock as the Persian raiders on the other side of the border, who tried to invade them. That corps could be increased to any extent. Regular troops are not the best material for punishing nomad tribesmen like those who have been bribed by the Germans to attack us in Persia, neither are Regular troops required even to hunt down the bands under Germans themselves now traversing Persia from one end to the other. None of these bands have any Artillery or any real organisation or discipline. If I might venture to make a suggestion it would be that this Mekran Levy Corps should be used as the nucleus for the raising of a combined Indian and Persian Levy Corps under the command of British officers of the Indian Army with good knowledge of Persian, to hunt down these various bands.
    Nothing can be expected of the Persian Government. Nothing can be done by them. They are hopeless and helpless. All that is required is a backing of Regular troops, and that we already have in the Indian regiments at Bushire. The present dual control by which Persia remains under the charge of the Foreign Office, while the Persian Gulf and the military control is under the charge of the Government of India must tend, in my opinion, to delay and confusion. I would suggest, if I may be bold enough to make a suggestion, that the entire charge of the whole of Southern Persia, both military and political, should be given to the Government of India, who alone are able to deal promptly with affairs on the spot. Until that is done, I honestly say that I do not see how our interests in Southern Persia can be properly safeguarded. The oil wells and pipe-line are being threatened by attacks from tribesmen under German officers on the western side; the telegraph lines are cut and the lives of all British subjects are threatened in the centre, and further raids on Baluchistan are also threatened on the East. I urge on the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that something must be done, and what I hope to see done is that some endeavour will be made to get a strong and good Persian governor, if there is such a man in Persia, for Ispahan and Fars and to give him the services of a good combined Persian and Indian Levy Corps, such as I have suggested, to put down these German raiders, and to place the whole of Southern Persia under the charge
    762
    of the Government of India. I would suggest that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs should consult with the Secretary of State for India on this subject, and see if some prompt and energetic action can be taken.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise the great difficulty of discussing this or any other subject affecting the Foreign Office at a time like this, and I am bound to speak with the utmost reserve upon it. At the same time I can assure him that the matter has been already the subject of very anxious consideration and consultation between the India Office and the Foreign Office. There is no lack at all of common action between those two offices and the difficulties, such as they are—I am not going to underrate them at all—arise not from the many Departmental difficulties here but from the essential and inevitable difficulties of the situation in Persia. It is perfectly true—I regret very much that it should be so—that at Bushire there was a lawless attack, I have very little doubt instigated by German and Austrian intrigues and by German money, which resulted in the very deplorable and regrettable death of two gallant British officers. Since that time Bushire has been occupied by British troops, and is still in the occupation of British troops. I do not know that there was anything more, as far as Bushire is concerned itself, which could have been done than was done immediately after the outrage took place. My hon. and gallant Friend says some hard things about the Persian Government, but it is only right to say that the Persian Government has expressed their regret for that outrage, and we think, at any rate, that there is reason to hope that the steps which they have taken will result in the prevention of any repetition of the outrages which have occurred. I quite agree that the Persian Government is in a very difficult position. No one doubts that, but I do not think there is any reason to doubt that their wish is to carry out the duties of a Government in preserving law and order. Then, at Ispahan, which is within our portion of Persia, there was also an attack—pure murder, of course—upon the British Consul-General. Fortunately, he was only wounded, but I regret to say his Indian orderly was killed; and there are undoubtedly Germans and Austrians who have engaged the services of paid

    763
    bandits whose whole object is to create disorder and to threaten the lives of the British and Russian civilians who are in charge of purely peaceful interests in a neutral country. That is part of the German methods of making war. Then it is true, under these circumstances, the British Colony have withdrawn from Ispahan, and so have the Russians, and gone to Teheran. There, too, strong remonstrances have been made to the Persian Government, and we have reason to hope, after what has occurred there, that there is at any rate a very earnest desire on the part of the present Persian Government to prevent the repetition of these outrages. I regret to say that at Shiraz also a similar outrage has taken place. There, I am sorry to say, the British Vice-Consul was seriously wounded and has since died.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Have the Persian Government power to carry out their promises?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that is rather an unfortunate question to put. All we can say is that there has been a change made in the Governor-General at Kars, and we hope the new Governor-General will be able to preserve order more successfully in his Province than the old one. I do not know that there is very much more that I can usefully say. My hon. and gallant Friend has made a certain suggestion, namely, that we should organise an irregular force and put it under the command, I do not know whether of a native or a British officer. I think he will see the enormous difficulty of even entertaining any proposal of that kind during the progress of a gigantic war. There are, unfortunately, enormous difficulties in any Imperial war in which the whole energies and monetary resources of the country are being taxed to their utmost. But we have done our best with the present Persian Government, and I think there is some ground for hoping that things will improve. I do not want to go into detail, but we are taking measures to improve the financial position of Persia, and our Minister, who has most ably conducted the whole of the negotiations and done most admirably, is now conducting negotiations with the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs on that basis and is prepared to make very considerable concessions of that kind with the consent of His Majesty's Government, provided, of course, that an impartial administration
    764
    may be thereby secured. I do not dispute that my hon. and gallant Friend has a perfect right to say that my reply is very incomplete. I do not deny it. If this were in time of peace no such reply would be made, of course, from this bench, but I am sure that he and the rest of the House will recognise the enormous difficulties which the Government are under at present, and will accept our assurance that his suggestions will receive very careful consideration. Every suggestion has been already most carefully looked into, and the fact that he recommends it will undoubtedly carry great weight with the Department with which I am connected. I am afraid I cannot say more at present. I can only express the hope that these very regrettable occurrences will not take place again, and we may be very certain that that kind of warfare, and that means of carrying on warfare, is not really ultimately likely to be of service to the German cause, and even in Persia proceedings of that kind are likely to cover the Germans not with glory but with contempt.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: By this Bill we are granting power to spend a large sum of money which has been voted in Supply. Under ordinary circumstances that is merely a common form and the money has been granted for the specific purposes of Supply. But here the vast bulk of the money has been voted by a Vote of Credit, and a Vote of Credit does not specify the objects for which the money is required. I am asking the Government to let us know, as far as is consistent with the public interest, what they propose to do with this money. It is stated broadly to be for Army and Navy purposes, but Votes of Credit have been used for purposes other than what I should call direct Army or Navy needs. The Government will remember the case of the Chief Whip's salary, which was one of the matters that came under a Vote of Credit. There was also another matter, the desirability of which I am not questioning, and that was a Grant of £100,000 to trade unions, to be advanced in September of last year. I am not discussing the desirability or un-desirability of any of these matters, but it does seem to me that they should be brought before the House of Commons so long as they conveniently can be consistent with the public safety. That is the point I am rather pressing upon the Government at the present moment. If part of these moneys will be used for other

    765
    purposes than direct Army and Navy expenditure, I hope the Government will let us know as soon as possible the objects for which they have devoted the money or intend to devote the money, so that the House of Commons may have an opportunity of discussing the matter. That is the point I desire to raise on the general ground. Secondly, we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that a considerable portion of this money is to be used for what I may call trading purposes, and we have been promised that a separate account will be kept of each different trading purpose. We were told that a large sum had been spent in purchasing sugar, and that there had been resales of sugar, which might or might not result in a profit or loss to the Government. We have been promised that separate accounts should be kept. Of course, if there is any profit, it will go to the Treasury. Will the Government let us know as soon as possible, consistent with public interest, the result of the loss or profit, as the case may be, in regard to these sugar transactions? If the information can be given without any injury to the country in any way, perhaps it will be given. I am not in the least pressing the Government upon this head. If there is the slightest injury likely to occur to anybody, I do not want to press the matter for one moment, but I do think it is very important that the House of Commons should, if possible, have the information.
    We have been passing these vast sums of money, millions of pounds, without having inquired what they are going to be spent upon, and without being told what they are going to be spent upon. I am perfectly willing to grant money to the Government, and if I am told that it is not in the public interest to give the information, I am perfectly willing to abdicate my rights as far as that is concerned. Of course, it is our duty in the House of Commons to deal with the finances of the country. That is one of our primary duties. There was another matter, with regard to the money to be expended. There is a second Clause in this Bill which gives power to the Government to borrow money under the present emergencies, and the remarks which I made upon the first Section apply equally to this second Section. I am anxious that the Government should, as far as possible, take the House of Commons into its confidence on the ques-
    766
    tion of loans. I am not making any particular complaint, but it does seem a somewhat anomalous position that we read from the newspapers that huge loans are being carried out on behalf of the British Government and the House of Commons has never heard a word about it from beginning to end. The only fact we know is that we give authority for the Treasury to borrow from anyone they think fit vasts sums of money. I do not wish to press the Government on this matter if it is inconvenient, or if it is inadvisable that the House of Commons should know that which, I think, everybody will admit it is not only their right, but their primary duty to know. If it is disadvantageous to the country that the information should be given, I would not press the matter at all. I only wish the Government to recognise that it is the primary duty of the House of Commons to know about and to sanction these matters.

    COMPULSORY SERVICE.
    Captain GUEST: It is with the greatest sense of responsibility that I take upon myself what may be the opprobrium of being unable to bind myself to the request made a few minutes ago by the Prime Minister. At a time like this, people have got to do what they think is right, irrespective of pressure brought to bear upon them, from whatever source it may come. If I were convinced that the raising of this subject once more would in the very least degree prejudice the chances of the Allied Forces in the great engagement in which they are now involved, I would not waste one minute of the time of the House in raising the subject. I do not think the argument put forward by the Prime Minister was based upon any suggestion that the raising of this subject would interfere with the course of the battle, but merely that it would raise a contraversial issue. I maintain that the case which we put forward is not controversial in the least. [HON. MEMBERS indicated dissent.] I maintain that the case we put forward is purely a matter of recognising facts, and dealing with figures. Our opponents, I think, believe, indeed they have expressed it on more than one occasion, that we are out to run something other than appears in the words we use. Some little time ago it

    767
    was suggested that there was a plot. Our one and only desire is to put before the country, or at any rate to obtain from the Government, such information as we believe the country should know to enable them to decide for themselves whether or not the present system is likely to bring us successfully through this War.
    One other reason why I fly in the face of the Prime Minister's request is that the opportunities granted to us are very scarce, and definite opportunity to discuss the subject has been refused. The line that may be taken may be that the mere fact that we have been so successful in the last two or three days, is an argument against the necessity of a change of system. I maintain that it is an additional reason why we should grapple with this problem at once, because these very engagements which are successful entail heavy losses which we know must be in excess of our weekly enlistment returns. I think that, so far as encouragement to troops is concerned, the argument still holds good that the effect of whatever we do here at home, to show that we are prepared to undertake any responsibilities, and to give up any old prejudices if necessary, will be very great indeed. In the last two weeks, since the Debate took place, I have had numerous communications from correspondents, all of whom say how glad they are because we are once more taking an active part in the interests and the welfare of the soldiers who are fighting for their country at the front. It is that class of encouragement which strengthens me to take the risk of displeasure, if it may be called so, from the Treasury Bench, and to raise the subject again.
    At this very moment, since the last discussion in the House on this subject, events of the greatest importance, as the Foreign Secretary announced to us this afternoon, are in the balance. I think I am right in saying that any indication that we are making a greater and stronger resolve to prosecute this War would surely have a steadying effect upon anything that the Bulgarian Government might propose to do. I cannot conceive how the adoption of this principle, with all that it entails, can do other than strengthen the attitude the Greek Government take in relation to the present situa-
    768
    tion. Last week we abided strictly by an undertaking not to raise the subject, in order to give the Government time to consider the report of the Cabinet Committee, which we understand went closely into this question. We also gave time for the public mind to regain its normal balance. We also thought that the consideration of the Budget, with all that it entails, should not be in any way interfered with, so far as we are concerned, by other discussions. Of the Debate that took place a fortnight ago, we cannot help feeling that it did good. The only unsatisfactory part about it was that it elicited no reply on facts from the supporters of the vountary system. It obtained a good deal of what we naturally expected would be forthcoming, that is, somewhat prejudicial objections. It obtained absolutely no acknowledgment from the Government in any shape or form. I do not think it is asking too much when a body of Members feel sufficiently strongly about a certain cause that their existence and their request for a deputation, and their efforts to obtain opportunity for debate, should receive some recognition, however slight. We realised during that Debate that we were speaking to a prejudiced audience. We knew that the House of Commons, and that many Members with whom we had worked—I particularly mean Friends with whom I have worked in the past—were under the influence of this suggestion of a plot. The few days that have intervened have satisfied them that that was an unnecessary thought to occupy their minds. We also realised that the public at large was prejudiced by disinclination to accept even truth from a certain unpopular section of the daily Press. Those prejudices, I think, can only be removed by regarding the necessity of this matter upon the hard ground of common sense and fact. It is not a question of politics. The Prime Minister said that we are engaged in the biggest battle probably that this War has ever seen; but in war, I submit, with great respect, delay is not permissible.
    These precious days since the House met have all meant weekly wastage in the field. Unless you get your new machine working at the earliest possible moment you will not reap the fruits in time. We think the public mind has been extremely badly handled, first of all by the House of Commons allowing the Government to send it away on a six weeks' holiday at a most critical moment, when the public

    769
    mind was in an uneasy and unrestful condition on this particular subject. That holiday gave an opportunity to the Press to indulge in a sort of internecine squabble, which has done nothing except prejudice the minds of their readers. We think that the moment has come when the opponents of National Service must put up their case. If that section of the House of Commons to which we refer, and if the Government will give us a guarantee that they are satisfied that they can obtain a sufficient number of recruits weekly to keep up a certain number of divisions—let them say what number of divisions they like—that will be needed from now until the end of the next twelve months, I think they will have established a case sufficient to keep us quiet. We put our case as simply as we can, without any desire to be controversial. On the last occasion when I had an opportunity of giving a few figures in this connection, attempts were made in some quarters to prove them to be wrong. There is nothing that I would welcome more than the closest possible criticism of every figure that has been put forward, because it would satisfy me that someone is taking the trouble to look into the matter from the point of view of figures, which is the only way to arrive at a decision on this point.
    Perhaps more important than figures is policy. The number of divisions which the Government think it incumbent upon us to keep in the field is what has got to decide the number of troops you may require, and of course the number of recruits which we require weekly to keep them up to strength. It is very difficult for us, without the complete knowledge which is at the disposal of the Government, to know what their policy is, but by merely following what we read in the daily Press, and by using a certain amount of intelligence, it is not difficult for us to draw some of the following deductions. As we know, the developments of the last eight months merely throw a very largely added burden upon us. We know that it is necessary to give a very much larger share of support to our Western Ally. We know that we have an expensive enterprise in the East to conduct to a successful conclusion, and we know that that is bound to employ and to occupy a very large number of troops. I do not think that it is unfair to submit for consideration that our commitments, and, if I may add, our defensive commitments, will not be far wrong if the following figures are accepted. The suggestion that
    770
    I made, that it was our moral duty to take over a certain number of miles at the Front, has not received contradiction in any quarters, so I am enboldened to think that it was a reasonable one to have made. I would be only too glad if the suggestion that it is too much is met by a definite statement of the Government on that point, but until it is met I am prepared to submit to the House, as a reasonable basis for calculation, that you require from forty-five to fifty divisions on the Western Front. We require—I believe we have got—twelve divisions in the Dardanelles. Another ten at least are needed for commitments such as Egypt, India, Persia, and East Africa; and there is something surely necessary for Home defence. If that is an excessive estimate of our commitments I shall be only too glad to stand disproved. That brings us to almost seventy divisions. I do not think it unwise to accept seventy divisions as an estimate for the purposes of calculation. It may be sixty-eight or seventy-two, but without accurate knowledge it is impossible to do more than to strike a reasonable mean.
    The only figures then which it seems necessary to consider are: how many men are required to man those divisions, and keep them in the field for twelve months? Seventy divisions mean 1,400,000 men to be kept in the field for one year, involving reserves in training at a wastage, which I think is reasonable also, of 120 per cent. per annum, or 1,700,000 men. When last this subject was discussed, I submitted to the House that the pre-war estimate was about 7½ per cent. per month, making it as nearly as possible 100 per cent. per annum. Since then we have been told by those who have studied the question, statisticians and others, that in some cases it has been even 150 per cent. per annum. I take it at the middle figure, so as to run no risk of exaggeration, and suggest that for the purpose of replacing that wastage 120 per cent. per annum would not be an excessive figure. Making allowance for 500,000 men fully equipped and armed for Home defence, that brings us to a total for the next twelve months of 3,600,000 men. The only object of introducing those figures is to see how they compare with the number of men which we have been able to raise under the voluntary system. The Prime Minister a few days ago gave us to understand that nearly 3,000,000 men had offered themselves for service. I submit that the term "offered" is somewhat ambiguous, and may also be misleading.

    771
    In fact, when the question was submitted shortly afterwards as to whether or not the men, who had come up for enlistment and had been either accepted for a short time, as has been the case in many instances, or were not received at all, were included in that number, the Prime Minister found himself, for reasons of his own, unable to give a reply. I must then make my own deductions. I subtract first a figure, which no one can possibly doubt, the saddest figure, of them all. I must subtract 250,000 men to include those who have been killed, or probably so much disabled that they will be unable to take any further part in the War. Then there is at least another 100,000 out of our casualty lists who will play, at any rate, a very small part during the remainder of the War. And then some figure must be made out for recruits who have been accepted, but after a very few weeks of training, at a great waste of public money, have been dismissed as being physically unfit to proceed. I am prepared to submit a figure, such as 7 per cent., to the Government, to represent that class. I have information from many sources that that estimate is an extremely low figure to have settled upon, but, taking it to be a reasonable one, it means that altogether we have to subtract from those 3,000,000, who, the Prime Minister said, offered themselves for service, 560,000. That brings you down to 2,440,000. In order to fill a need which clearly exists of 3,600,000 men—
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are you including the Colonial troops?
    Captain GUEST: Whether or not the Colonial troops were included in the 3,000,000 mentioned by the Prime Minister, I am not prepared to say.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The statement has been made that they were not included, and your figures are all wrong.
    Captain GUEST: The Colonial contingents assume, of course, certain proportions. I think that I know probably pretty well what they are. I dare say that they do not exceed numerically the forces employed in the British Navy, and as the Navy are included in the 3,000,000, I do not think that the extra figures of the Colonial troops really very seriously alter the argument, because we arrive at a point which indicates at least that we are over 1,000,000—actually 1,160,000 men, short of
    772
    the requirements of our minimum. Suppose that the Colonial contingents make up 200,000 of that, that will still leave us over 900,000 men short of what I maintain we shall require in the course of the next twelve months to keep up seventy divisions in the field. Can the Government guarantee us that we can obtain recruits at a sufficient rate, week by week, to produce that 900,000? If they can then, as far as I am concerned, my case falls to the ground. The figures which I have given did not make allowance for the Colonial contingents, and that does, to a small extent, alter my figures. I had worked it out without these contingents. My figures involve a weekly recruiting of nearly 25,000 men. They will be altered to a small extent if the Colonial contingents are included, but in any case the number will be about 20,000. If the Government can guarantee that week by week for the next twelve months they can be sure of getting 20,000 recruits, then I admit that my case falls to the ground. If they cannot make that guarantee, then I say that they have no right to delay for an instant adopting a system which will guarantee it, and I say that if they do not face it, and face it bravely, the country will not forgive them.
    Mr. CROOKS: I will!
    Captain GUEST: It seems to me that the obtaining of these additional men will be more difficult from now onwards than it has been in the past. But not only is it more difficult, as I suppose is indicated by the falling off in recruiting, but the selection of the men becomes far more important. Those who have been already indiscriminately accepted have gone. Their places have been filled, and the labour market has more or less adjusted itself, but every man from now onwards will cause greater dislocation, unless the selection is very carefully gone into. I submit that under our present system they cannot guarantee to obtain a sufficient number of men week by week to keep our Forces up to strength, and I submit also that, unless they are selected and obtained with the greatest care as to where they can best be spared from, all the difficulties which have shown themselves during the last few months will be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled in the twelve months to come. There is another point. The Debates the week before last indicated clearly that labour was in a very great difficulty. In my humble opinion it has been most unfairly handled. I will give an instance.

    773
    The Trades Union Congress, the Labour Parliament, representing 3,000,000 of men, and perhaps more—I can be corrected if my estimate is too low—was allowed to meet and pass resolutions of the greatest importance, and the greatest seriousness, without the fullest possible information on this particular point having been given to it by the Government. We cannot be expected to believe that the Government had not realised, before we separated for the holidays, that there was a very large number of people who were uneasy as to whether the present system would stand the strain, and the Trades Union Congress was allowed to meet without the information upon which, and upon which only, it could arrive at a fair decision.
    Little as I know of labour, I do know that it is as determined as, any other section of the community to do its utmost to bring this War to a speedy and successful conclusion. But it is not unnaturally suspicious. It has not been treated, in my opinion, with that confidence which should be given to it. The statements now made, somewhat at random, that labour has definitely committed itself against the introduction of National Service, I do not believe to be true. I do not honestly believe that if all the facts were placed before it that it would refuse to fall into line, and I think for anyone to suggest that, with all the facts before us, labour would rise in rebellion and refuse to do its share is the grossest libel upon the working men. The present attitude of the Government, and the attitude of the Government I think generally, is unfair to the House of Commons. It expects it to be silent when it feels so deeply on certain points. The Government's attitude towards the Press is almost past belief. Its efforts of censorship have been the laughing-stock of Europe. It is unfair to the voluntaryists. How can the voluntary recruiter succeed now with the difficulties of this discussion still in the way? The sooner the discussion is definitely settled the better it will be for either policy, whichever be adopted. It is unfair to those who believe in National Service, because, after all, our only one object is, if possible, to help to shorten the War. It is unfair in the last degree to labour, upon whom ultimately the success or failure of the War depends.
    The remedy, to my mind, stares us in the face. The necessity for the adoption of National Service can easily be proved or disproved by the hard logic of facts;
    774
    but, if it is proved to be necessary, its acceptance may prove more difficult and requires the exercise of the right spirit. The voluntary acceptance of National Service involves, I submit, spiritual regeneration. I also submit that these are not times in which anything can be accomplished that is not undertaken in the most serious manner. I think the Government must decide promptly and bravely and give the country a lead. I think politicians should demand the fullest possible information as to the situation, and more particularly how we are to support this military burden placed upon us. They should go forward to different districts with complete knowledge in order to explain the facts of the case. I think labour should be given guarantees that no advantage will be taken of this time of war to in any way affect their status or position, and that they in turn should be asked to drop suspicion and distrust. I think that the churches and chapels must lent their aid, and I think that those combined forces may be trusted to promote the cause of real patriotism before it is too late. This War appears to me to be a conflict between two systems of government, between two completely different conceptions of life—a struggle between autocracy and democracy, a struggle between repression and liberty. Our system is now on trial. If democracy cannot prove its superiority, we are doomed. If you refuse to accept methods calculated to achieve success because you think they are tainted with Prussianism, the whole hated system will inevitably be fastened on our necks. If liberty will not brook discipline, if freedom degenerates into licence, if duty is forgotten, we shall assuredly go down before a people who are trained to subordinate all personal and class interests to the common weal; and whatever we may think of the inherent brutality of their methods, or the materiality of their aims, they are certainly animated by an all embracing spirit of patriotism and self-sacrifice.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: It is not my intention to follow my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and I rise to make an appeal to him not to allow this discussion to continue. I am one of those who, in connection with this question of National Service, feel that the appeal made by the Prime Minister this afternoon cannot be disregarded, and that we should wait until we have the information and knowledge which

    775
    the Government are receiving. My hon. Friend recognised the gravity of the position, and of the decision to be arrived at. Surely my hon. Friend must be aware that premature criticism of this matter would be ill-advised, and he and I and other supporters of National Service will, I think, further our object by possessing ourselves in patience for a week, for two weeks, for even three weeks, until the Government can come down and give us their decision, fortified by the facts and information obtained from the pink papers. I trust that those of my hon. Friends who joined with me in the deputation to the Prime Minister will not continue this discussion; in fact, I go so far as to say that I think it would be a breach of faith to do so. I do not think any Parliamentary advantage can be obtained from this discussion. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I am sure he should be the very last to start this discussion. Only a very short time ago he was one of the Whips of the Liberal party, and he expected us to follow him, and I think he will admit that so far as we could that is what we desired to do; but, on this occasion, I think that the least we should desire to do now is to follow the Prime Minister, after the appeal he has expressed.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I should like, if I may, to enforce the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I have been in France for the last seven or eight weeks, and from what I have seen there my views with regard to compulsory service have not been altered; but I do not think that this is a moment when Members should endeavour to air their various opinions in regard to compulsory service, as it is called, or National Service. I think we ought to be prepared to restrain the expression of our own view on this matter, while the Government is giving it consideration. We have a Government representing all sections of the House, and I believe representing all views on this question. The hon. Member who opened this Debate alluded to the Trade Union Congress, and the fact of its having come to a decision without full knowledge. I submit the hon. Member himself has not full knowledge on the question; and although I have been in the confidence of the Cabinet for many months during the course of the War, at the present moment do not know what new facts may be in the possession of my late colleagues and the
    776
    new members of the present Administration. Without full knowledge I deprecate a discussion of this kind at the present moment. The House little realises the way in which disputes of this kind, and the delivery of controversial speeches, encourage our opponents, and, to a certain extent, discourage our forces fighting in the field. When, a few days ago, I was in the shell-zone of the fighting area, I was told that speeches such as were recently delivered in this House in regard to the question of compulsory service were being distributed amongst the Germans in the trenches opposite, and that the Germans were cheered by sentiments which they believed showed a difference of opinion among us. I feel that our soldiers in the field deprecate discussions which show any differences in this House at the present moment. They are quite prepared to leave this matter in the hands of the Government, and until the Government can come down to this House and make a statement which really supports compulsory service, I have no doubt that many Members who hold the same views as I do, will subordinate their views, if a case can be proved. At the present time many of us believe that a case has not been proved, and, in my humble judgment, it has not been proved by the hon. Member who initiated the Debate this afternoon. I do not think we should discuss the merits or demerits of National or compulsory service, or of the voluntary service on which our armies are maintained and on which they are now fighting for us, and I feel that, for the present, we must trust the Government which represents all sections of the people of this country.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I do not intend in any way to enter into the merits or demerits of the question of National Service, but I do feel that I have an obvious duty to perform at this moment of grave crisis in the history of our country. The Prime Minister this afternoon appealed to the House to say nothing at this supreme moment in the history of the War. I believe that at such a moment as this the declaration by the Government of National Service would be of enormous and very far-reaching effect. At the present moment we have gained in France and in Belgium a preliminary success. It is only a beginning, and the only way in which we can possibly press that success home is

    777
    by means of men and more men. We must have recruits in huge numbers. I do not consider this is entering into the merits or demerits of the question. The only question I want to ask the House is: Can we get all the recruits we require by the present system? I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite realise what has happened in the last few days in France, whether they realise the casualties that have occurred during the past three days, and which are bound to be of the same heavy character, and, indeed, may increase in the next few days or few weeks, and become enormously high. These men must be replaced at once, and I do not believe they can be replaced by continuing our present method of recruiting. I am not here, and I do not profess to speak on behalf of the Army at the front, but for the whole of the past year I have been in the very closest touch with that Army, both officers and men, and I can say to the House, without fear of contradiction, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said from the Front Opposition Bench, that the whole Army at the present moment is anxiously waiting for a declaration by the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Such a declaration at such a moment they believe, and we all believe, would have an immense effect in Germany, and not only in Germay. It is awaited anxiously by our Allies, by France, by Italy, and by Russia. I further say that such a declaration would have an immense effect upon our Armies in the field, and I can assure the House that it is my confident belief that such a declaration would be accepted by the people of the country, and I believe that it would assist enormously in bringing the War to a victorious conclusion in the very near future. It would, I believe, put new life into our Allies and into our Army in the field, and I confidently believe would bring a feeling of despair to the German nation.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have listened to a very characteristic speech from the hon., and I believe gallant, Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was going to follow the advice of the Prime Minister and say nothing for or against.
    Captain WILSON: I said I was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the case, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke from the Front Opposition Bench.
    Mr. PRINGLE: As I understood the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech subsequently was upon the merits and demerits of the case.
    Captain WILSON: I did not discuss it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am quite prepared to admit that the hon. Gentleman did not argue it. His speech consisted of a number of unconnected assertions, unsupported by facts or evidence. For instance, he said he was not able to speak for the Army, but that for the last twelve months he had been in close touch with the Army, both officers and men, and that he could say the whole Army wished the declaration of which he was in favour from the Government.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In his opinion.
    Captain WILSON: That is my opinion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I understand that is the declaration for compulsory military service. That has invited a contrary expression of opinion and it is a challenge to have those opinions supported. Consequently I think that the hon. Gentleman was taking up a totally inconsistent position in alleging in the first instance that he was going to speak in a judicial spirit, and then firing out a string of unsupported assertions in favour of the policy of compulsory service. I cannot conceive what object the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Guest) had in initiating this discussion this afternoon. We had a discussion about ten days ago upon this subject in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made, if he will allow me to say so, a very able speech. He was in that Debate supported by a number of other hon. Gentlemen in this House. They, I believe, put forward the case for compulsory service in a very temperate way.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And able.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I was introducing another adjective for a change, but because I did not repeat the adjective which the hon. Baronet has used he will not assume that I intended to suppress it. In view of what they did then I cannot see what they gain by initiating a discussion now. I know that when the Second Reading of this Bill was begun they decided then not to continue the Debate, at least they intimated to the Government that if the supporters of voluntary service did not continue the Debate they would abstain from the discussion. I think that is the

    779
    situation. I am quite willing to be corrected, but that at least was the statement made to me. I know that a week ago, or rather on last Wednesday, a number of us came down to the House expecting that the hon. Gentlemen who had previously dealt with the subject were going to continue the Debate, and we on that occasion were prepared to continue the discussion. But in view of representations made from the Government that there was no intention on the part of the Conscriptionists, if I may use the term, to continue the discussion we on our part refrained. However to-day that has been altered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman comes down to the House and puts a private notice question to the Prime Minister and asks him whether the Government were going to make a statement before next Tuesday. Why next Tuesday? I confess I never heard a question of a similar kind put in the House of Commons to the Government before in which a specific date was mentioned before which the Government must make up its mind. But apparently because the Prime Minister is unable to give the undertaking that the Cabinet will announce its policy before next Tuesday, and in spite of the strong appeal made by the Government, the hon. and gallant Gentleman initiates a discussion to-day and makes a speech which is practically a repetition of his speech of ten days ago, with the exception that he has revised the hypothetical figures he gave us then. It does not seem to me that by methods like these will either the cause which hon. Gentlemen have at heart be advanced or is it likely that the decision of the Government, when that decision is given, will be received with a stronger force of public opinion behind it.
    I think under the circumstances that this discussion is not likely to advance national interests, and that must be the main concern of all hon. Members, whatever point of view they take on this question. It further seems extremely strange that hon. Gentlemen who hold strong views as to the necessity for discipline for the whole country should themselves set discipline at defiance in the extraordinary way in which they have done to-day. I can understand undisciplined people like myself who believe in the voluntary principle doing a thing of that kind, but I cannot understand people who believe in discipline, and who constantly call on the Government for leadership and on the
    780
    Government to put us under order, why those Gentlemen after the sort of appeal made by the Prime Minister, such as that he made to-day, should have flouted that appeal as it has been flouted this afternoon. I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with great care to ascertain whether he had really any sound ground for refusing to respond to the appeal of the Prime Minister. I found that he complained that the Government had treated labour unfairly, and had treated the Trades Union Congress unfairly, and that the Government had mishandled recruiting. He also complained of the censorship and of the amount of information given by the censorship. In every one of those respects he asserted that the Government had failed, and that the Government had either omitted to do what it ought to have done or that it had done badly what it had attempted to do. But in spite of all those failures he asserts that the Government, which has been consistently failing in all those respects, is fitted, in spite of its failures, to do the very difficult duty of selection and inspection of all the trades of the country for the purpose of further enlistment for the Army. That seems to be an extraordinary position to take up. If the Government is so stupid as he alleges it can be, can he trust the Government to go and select from all the industries of the country those men, and those men only, who ought to be selected for the purposes of the War?
    Captain GUESTmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He apparently realises the inconsistency of that position, but I find that he is greatly troubled about the Trades Union Congress. I can very well understand him being troubled about it, for the simple reason that the Trades Union Congress has come to a conclusion different from his. The Trades Union Congress has, however, we are told, been misled apparently by imperfect information, and it has received no information from the Government, and it has not been told by the Government those facts which apparently the hon. and gallant Gentleman has reached by intuition. The Trades Union Congress has not been informed by the Government of the amount of mileage we have to hold in France, which apparently is a piece of information which has been communicated to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Trades Union Congress

    781
    has not been informed of how many troops we have at Gallipoli, but which apparently has been communicated to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Trades Union Congress has not been informed of the amount of wastage, and apparently that is a doubtful point, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman has increased his estimate by 20 per cent. during the last ten days. But after all, if he revises his estimate in ten days, surely that is a ground for hon. Members suspending their judgment on this question. If the matter is so doubtful that the hon. Gentleman changes his mind on a very vital point once every week, then surely he should allow the Government some little time to deliberate. We were told when the National Registration Bill was passing through that it was intended to give the Government full information as to the resources of the country in men, but up to the present the Government have not had time to tabulate that information, while precisely those Gentlemen who advocated the National Register and pushed the Government into passing the National Register are now endeavouring to push the Government into another decision before the Government has the information which the National Register was intended to give. That surely is a very irrational position. The hon. and statistical Member for North Hants (Sir Leo Chiozza Money) says that I resisted the National Register. I do not deny that I did, but I did so because it seemed to me that the Government could obtain all the required information at much less cost than by means of a National Register. I resisted it on perfectly intelligible grounds. I did not object to the Government taking a register of all the men in the country and of all the women in the country, although it does not appear that the register of women is to be put to any use at all. I did not object to those things. I simply took the view that the Government could ascertain what were the resources of the country in men without the costly machinery of National Registration.
    5.0 P.M.
    In the same way on this question as between voluntary and compulsory enlistment I think that up to the present no case has been made out that the voluntary system has failed. After all, before we abandon the voluntary system a case has to be made out as to its failure. I can understand hon. Gentle-
    782
    men who have always believed that the compulsory system is better than the voluntary system requiring no evidence and no further information to induce them to support the change. But, after all, the voluntary system is the policy of this country, and under the conditions under which we have been legislating hitherto we have been acting on the honourable understanding that there should be no change in the policy or in the principles guiding the Government, unless it could be shown that the system which we had in the past pursued had broken down. It has lain with those who seek to bring about a change to establish by clear evidence that that system has broken down, but no real substantial attempt has been made to do that. We have had a great many figures quoted, but they are nearly all hypothetical. No official figures of any kind are given to indicate that the voluntary system has broken down. We have indeed had very extraordinary figures of the success of the voluntary system. Nobody could or would have foretold that by purely voluntary means an Army of the dimensions of our present Army could have been raised.
    We are entitled to claim that as the success of the voluntary system. I am not entering into figures. There is no doubt that something between 2,500,000 and 3,000,000 men have been raised under the voluntary system. That, I think, is a fair statement to make. The mere quotation of those figures is a tribute to the success of the voluntary system up to the present. I do not know how the figures for recruiting are going at the moment. Some hon. Members profess to know what they are. It may be that our methods in the past have not been sound. I believe that for a considerable period during the last thirteen months, the voluntary system has not really had a chance. I believe that, in the first instance, it was worked by people who did not believe that it was going to be successful. They went on the principle that they were not going to get the men by the voluntary system, and that explained why they went in for indiscriminate recruiting. We know that when they were surprised by the rush of men to the Colours, they had to do something to restrict the number of recruits. What did they do? They did not go in for a process of intelligent selection, or selecting

    783
    the men from the trades from which they ought to be taken. They went in for the rough and ready and unscientific method of raising the height and increasing the chest measurement. That is not against the voluntary system. It is against the bad handling of the voluntary system.
    If the voluntary system has done so well, in spite of that bad management, it should be an encouragement to us to go on with it, to handle it better, and to give it a better chance in the future. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not argue the question."] I was not arguing; I was merely making the point that if we are to make a change the burden of proof is upon those who are in favour of the change. That burden of proof cannot be discharged merely by bringing in conjectural and hypothetical figures, but only by the House and the country being put in possession of the facts. I am quite willing to argue the question on the facts when the facts are available. The Prime Minister has said that within a reasonable time the Government will state its policy, and the facts upon which that policy is based. In view of that it seems to me to be completely futile for the House to endeavour to force the Government into a change of policy without the thorough consideration which is required before any such change is adopted. It does not seem to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman advances his case when he talks about National Service meaning spiritual regeneration. I am a Scotsman and, as a Scotsman, understood to have a natural interest in anything of the nature of spiritual regeneration. In that part of the country we are all understood to be nurtured upon these interesting theological propositions. But I cannot see any connection between compulsory National Service and spiritual regeneration.
    Captain GUEST: I said that its acceptance by the nation involves such a process.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "its acceptance." The very fact that you are going to force it on the nation excludes the idea of voluntary acceptance. We talk about sacrifice. Compulsory sacrifice is a contradiction in terms. Sacrifice to be of any value can only be voluntary on the part of everybody concerned. You will never get spiritual regeneration by a
    784
    compulsory Act of Parliament. A man is doing considerable discredit to his country when he suggests, after the universal and spontaneous exhibition of patriotism in this country during the last thirteen months, that spiritual regeneration is required. In any event we are apparently to accept spiritual regeneration by adopting the methods of the Prussian bureaucracy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke about this War being a conflict between two systems of government, two different sets of principles. It seems to me that one at least of the principles for which this country has stood in the past, and for which it has been understood up to the present it was fighting in this War, is that of liberty, which will be menaced if the policy urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is adopted by the Government.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pringle) has come forward in a new rôle. He now says that whenever the Government say, "Oh, please do not make a speech, do not raise an awkward question," everybody in this House should immediately comply with the request of the Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I never said that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The House heard the hon. Member's statement.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I said that hon. Gentlemen who believed in discipline were in an inconsistent position, but that I who did not believe in discipline was in a quite different position.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Those were the words of the hon. Gentleman. At any rate he will have to prove that the Members who are raising this question are under the orders of the Government. A good many of us are not under the orders of this or any other Government. We are, I hope, independent Members of Parliament, ready to express our views without fear or favour, and without regarding whether it may be convenient or inconvenient for the Government of the day. What is really the reason why my hon. and gallant Friend raised this question to-day? We were told to trust the Government, and that as the Government had said that they would in due course—or whatever was the actual phrase—consider this question, and let us know the result, we ought to wait until that result was announced. Let us see what happened. We have been fourteen months at war.

    785
    During those fourteen months the Government ought to have considered whether or not National Service is necessary. Indeed they ought to have considered it before there was any question of war. Apart from that, this question was raised a fortnight ago. During a war one cannot wait and see. If you are to be successful in war, you must make up your mind what you are going to do and act accordingly. The policy of waiting may be all right in politics, but it is fatal in war. That being so, after waiting fourteen months, my hon. and gallant Friend came down a fortnight ago and asked the Government what they were prepared to do. The Prime Minister stated that he would not give a day for discussion, but that in due course a statement would be made. My hon. and gallant Friend has waited a fortnight. Surely at a time like this, a fortnight is enough for the Government, with all the facts before it, to make up its mind. My hon. and gallant Friend was prepared to wait even longer. He asked whether the Prime Minister would make a statement before Tuesday next. If the Prime Minister had said that he was prepared to make a statement within a fortnight or some definite time, I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend would have accepted that statement.
    But what took place? The Prime Minister said that when the Government had made up its mind he would make a statement. Under these circumstances can anybody blame my hon. and gallant Friend for thinking that that was merely a device to postpone the question, and that we might have to wait not only for another week or fortnight, but for many months before we got an answer? That being so, my hon. and gallant Friend was justified in taking the course that he did. The hon. Member opposite said that no case had been made to show the failure of the voluntary system. Last week in the City of London I saw a scene which I had never seen there before. There was a large crowd opposite the Royal Exchange, and on the steps were two soldiers endeavouring to persuade people to come forward to fight for their homes and country. Is not that evidence that the voluntary system has failed? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is necessary that people should go about making speeches to induce men to come forward, I say that the voluntary system has failed. Is it voluntary if you go to a man and try to
    786
    persuade him to come forward? The voluntary system means that people come forward of their own free will.
    Mr. CROOKS: You try to persuade them at election time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot conceive how hon. Members can talk about election time. Has that anything to do with fighting for your country?
    Mr. CROOKS: The voting is voluntary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The two things are totally different. That is one reason why I was so perturbed at what I saw in the City. It was just like election time. Personally I think there is often a great deal that is degrading in people getting up and making all sorts of statements with a view to capturing votes. Very often it is perfectly well known, the thing ends by statements being made by people that it is known will never be carried out. I am willing to believe that every one who takes any part in this controversy is influenced by a sincere desire to do the best he can for his country. I am quite prepared to give, at any rate, the great majority of opponents of National Service the credit of being genuine in their opposition to the scheme. I ask them, however, on the other hand, to give us who are in favour of National Service the same consideration. If that be the case what is the objection to this matter being discussed?
    If the Government had come forward and stated that after due consideration Lord Kitchener had come to the conclusion that the recruiting was satisfactory, and that the War could be carried on in a proper way by voluntary service, I should, of course, give way and should not pursue the subject any further. But we cannot get that out of the Government. We cannot get them to say one word or the other. They will give an answer—later on! Do not press it now—it is awkward! But, as I said before, you have got to press these things in time of war and come to a decision quickly. The hon. Gentleman opposite asks, "What is the evidence for the failure of the voluntary system?" We know what Lord Kitchener said last week in the House of Lords. He said that there had been a falling off in recruits and that the matter was serious. What more evidence does the hon. Gentleman want than that? If recruits were coming in then the hon. Gentleman's attitude would be right. The Secretary of State for War tells us that recruits are not coming in

    787
    and that the situation is serious. I do not myself know what further evidence is required to show the failure of the voluntary system.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It might only be a temporary falling off?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not a prophet. Perhaps the hon. Member is. If the Government will come forward and tell us that the falling off is only temporary and that they have quite enough men for the present, then I will not pursue the matter further. Let me give an instance which tame within my personal knowledge. Some three weeks ago I was sitting as a county magistrate at my usual Court. We cleared the Court in order to try children's cases. There were several boys, six or seven, about the age of thirteen or fourteen, who had been brought in for some small offences. I was sitting next to the chairman, and a very small and sickly-looking man, who looked as if he had not had anything to eat for a long time, and three small boys, suddenly appeared. The chairman turned to the magistrate on the other side and said something to him, and the three boys and the man disappeared with the magistrate through another door. I said, "What did you do that for? If these boys are defendants in this case why do not they go into the dock?" The reply was, "They are recruits." That is an absolute fact. I saw it myself. [Laughter.] I do not think it is anything to laugh at— that boys of that sort should be taken into the Army. Does the hon. Member who laughs know what it means? It means that if they are taken their lives will be in danger because they have not the physique to stand the strain of a campaign. It means costing the nation enormous sums to restore them to health, and it means that we shall not be able to stand up in the field with men of this sort against trained men.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How old were they?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose they said they were over eighteen. There are many cases where recruits under age have been accepted. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Guest) tells me that the age limit already has been rescinded. Let me give another case, not within my own personal knowledge, but told to me by a friend who is a general in command of a division, and whom I have known all my life. I should take what he told me as
    788
    being a strict fact. He informed me that in his division a large number of young boys were being sent. These were passed by the civilian doctors and subsequently rejected by the military doctors. They had to be sent back home again. That, he said, was costing the nation a considerable sum of money. That, I assert, is how the Army is being made up at the present time to a very great extent.
    Mr. CROOKS: That is too bad.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is really a very serious question. If the hon. Member disagrees from me, I shall be very pleased to listen to anything he has to say afterwards. I do not think it is a better way to interject questions of a sort which are meant to be humorous and are not.
    Mr. CROOKS: It is not humorous. It was meant to be very serious.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My own belief is that we should bring forward this matter now, as we cannot get anything out of the Government. Having obtained the signatures, which, I am glad to say, we have obtained, it is necessary to press the matter forward and show the conclusion that we are all united in our desire to bring the War to a speedy conclusion. How are we going to bring the War to a speedy conclusion? By exercising all the force that we can. If we are not going to do that, then we shall drift, as we have been drifting for the last fourteen months. Another point which appeals to me very much is the question of expense. How are we going on now? We have had to spend very large sums of money. We cannot go on doing that for ever. Unless, therefore, we make an effort now when we have the opportunity, within a year or so we may find that we cannot go on, for the simple reason that we have not any money with which to go on.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Do you want to have men cheaper?
    Sir F. BANBURY: In saying that, I am well aware that that point has been brought forward by opponents of National Service. I do not think anyone who advocates National Service proposes to reduce by a single penny the pay of the soldiers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] But it will be cheaper, and I will tell hon. Members why. We shall not then be obliged to send men out to the Front to get them trained. At present we send them out, and then find they are skilled engineers or skilled

    789
    artisans, and that we want them back home, and we have to try to induce them to come back. Under National Service we shall never send such men out. We shall only send out the men who are not wanted either for the making of munitions or for agriculture work, or for any of the trades connected with export. That will bring about a very considerable diminution in the expense. Then, again, we shall not take men over forty with five or six children—which unfortunately happens today—when we can get unmarried men. These various things show undoubtedly, I think, that a system of National Service would not only provide us with a better Army, but would provide us with a cheaper one, without in any kind of way interfering with the money which particular soldiers are getting.
    After all, it is only a question of organisation. We are fighting one of the best organised nations in the world. If we do not follow her example, and fight after her methods, I am afraid that the chances of success are not very great. Apparently, from what I see in the papers, and in the speeches of hon. Members who oppose National Service, some people appear to be under the impression that everybody of military age will at once, under the system, be taken and pressed into the Service. Nothing of the kind will happen. As I understand it, what would happen would be that there would be different classes of the populace between the ages of twenty and thirty, and these men, if they were engaged in certain work, would not be taken. Under a National Service scheme, which does not mean Conscription in the sense of foreign nations—where every man between certain ages is immediately drawn upon—only the number of men required would be taken.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: And the others remaining—would they be under military law and discipline?
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, of course not. Though, as my hon. Friend says, perhaps it would not be a bad thing. The hon. Member, who is so fond of discipline, no doubt would support such a proposal. The way in which the men would be chosen—at least, I hope so—the way that occurs to me—is by ballot, just the same as in the case of the old Militia.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I think I remember the hon. Baronet making a speech not long ago in which he said one of the advantages of Conscription was that we should be able
    790
    to discipline the railway workers here; and he instanced the case of France at the time of their railway strike.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member must have been dreaming. I never said anything of the sort. I really do not know from where the hon. Gentleman could have got that idea. It may be a good idea or it may be a bad one, but it has nothing whatever to do with National Service. The hon. Member must indeed be short of argument if the only arguments he can bring against National Service is the possibility of railway men getting a little discipline.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is held by some of the supporters of National Service.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have nothing to do with railway directors at present. What would happen would be that if a railway director was of military age, and was not engaged in any such work as I have described, he would be liable to serve his country just the same as anyone else. In fact, National Service is the most democratic service that can be devised.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I did not make any reference to railway directors.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps not, but the hon. Gentleman who sits beneath did a moment ago. That is the worst of hon. Members coming to make a speech, not prepared, and with weak arguments, and therefore not delivering that speech as well as perhaps they thought they had. I have endeavoured shortly to put before the House the views which I hold upon this very important question. I am sorry that the Government have, by the line they have taken up, compelled us to take up the line that we have done this afternoon. I am glad that there are present three Members of the Government. The rest of the Government have made themselves conspicuous by their absence. Whether they agree or disagree with the subject that is being raised now, I venture to say that it shows great disrespect to the House of Commons that they should not be present on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, when a national question like this is being raised, and at any rate listen to the arguments. It is only another proof of what has been occurring during the last eight or nine years—that the Government care nothing for the House of Commons, and that unless the House of Commons makes itself felt it will

    791
    get nothing from the Government. That is the excuse for the action of my hon. and gallant Friend. Until the Government can tell me that I am wrong, and give me some reason, or bring forward some authority like Lord Kitchener to show me that I am wrong, I believe the only thing that is going to save the country is National Service. I shall certainly advocate it with all the power that is within me until the Government condescends, after fourteen months in which they ought to have considered the question, to show reasons why they will or will not accept National Service. At present we do not know whether they are or are not in favour of it.
    Colonel Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:
    I desire to say a few words upon this question, based solely upon my own personal experience. I should like to say at once that I do not regard this as a question of principle at all. So far as principle goes, I confess that before the War I was not in favour of National Service, and to-day I much prefer a volunteer soldier to a conscript; but the whole question is one of figures, and what I say is this: you have got a much larger Army at the front now, including France and the Dardanelles, than at the beginning. Can you maintain that Army with drafts? Can you keep it up to numbers, or are you going to allow that Army to fall back and diminish in numbers, so that after some months of fighting it is half the strength that it is at the present time? That is the whole question, and I say from my own experience that, unless you get a greatly accelerated flow of recruits, you cannot possibly maintain the Army as it is at the present time. I think the House of Commons, and I am sure the public, do not appreciate the magnitude of drafts—the enormous number of men you want in order to keep an Army up to strength in the field on account of wastage. It is not only casualties with which you have to deal. It is not only men killed or wounded in the field. There is that tremendous wastage due to sickness going on day by day, week by week, and month by month, so that the wastage in this present War has reached figures that are absolute extraordinary.
    I can quote one example. I will not give the name, but I will give it to any hon. Member present who would like to know it privately. I will give the case of a regiment which had one battalion at the front during the first twelve months of the War. During
    792
    the first twelve months the reserve battalion sent out 2,450 men to keep that battalion up to strength—that is to say, a battalion of 1,000 strong required 2,450 men to keep it up to strength in twelve months. That means the wastage is 245 per cent. Can we do it at the rate at which we are getting in recruits at the present time? At the present moment you have a much bigger Army at the Front. We had, say, originally 120,000—I will say 180,000. You have now got—I am sure I do not exaggerate—in the Dardanelles and in France somewhere in the neighbourhood of one million. The amount of drafting you have to do is correspondingly greater—at least five time as great as a year ago—yet recruits are coming in much more slowly than a year ago, with the inevitable result that in a short time, instead of one million men at the Front, you will have 800,000, then perhaps 700,000, and then perhaps half a million. If we are going to win, we are going to win by our drafts and by keeping up our Army at full strength.
    Let me give one or two further examples. I know two regiments, to both of which I will refer. One of these regiments had both its battalions at the front almost at the beginning. Its reserve battalion last year was unable to keep these two battalions up to strength. Taking every man it could, the reserve battalion was unable to keep these battalions up to strength last winter. There are now five battalions at the front, and recruits are coming in more slowly than last winter. How on earth are you going to keep up your five battalions? It must be clear to any hon. Member opposite, however much he may dislike the principle of National Service—and I quite agree their objection is rooted in the principle—that unless you get more recruits, which you can only do by National Service, you cannot possibly hope to begin to maintain your large Army at the front now up to strength. It is quite true that in this particular regiment, as in others, they have now two reserve battalions, but two reserve battalions do not make more recruits. Each reserve battalion has to get its recruits from the regimental district, and every recruit for the second reserve battalion is one less for the first reserve battalion. Two reserve battalions are an excellent plan, because you have two separate cadres and two separate organisations to carry out the training; but you have to get the men, and I am convinced you will not get the men unless

    793
    you have National Service. Let me give another example, with more exact figures, in regard to which I think I can prove my case up to the hilt. A certain regiment with which I am acquainted was drafting one battalion during last year. It has now got five battalions at the front. It sent out 2,450 men in twelve months, which works out roughly at a reinforcement of fifty men per week. As it has now got five battalions at the Front, that means on the same scale 250 a week. We may suppose that now there are more units out there, each unit will not be used in the firing line so frequently as the fewer units were. Let us say, therefore, that the drafting necessary is 200 a week. How many recruits is that regiment getting for drafting at the present time? During the last eight weeks—that is to say, from 1st August until 25th September—for drafting purposes it got 287, which is roughly 36 a week. How on earth can you possibly maintain all the battalions up to strength if you have got to send out 200 men, when you have only got 36 men in the shape of recruits? These reserve battalions in a very short space will be absolutely bankrupt as regards trained men, and the result must be in a very few weeks that the battalions at the front will fall down from their proper strength, and, instead of being whole battalions, will be half, and the whole Army will suffer correspondingly.
    What do we want to do? We want to put forward our whole strength; we want to carry this War to a successful and speedy conclusion. We believe we are a bit on the upper side now, and we want to push home our victory. We want to make good the losses and keep our cadres up to strength. From practical experience, and not from any a priori reasoning, I have been driven to the conclusion that without National Service it cannot be done, and for that reason, and that reason alone, I am in favour of National Service. Something has been said about the quality of men—that not only are we not getting enough, but that we are getting the wrong sort. In a sense that is true. I do not wish it to go forth that I say, generally speaking, we are getting the wrong sort, because we are getting a great many of the right sort—absolutely the right sort. It would he most ungenerous of me, having had to train a good many, to say that we are getting the wrong sort; but I am very much afraid we are taking a great many unfit for drafting, or work at home, who are a mere burden on the State. I do not know
    794
    whether it is true, but it occurs to me as a possibility, and I am very much afraid that the recruiting officers and the medical officers have been given the tip, so to speak, to pass anyone they can, so as to swell the numbers and make out a case against National Service. At all events, I know this: a particular reserve battalion I have come across has had to discharge a great many men as unfit, not merely for foreign service, but for Home service. That is not all. When we have discharged men as unfit they have mysteriously reappeared and been requisitioned for Home service. In my judgment many are not fit for Home service at all. In that way the numbers are swollen. These men are counted twice over; they are recruited and discharged as unfit, and then they are recruited again. They count as two. We know the old plan in the days of peace, how War Secretaries used to get up in this House and say, "I have got so many recruits for the Line, and so many recruits for the Militia," and, adding them both together they would say, "My grand total is this." Those in the Militia knew quite well that the great bulk of the Line recruits went through the Militia and were counted twice over. Now the same thing is being done at the present time. A large number of men have been discharged as unfit for any form of service, and now they have been re-engaged and are counted again, and, in my judgment, a large number—I do not say all—are really a burden on the State, and not fit to serve in any capacity whatsoever.
    Take another example. Next week, in the brigade in which I am quartered, a gentleman is coming down from the Ministry of Munitions to address each battalion of the brigade. What for? To persuade men who are skilled mechanics, and so forth, that they must leave their battalion and go back to munition making. It is perfectly right. As a commanding officer I do not object; but why were they ever enlisted? That is the point. We have taken men indiscriminately in order to build up a grand total which will look well, and we have here men who ought never to have been enlisted at all, because they can do better work for their country in the factories and workshops. After all, these considerations, which I have only mentioned in passing, are of less importance than the main proposition I have put forward. I want to draw the attention of the House and the country to the enormous magnitude of drafting, and

    795
    keeping our forces up to strength in the field, and I say I know this from my own personal experience, that whereas we could do it with a small Army last year, we cannot begin to do that with the big Army at the present time. Not only is the Army bigger and requires about five times the drafts, but the recruits are coming in slower now than ever since the War began. If we are to keep up our Army, we must tap sources hitherto untapped, and, in my opinion, it can only be done by National Service.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I greatly regret that I was called out of the House immediately after questions, and certainly when I left it I never imagined for a moment, after the question put to the Prime Minister by my hon. and gallant Friend on my right, and the Prime Minister's reply, that this Debate would have been raised immediately. I say that, in spite of the speeches of the hon. Baronet behind me and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just made a great number of very interesting statements from knowledge, which he tells us, he has acquired on the spot. What was it that passed between the hon. and gallant Member and the Prime Minister? He asked him if he would undertake to make a statement on this subject before a certain day, and the Prime Minister replied that at this moment, when we are in the midst of the gravest crisis of the War, meaning that a great deal, as I have been informed in other quarters, may turn upon what is being done at this very moment, there could not be a worse time, in the interest of the country and the success of the War, than the introduction of a question like this. The hon. Gentleman told us that they do this from a sense of duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I clearly understand that, and I believe it, and it is because of that intense anxiety that they feel it their duty to raise this question now. But is that not the feeling of every single person in this House? Are we not all animated by the same desire to bring the War to a speedy conclusion and win a victory in that great struggle in which we are fighting in the interests of the safety and peace of Europe, and indeed of the world? Do those hon. Members suppose that those considerations are absent from the minds of other hon. Members or from the mind of the Government? Is it conceivable that the Government, on whom everything depends, are not animated by even a deeper anxiety
    796
    still? What is the difference between their position and those Gentlemen who have been making speeches so hostile to the reply of the Prime Minister this afternoon? The Prime Minister told us that at this moment the Government were examining into a whole variety of different considerations to which they were giving their closest and most careful attention upon this particular question. That is what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, and why should we suppose that they are not better informed than the critics who have been addressing themselves to a condemnation of the Government this afternoon?
    I think this discussion, in the interests of the country, is the most regrettable thing that I have ever heard myself in this House. We are told that this is really a question of the strength of the Army, and that it is a question of numbers. Surely those are questions which must be within the purview of the Secretary of State for War, and I suppose that even his severest critics will not pretend or profess that they are better informed than him. It seems to me that they must hold the opinion that whatever Lord Kitchener's views are of the strength of the Army or of the necessity for increasing it, he is afraid to come forward and say so. Nothing on earth would ever induce me to believe that if Lord Kitchener thought there was any real necessity whatever at this particular moment for Conscription he would hesitate for one single instant about saying so. To make an attack upon the Prime Minister and those who are responsible for the conduct of the War on an occasion which we are told is the gravest crisis that has occurred in the War, when we are in the midst of it still, seems to me to be a very deplorable thing, and I cannot help thinking that that is the opinion of the majority of the House and those who have heard this Debate, and the sooner it is brought to a close the better.
    Captain AMERY: For my part I confess that I cannot understand why there should be all this dread of a discussion on this subject. Is the House of Commons so poor and useless a thing that whenever serious matters arise it should be shut up, or is it so mean and irresponsible a body that it cannot be trusted to deal with grave matters in this crisis without introducing party rancour? In spite of the condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it does not seem to me that

    797
    the earnest and sober speech made by the hon. Member who opened this Debate could possibly afford any encouragement to our enemies or discourage a single soldier serving at the front. This ancient House, which has been responsible for the government of this country for so long, has a duty to perform to the country and the Government in soberly and temperately discussing with care the, grave questions which are before us. I do not believe the House can do any harm by discussing these questions.
    An hon. Member opposite asked why we had raised this subject again within ten days or so of the last discussion. May I remind the House that in those ten days more than one thing has happened which casts a new complexion upon this matter, and which, in our opinion, reinforces tenfold the arguments we were using only a fortnight ago. We are all proud and glad of the brilliant success that our arms have won in the last few days, and we hope it is not an isolated success. We hope and believe that the German lines have now been broken through for good, and that we are now going to drive the Germans out of Belgium and France. That, however, will only be achieved at a very heavy cost. Those who have seen something of fighting and who have read in dispatches of this or that place being taken, retaken, and then recaptured by us, will know what we have had to suffer in casualties during the last two or three days. If we are at the beginning of a great successful movement now, we have to prepare ourselves for half a million casualties in the next two or three months; and does anyone who has listened to my hon. Friend's speech, which was built on facts and personal experience, believe that under present conditions we can find the drafts to make good those losses under the present system?
    Take the other alternative. Let us suppose this success is followed by only one or two other successes, and that we fail to break the German lines for good. We have then to face the fact that even when losses are made good the Army we have at the front is insufficient for the task of breaking through in the West. We shall want, not only more drafts, but new divisions, which, again, require 100 or 150 per cent. of drafts. Where are the men coming from to bring that about? It is not only in the West that things have happened within the last ten days. The course of the War has been moving on in Russia, and we have had
    798
    very satisfactory victories in Galicia. We have been immensely relieved to know that the Russian Army, by hard marching and gallant fighting, has escaped from the menace which threatened it. But it is no use ignoring the fact that, even if the Germans failed to bring about another Sedan, that during those ten days they have made a most substantial advance, and that they have gained by their menace one of the most important railway junctions in the whole of Russia by taking Vilna.
    The gain of Vilna is an immense addition to the fighting strength of the German lines on the Russian front. But more than that has happened. We have seen in the last few days a new menace arising in the Balkans, which, indeed, has not been new to anyone who has had to follow that situation close at hand, as I have during the past few months. I want the House to consider what that menace means in the first instance to our gallant Allies, the Serbians. I am sure the sympathy of the whole House must go out to the gallant. Serbian Army prepared to face attack both in front and in the rear. It must also go out to the Greek nation, which has responded to the call of danger with such promptitude and in such a fine spirit. If I may digress for a moment from the subject of this discussion, I should like to say a word about Greece, because I believe in this country the attitude and temper of the Greek nation has hardly been fully understood. If there were differences between statesmen in Greece, if there were differences between the King of Greece and M. Venezelos, they were not differences as to the general attitude of Greece, because in this War the Greek nation is one with us in sympathy and in object. The only difference was as to the reality of the menace threatened from Bulgaria. Once that subject has become clear the Greek nation are as one with us in this matter. The Greek nation has at its disposal an Army whose full value has scarcely been realised in this country. Many of us have had impressions derived from events of fifteen years ago or more which would put the Greek Army on an inferior footing. I do not profess to speak as an expert, but as one who has seen a certain amount of soldiers, and who has had some intercourse with officers. I believe the Greek Army is one which in leadership, in the efficiency of its officers, and the fine spirit of its men is one which is

    799
    certain to do justice to that country and the ancient renown of the Greek nation.
    6.0 P.M.
    I ask the House what this menace means not only to Serbia or Greece, but to the whole position in the Balkans if it should be that Bulgaria takes a mistaken step and by that step Germany is able to get into touch with Turkey. We shall then have to face at the Dardanelles not a shortage but a greatly increased supply of munitions. There is scarcely a square yard of ground there that is not under shell fire. Not only in the Dardanelles but in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and in Persia, and in other places the menace we have to confront will be infinitely increased if once Germany could break through and get into touch with Turkey. There are in Turkey hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men who could be made soldiers to-morrow if rifles could be found for them. If Germany breaks through in this way it means that at the very moment when her resources of manhood are beginning to be exhausted she will find fresh resources of manhood in Turkey. But there is another side to this question. If Germany can break through she will have at her disposal the wheat harvest of Bulgaria and the barley harvest of Turkey, and all the economical resources of a great new region. In the North-East of Serbia is one of the richest copper mines of the world. See what that means to Germany in her present state? From Cilicia and other parts of Asia Minor she will be able to secure-cotton. In fact, if she succeeds in what she is attempting to do, it means to a great extent the breaking down of our blockade and neutralising the advantage which we have in the command of the sea. The question naturally occurs as to how far the danger which threatens to-day could have been averted. It would be an easy but not a profitable thing to discuss the diplomacy of the Allies in the Balkan States, and there is only one thing I will mention. The conviction was planted in my mind when I was in the Balkans that the only thing which really affects the attitude of Bulgaria is the question of the strength of the forces on both sides, and the moment the Russian defeats began and our failure at the Dardanelles became manifest the danger with which we are confronted to-day became an obvious danger and ought to have been dealt with lay the Government of this country. There
    800
    was only one way of meeting that danger. If the British Minister at Sofia could have gone and said, "We are raising another million or two million men and shall use as many hundreds of thousands as are wanted to see that the position of the Allies in the Balkans is not changed for the worse," then it would have had a most important effect in deciding the attitude of Bulgaria.
    The need there as well as on the Western frontier is for more men and greater strength. It is obvious on any consideration that more men can be obtained. I was at a small seaside place recently, and I could have swept up a battalion of young men between eighteen and thirty. None of them were munition workers; all of them were young gentlemen of the commercial class. I do not say that they were short of patriotism. I believe if the call of national duty were put to them that they would come forward as cheerfully as any of those who have volunteered. They are only waiting for a definite summons of the law to come. It is obvious from figures which the Prime Minister has given that not more than 2,000,000 men in addition to those already liable for military service have come forward, and there are more than 9,000,000 men of military age in this country. There must be five or six million men of military age in this country who have not yet been called upon. Allowing for the unfit and 2,000,000 men who ought, to be retained for essential services, there must be at least 2,000,000 men who might be drawn upon, and who would not weaken either munition work or a single essential industry. The fact remains that the men are not coming forward. Could anything be more convincing than the speech of my hon. Friend? I know that when I referred to those facts in the House the other day, and ventured to point out that recruiting had fallen to such a state that recruiting officers were unwisely tempted to let through men who were not fit for military service, I was accused of libelling them. Why should I libel the gallant men who have been fighting at the Front, or the gallant men who have come forward, even although unfit, and are ready to serve their country? The fact remains that there is scarcely a battalion of Reservists, drafting battalions, who have not a large proportion—5, 10, and 15 per cent.— of men whom their commanding officers consider unfit for any military service whatever. Many of them, because they

    801
    cannot walk a mile or two, have been transferred for Home defence to form that swiftly moving field force which is to protect us against invasion! Surely it is not necessary that we should enlist that sort of men, who might be doing very good work in other directions, and who at the present moment are mere burdens upon the National Exchequer.
    My hon. Friend referred to the enlistment of men who ought to be doing munition work. What is the use of going down to battalions and asking colonels at great sacrifice to spare their men for munition work, if when they come back to the factory other men refuse to work with them, because they are non-union men? The argument the men are using at Messrs. Thorneycroft's works, where a strike is going on at this moment against men brought back from France, is this, and it is a most interesting argument: "They ought not to have brought back non-union men; there are a good many union boiler makers and others with the Colours." Is there any power in the Minister of Munitions to bring back trade unionists rather than non-unionists? There is no such power, and can be no such power under a voluntary system. These men, although they do not realise it, are really striking for compulsory service. They are striking for organisation, and for order and method in our procedure. I believe, if the nation understood this question, that would be the demand of all. I believe we are not doing an unfair or provocative thing if we respectfully press upon the Government the need for an early decision in this matter. This is not an ordinary political question with regard to which a tiresome and Vexatious Opposition is to be kept in its place by being told to wait until the Government decide at its leisure. It is not we who raise this question. It is raised by the situation outside. Is Bulgaria going to stop mobilising her troops until the Government have given full and mature consideration to this matter? Is the Government going to tell Germany to postpone their attack upon Serbia until next Session, or whenever their decision is to be made? Are we to ask Hindenburg to "wait and see" until we have decided? Events are marching every day, and every day we delay to decide this matter the fate of this country is being decided against us, and the internal condition of this country is not being improved either. If there is one thing which will lead to dis-
    802
    union at home and to defeat abroad, it is this continued indecision of the Government. Let them decide, and we, the people at home, will rally round them, and will see to it that we get victory abroad.
    Sir R. PEARCE: There is no question at all about the need of men to be debated. The only question which is really a useful one at the present time is whether there are the men. That has never yet been stated by any man of authority, and the Government have refrained from saying anything about the number. It seems to me a very few words will show that we are really doing all that we can. There are only 47,000,000 people in the country. There are 23,000,000 males, and of the males the infants, old men, idiots, lunatics, criminals and paupers number 13,000,000, leaving 10,000,000 adult workers available for the sustenance and the defence of the country. We have it agreed with more or less quibbling about half a million of men that the Army now numbers 3,000,000 or 2,500,000. Putting it at 3,000,000, that leaves 7,000,000. Out of the 7,000,000, 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 are necessarily required for the provision of munitions and the maintenance of the fighting men. That leaves 4,000,000 adult males only, from which you can by any possibility recruit, and they are wanted to carry on all the other business of the country and to sustain and maintain the whole fabric of society. They cannot do it, and it is admitted that they cannot do it, because you are already obliged to draw upon the women. I beg of those who are clamoring for Conscription or National Service to remember that at the present time we are doing all that it appears to be reasonably possible with the numbers available for service abroad.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: As a member of the rank and file I wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) in raising my humble protest against the introduction of this Debate after the most solemn appeal which the Prime Minister made to the House after questions. I do not say this is not a grave question, and I am at one with every Member in attributing the utmost sincerity to those who are advocating Conscription, or National Service, whichever you please to call it; but after the Prime Minister's second appeal I am simply astounded that it should have been raised. It seems to me that the House of Commons is getting out of hand, and losing

    803
    all deference, I will not say for authority, but for the appeal of the highest Member of the House, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, not the leader of a party, but the head of this Coalition Government. When hon. Members come down in their misjudged enthusiasm and practically flout the Prime Minister it is serious. I am surprised at the hon. Baronet opposite. A week or two ago in my hearing he appealed to the House to trust the Government. Why has he fallen from that high estate? Was not this question in his mind?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Somebody else has fallen, not me.
    Sir S. COLLINS: I hope the hon. Baronet is not laying himself open to the charge that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. He is coming very near it in his eagerness and enthusiasm when he flouts the head of the Government. I am sure hon. Members will not carry the country with them in this respect, serious as the question may be and open as it is to argument in this House and on the platform. Every Member must know that the Prime Minister knows much more about this question. Do not hon. Members think that he must thoroughly have weighed his words before he gave that reply to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Captain Guest)? Do they think he would have uttered those words lightly? Does he not know the peril of the country, and would he come down here and beseech us as he did to-day, Members on all sides, to abstain from bringing forward this question? I have a great respect for the hon. Member for East Dorset. He represents a part of my own county. He has been under authority, and I am sure that he not only obeyed the orders of his commanding officer, but he had respect for his suggestions. Not very long ago some of us were under the hon. Gentleman. He was our Whip, and we delighted to obey him. What would he have thought of us when he was our Whip if some of us, when he give us his orders, or even when he gave us his suggestions, had flouted him and had acted contrary to them? We did not do it. Let us listen to authority—listen to the wise and weighty words of the Prime Minister. If it is not too late, I would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to let this question drop. I could argue it, but I am not going to be tempted to do it at this time. I am willing to take
    804
    the advice of the Prime Minister, and if my words are of any use at all—perhaps they are not—I do implore hon. Members now to leave this question, to leave it to the Prime Minister and to the Government. The Prime Minister has told us that the Government is debating it and looking at it from every point of view. I will repeat the words of the hon. Baronet, "Trust the Government." At the proper time they were bringing the question forward.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  STANDING ORDERS: QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Standing Order (Questions) No. 9:—
  (5) If any Member does not distinguish his Question by an asterisk, or if he or any other Member deputed by him is not present to ask it, or if it is not reached by a quarter before four of the clock, the Minister to whom it is addressed shall cause an answer to be printed and circulated with the Votes, unless the Member has signified his desire to postpone the Question.
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move to leave out the words, "and circulated with the Votes," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Parliamentary Debates."
  May I just say a word in favour of amending the Standing Order in the way here proposed. This proposal has been several times before the Publications Committee of this House, of which the hon. Member for Bury (Sir George Toulmin) is Chairman, and I think he himself has brought it forward several times. It is now repeated by the Retrenchment Committee, presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present practice of dealing with unstarred questions is to print and circulate the answer with the Votes, and also to print the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This involves two separate printings. The type is different, and, in an ordinary Session, the Parliamentary Committee reckon that this process entails an unnecessary expense of about £1,000. If the House agree to this Amendment of

  805
  Standing Orders, the non-oral answers will not in future be printed with the Votes, but only in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The matter has been debated in Committee of Supply, I believe, several times, and the only objection, if I am not mistaken, was that Members liked to have the printed answers in order to send them to their constituents, or to the correspondent at whose instance the question was put. As a matter of fact, the Department to which the question is addressed supplies a copy of the answer to the Member, who also will have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I hope that, under the special circumstances, the House will agree unanimously to this small measure of economy, which, so far as I can see, will harm no one.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words, "in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Parliamentary Debates," there inserted.

  WELSH CHURCH ACT.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. DUKE: I desire to bring briefly to the notice of the House and of His Majesty's Government, and of the Home Secretary in particular, a matter which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), upon notice brought before the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary upon the Motion for Adjournment last Thursday, and on which, owing to untoward occurrences, he was unable to get a discussion. My hon. and gallant Friend would have raised it again this afternoon, but the leave which he had at that time from military duties expired on Monday morning, and he is therefore not able now to be in his place. The matter is in reference to a set of interrogatories—about one hundred in number—which the Commissioners under the Welsh Church Disestablishment Act have formulated, and which have been circulated among the beneficed clergy of the Church in Wales, with a peremptory requisition for the answers to be in by, I think, the 20th November. The questions deal with the possessions of the Church in Wales, with the benefices of the several beneficed clergy, and with all the emoluments of the clergy.
  806
  It is said, and I think with a good deal of apparent force, that probably there is a considerable section of these interrogatories as to which the incumbents are under no sort of compulsion to make replies. If that be true, then probably the issue of these interrogatories under the pretence of compulsory authority under the Statute may be a matter which ought to be tested in the Courts to ascertain to what extent the clergyman is bound to meet the requisition made upon him in the manner I have described. There is a familiar case in the department of finance where the inclusion of compulsory inquiries and compulsory answers by a Government Department was held to invalidate the whole proceeding. I do not desire to examine the details contained in the schedule of interrogatories to which I have referred. What I desire to do is, I think, much more consonant with the temper and feeling of the House. I desire to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not possible to suspend this proceeding until the conclusion of the War; whether it is not possible to avoid the application of compulsion and disputation whether compulsion can be applied and the extent to which it can be applied, at any rate for the present time. The 20th November is fixed as the period at which these clergymen are to make their replies under, I know not what, penalties. The obvious course of dealing with the matter would be to see in the first instance—if they are driven to it—if the interrogatories are administered on lawful authority. But assume that they waive that point. Throughout the Church in Wales there are considerable numbers of the beneficed clergy who are serving with the Colours as chaplains. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs, at whose request I have taken this matter up, informs me that in the relatively small diocese of St. Asaph there are twenty-two beneficed clergymen serving as chaplains, and in other dioceses there are also large numbers so serving. He has informed me also with regard to those who would naturally advise the clergymen as to their responsibilities in respect of interrogatories of this kind that from the diocese of St. Asaph, the Chancellor of the Diocese of St. Asaph is serving wth the Colours, and from a second diocese the Chancellor is absent on military duty. I mention these matters because they cannot fail to appeal to everybody who looks at this question on broad grounds, and the mere fact that my hon.

  807
  and gallant Friend came here from his military duties last Thursday to call attention to the matter and was prevented doing so on that occasion, and is now absent on military duty, is one of several which, if taken altogether, constitute a strong appeal for consideration as to whether it is necessary that this matter should be pressed in this way at this time.
  The 20th of November! Just imagine calling upon an absent clergyman or indeed a clergyman in his parish, to make a compulsory return of this nature by that date amidst the turmoils of this War. I cannot help thinking that if the Government will deal with this matter—if they will prevail upon the Commissioners to deal with it in a spirit of forbearance and in a spirit of recognition of the crisis in which we live and the new relations to one another which that crisis has produced, the prospects of the passage of religious change or ecclesiastical reform in Wales will be very greatly amended for the future. There could not be a worse omen for religious peace in Wales in the future than that here in the height of our troubles, which men of every denomination share, there should be peremptory demands that appear to exceed the functions of the Commissioners, and that it should be insisted upon at short notice that the demands should be complied with under unknown penalties. I do ask my right hon. Friend to see whether forbearance cannot be exercised on this question, so that it may be approached in the calm and proper spirit in which it ought to be approached. I know my right hon. Friend will give as sympathetic consideration to the matter as he can, and I am much obliged to the House for its indulgence in permitting me to raise the matter.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): I am obliged to my right hon. Friend both for the brevity with which he has mentioned this matter and for the fair and moderate tone in which he has dealt with it. I am glad he has raised the question, because I think on one or two matters there is possibly in some quarters a little misapprehension. It appears to me there is misapprehension on two important points: In the first place, it is important that we should not misunderstand what is the position of the Welsh Church Commissioners in the discharge of their duties under this Act of Parliament.
  808
  My right hon. Friend is a lawyer, and I think he will agree with me, and, apart from any legal view, the view which I am sure will be broadly taken by all sensible people is, that the Welsh Church Commissioners, having certain statutory duties imposed upon them, ought to exercise their functions in a judicial spirit. The class of functions they have to exercise very closely corresponds with judicial functions, and when I see that they are given in many respects the powers of the High Court, when I see that the decisions they arrive at are subject to appeal to the Privy Council, and when I examine the provisions in the Statute, I cannot doubt that that view is right—and I know it is the view the Commissioners take of their own duty—that really they are in a quasi-judicial position and in no sense the instruments of the Government of the day, or subject to the directions of the Home Secretary or of any other Minister of the Crown. They are a judicial or semi-judicial body discharging a very important statutory duty, and no doubt trying to discharge those duties most fairly as between possibly conflicting interests on one side or the other. Therefore it is important the House of Commons should remember that when the Commissioners in the discharge of their duty take a step, they must not be regarded as taking it at the direction of the Executive. They are doing no such thing. They are acting as judicial authorities always act in this country, with a desire to be impartial, and to discharge their responsible tasks in accordance with what the Statute directs.
  There is a second misunderstanding. I am sure I do not say this in the least degree to arouse controversy, but because we really must face it. It is quite a mistake to say that the situation at the moment is that the Welsh Church Act is suspended, if by that you mean that it is not an Act at all, but is a mere Bill. The Welsh Church Bill has been turned into the Welsh Church Act, and that which has happened in connection with it is this: not, indeed, that the coming into operation of the Act has been postponed, but that the date of Disestablishment has been postponed. While I am sure that every man who regards the situation seriously must wish to avoid any possible topic of controversy—that I am sure is the feeling common to all on both sides—we must really face it, that there are some things which have to be done under the Welsh

  809
  Church Act before the date of Disestablishment arrives. The Welsh Commissioners are in this position: They have cast upon them certain duties by the Statute. Those duties are duties which, in part, they have to perform before the date of Disestablishment. As most hon. Members no doubt understand, the fixed date for Disestablishment is the end of the War. I say that to make it plain that it is not at the direction of the Government—in fact, I may say that my colleagues and I myself did not know about this matter until I was informed of it the other evening—but entirely independent of the direction of the Government the Welsh Church Commissioners have felt it their duty to issue these inquiries.
  I see at once why they have thought it right to do so. I find in the Act of Parliament, and in the Rules that were made by Order in Council as long ago as January last, that these Commissioners have functions to discharge which they must discharge now, and must discharge in advance of the date of Disestablishment. What are those duties? By the very terms of the Statute they are to ascertain, not at the date of Disestablishment, but as soon as may be after the Statute has been passed and the Royal Assent has been given, what is the amount of the temporalities of different kinds connected with the Church in Wales. Why is that? Really this is not an inquisition put upon a body of men whose services at this time, as I well understand, and as every Welshman and every honest man in every quarter of the House must understand, are being given freely to the service of the country. It is not an inquisition being put upon them at all. One of the most important financial provisions in the Welsh Church Act is this, that when the day of Disestablishment comes those who speak in the name of the Welsh Church—the Representative Body—are to have the option, if they choose, to select commutation. No one can doubt, if matters continue as they stand now, but that the Re-presenative Body will elect for commutation, because, of course, if they get a lump sum of money, they will be able to invest it, as things are now, at a rate of interest a good deal higher than the rate of interest which was contemplated when the Bill was passing through this House. No one will doubt that, as matters stand now, they will be able to make a good bargain in so doing, and are entirely within their right in so doing. But is it really in the
  810
  interest of those who speak on behalf of the Welsh Church to say to the Commissioners, "It is true you have a duty to ascertain as soon as possible the value of the Endowments and so forth of the Welsh Church, but do not do it, delay, wait; and then later on, when we come to you and say, 'Please commute,' you will be able to turn round on us and say, 'It is no good asking us to commute at present. We will do it as soon as we can. We are now going to ascertain what is the amount at which you must commute, and from the date of Disestablishment until the day we find what that sum is, you must be content with the 3½ per cent. interest allowed by the Act.'" That will be the effect of the Statute. The Commissioners think they are only doing their duty in the matter if for that, as well as for other reasons, they without undue delay set on foot the inquiries in order that they may discharge their statutory duty and certify what the Endowments are worth.
  I turn to the other question raised by my right hon. Friend, which was also mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke the other night. He thought that some of these inquiries went too far, and that there were interrogatories which were not necessary. Indeed, I think my right hon. Friend hinted that he thought the same thing, and that some of the inquiries might be beyond the powers of the Commissioners. Of course, it would be very unfortunate, because nobody would desire machinery to be set in motion which had no result. It would be doubly unfortunate if these questions were being put in other than a reasonable way, and if the list of questions was being added to extravagantly. If I may take the very instance which was given the other day, I will show my right hon. Friend in a moment that it is another example of the misunderstanding which I mentioned. It is said, and said truly, that these inquiries are inquiries not only as to Endowments in the narrow sense, but as to emoluments, which, no doubt, is a wider term. I assure the House, and any Member of it who feels warmly on this subject on the side of the Welsh Church, that that inquiry is not proposed to the prejudice of the Welsh Church at all. It is rather remarkable that people who take so much interest in the matter should know so little about it. One of the provisions of the Bill is a provision for compensating lay patrons. It is quite plain, therefore,

  811
  that compensation has to be paid not on the Endowments in the narrow sense, but upon the emoluments in the wider sense. The Statute says so. It is necessary that the Commissioners should know what these are, and it is only by so doing that these very lay patrons will be compensated at their proper figure. What will be the result of leaving it out? It will not have any result on any human being except those who may be supposed to be interested in as little being paid to the Welsh Church as possible. This very thing which was criticised the other night as if it had been put into the interrogatory for the purpose of screwing something out of helpless people, is, I am told, put in in order that the Commissioners may be in a position to pay the larger and proper sum when this sum comes to be payable.
  I have said so much because I want the House to see that the Commissioners in this matter, so far as I am able to judge, are acting reasonably. But I must return to the point from which I started, namely, that as I understand the matter we should really be taking a wrong view if we considered the action of the Welsh Church Commissioners was to be challenged in each step they took as if they were in some sense the servants or deputies of the Government. They are exercising functions which are in their nature judicial. If they exceed their powers, like other judicial persons, they will find that they can be corrected or disregarded, but that is a very different thing from treating them as though they were the delegates of the Government of the day. I will say only one thing more. I could understand it if it were said that the Commissioners had taken this new departure suddenly and without warning. But what I find is this: that the Order in Council which regulates in detail their procedure is an Order in Council of as long ago as the 7th January last. I see that the seventh paragraph in that Order in Council says:—
  "The Commissioners shall as soon as may be cause to be circulated to every ecclesiastical person known to them as holding an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales a form setting out such particulars as they may require, and such form filled in with the information desired by the Commissioners shall be returned to them within two months from the date of the issue of the form."
  It will be seen that the procedure was contemplated for many months past. So far as I can judge, it is strictly in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and I cannot see how the Commissioners would be dis-
  812
  charging their duties if they did otherwise. In a last sentence I would urge the House, while, of course, taking an interest in these and other matters, to remember that the work of the Commissioners will be best discharged if we treat them as what they are, a judicial body acting, I am sure, in a spirit of fairness between possibly contending parties and certainly not in the least under the order of the Government, but in this as in other matters exercising a discretion which I am sure they are quite anxious to exercise fairly as between the different parties.
  Colonel Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:
  I must say I feel very much disappointed with the reply of the Home Secretary. He knows quite well that we Churchmen in Wales feel that we have had very harsh treatment. He knows that we feel that the postponement of the Bill merely to the end of the War without any period of grace was harsh treatment, and he knows that we did not protest vigorously against it. In fact we accepted it, not indeed willingly, but we allowed it to proceed because we did not wish to cause any division in this House or in the nation. It would have been thought that after that the Welsh Church Commissioners would have proceeded in a manner which would give as little irritation and trouble and worry to the Welsh clergy as possible. Instead of that, they appear to have taken the opposite course. At the present moment when there is no immediate hurry whatever, because Disestablishment is suspended, an exceedingly irritating circular is sent round containing over a Hundred questions, many of which cannot be answered without a large amount of inquiry and considerable expense, and they are told that an answer must be sent back within two months. I want to know what the hurry is for. Is the Home Secretary such an optimist that he thinks this War is going to be over in two months, and that then that glorious event is going to happen—the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales?
  Sir J. SIMON: It is obvious that when these answers have been obtained it will not be possible for the Commissioners the next day to certify what are the temporalities of the Church in Wales. The answers to such questions are the material out of which the Commissioners will be able to form that conclusion. I am not such an optimist as to imagine that they could do that in twenty-four hours.
  Colonel Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:
  There is no immediate hurry. Our complaint is that the Commissioners have done it at a time like this, when we are told that a large number of the clergy and the chancellors are away, when money is short and it is difficult to make local inquiries, and that they have instituted this very hurried inquiry and given the incumbents the shortest time in which to make replies. It seems to me most indecent haste under the circumstances, and then the Home Secretary merely gets up and, in a very clever piece of what I can only regard as special pleading, tells us it is all for our advantage. Then he goes on to say that after all he is not responsible. I think we are entitled to know who are responsible. If the Government did not stir up the Commissioners to do this they ought to tell us who are the people we are to approach, and if they think the Commissioners have acted unwisely and with indecent haste, at all events it is for the Government to put some curb on them. The Government cannot divest themselves of their responsibility in that way. They must admit that the Commissioners come under the purview of this House and we have a right to complain if we think the Commissioners have done wrong, and the Commissioners must themselves explain, if the Government cannot, what they had in view and why they took this extraordinary course. I have looked through these questions, and I know the Welsh Church Act probably as well as any Member of the House. I am perfectly convinced that a large number of these questions are totally unnecessary for the purposes of the Act and will cause a vast amount of trouble and a great deal of irritation to the clergy, and I really think that it is absurd at this time that this extra trouble and irritation should be put upon the clergy. I think also that the moment chosen for making the inquiry is most inopportune, and the time given is far too short. I am not in the least sanguine that the Welsh Church Act will ever become law, but in any case there will be plenty of time later on to obtain the necessary information. At all events, I certainly think, having regard to the circumstances, to the fact that we all feel that we have been hardly treated, and to the fact that we accepted that treatment in order not to show signs of division to the enemy, we have been very shabbily treated by the Welsh Church Commissioners, and we have a right to demand both that these questions shall be ma-
  814
  terially cut down in number, and that the answers to them shall be postponed for a considerable period.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I had the honour of being a Welsh Church Commissioner for some months, and I should not like the Debate to close without having an opportunity of saying one thing in reference to the attitude and spirit of the Commissioners. Some months ago, owing to reasons known to my colleagues in the House, I resigned my position as Commissioner, and therefore I do not think I am called upon to refer in any detail to any particular question which has been raised by hon. Members opposite. I rise simply to say, speaking, if I may, out of the experience which I had during the months I was on the Welsh Church Commission, that the moment the War broke out they recognised the changed position brought about by that fact, and in every way possible, consistent with the fulfilment with their statutory obligations, endeavoured to ease the situation, so as to cause as little inconvenience and irritation by the action they were obliged to take in connection with obtaining certain necessary information under the Act. It is difficult, perhaps, to take an impartial view of the situation, but the very fact that almost a year elapsed before the Commissioners took action in the way of circulating these requisitions shows that they delayed as far as possible with a view to easing the situation as much as they could. With reference to the action and powers of the Commissioners, it is not for me in my present position to speak, but I think all who have considered the situation must come to the conclusion that these are questions of procedure under the Act which are for the decision of the Commissioners themselves. Speaking from my own experience, I can asssure the House that the Commissioners in this matter have done all in their power to avoid giving unnecessary inconvenience, and I feel sure they can be trusted in the future to carry out that policy.
  Mr. MOUNT: The Home Secretary, I understand, based a large part of his argument in favour of what we call the unnecessary questions, on the ground that it was to the advantage of the lay patron, to whom compensation was to be given; but I think he has forgotten that the Act, as I read it, lays down that this compensation to the lay patron is not to be paid till two

  815
  years after the coming into operation of the Act, or if a vacancy occurs, before. Therefore, I cannot see what necessity there is on the ground of convenience to the lay patron for these extra, and as we think, unnecessary questions which are being put.
  Mr. DUKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, if the Commissioners have not authority themselves to extend the time for answering these questions, whether it would not be possible by a new Order in Council to give them the time to make such an extension as they consider reasonable?
  Sir J. SIMON: In answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Mount), I was putting to the House two considerations, and I would ask
  816
  that they should not be confused. One consideration was that the Commissioners are under the bounden duty to make these inquiries as soon as possible. Then I referred to quite a separate thing, namely, the suggestion that the inquiries were beyond what they were entitled to make, and it was in that second connection that I pointed out that I thought they would be needed in connection with lay patronage. As regards what is now suggested, I will most gladly ask the Commissioners to consider it. I have no reason at present to think that the proposals which are made are other than such as can be complied with. Some people are already complying with them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  PRIZE MONEYS.
  PRIZE MONEYS.
  WAR PROFITS.
  WAR PROFITS.
  BUDGET PROPOSALS.
    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    INTEREST TAX.
    INTEREST TAX.
    INCOME TAX DIVIDENDS.
    INCOME TAX DIVIDENDS.
    ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION.
    ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION.
    DUTIES ON MOTOR CARS.
    DUTIES ON MOTOR CARS.
  BRITISH JUTE COMPANY.
  BRITISH JUTE COMPANY.
  MUNITIONS.
    HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR WORKERS.
    HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR WORKERS.
    ALLOCATION OF ORDERS TO CORK.
    ALLOCATION OF ORDERS TO CORK.
    NORTHALLERTON LABOUR EXCHANGE.
    NORTHALLERTON LABOUR EXCHANGE.
  MARINE OFFICERS.
  MARINE OFFICERS.
  ADMIRALTY METAL BROKERS.
  ADMIRALTY METAL BROKERS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (CASUALTIES).
  MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (CASUALTIES).
  6TH MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (DEATH OF PRIVATE).
  6TH MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (DEATH OF PRIVATE).
  PENSION TO WIDOW (GUNNER J. M. FALLON).
  PENSION TO WIDOW (GUNNER J. M. FALLON).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS.
    EMIGRATION OF EX-SERVICE MEN TO DOMINIONS.
    EMIGRATION OF EX-SERVICE MEN TO DOMINIONS.
  DAIRY INSTRUCTORS (IRELAND).
  DAIRY INSTRUCTORS (IRELAND).
  DAMAGE BY AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  DAMAGE BY AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  Labourer's Cottage, Ballylunnin, County Antrim.
  Labourer's Cottage, Ballylunnin, County Antrim.
  Clanricarde Estates, County Galway.
  Clanricarde Estates, County Galway.
  Omagh Petty Sessions Clerk.
  Omagh Petty Sessions Clerk.
  Viscount Gough's Estate (Turbary).
  Viscount Gough's Estate (Turbary).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Imported Hops.
  Imported Hops.
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Ecclesiastical Establishment (India).
  Ecclesiastical Establishment (India).
  Medical Service Sun-Committees.
  Medical Service Sun-Committees.
  Food-stuffs (Comparative Prices).
  Food-stuffs (Comparative Prices).
  Post Office (Smaller Classes Committee).
  Post Office (Smaller Classes Committee).
  Committals in Default.
  Committals in Default.