Sitting of 1 August 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order No. 60 not previously inquired into has been complied with, namely, Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That, in the case of the Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords] Standing Order 211 be suspended, and the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to sit and proceed with the Bill upon Thursday next.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    BRITISH PRISONERS.

      BULGARIA AND TUBKEY.
      Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the International Red Cross Society at Geneva has yet paid visits to British prisoner camps in Bulgaria and Turkey; and whether, officially, or otherwise, His Majesty's Government has received from that society any reports upon the condition of those camps?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): We have no information that delegates of the International Red Cross Society, at Geneva, have yet paid visits to camps in Bulgaria and Turkey in which British prisoners of war are interned. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about five weeks ago he promised to inquire, and can he give me any information?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Perhaps he will make inquiries.
      Lord R. CECIL: Certainly.

      INVALID CIVILIANS (RUHLEBEN).
      Mr. MALCOLMasked why the transfer of civilian invalid prisoners to Switzerland from Germany and Great Britain, respectively, was not included in the agreement recently arrived at between the two countries; and whether any negotiations are now pending to secure for such invalids the same advantages as were originally obtained by agreement between France, Germany, and Belgium?
      Lord R. CECIL: The scheme for transferring partially incapacitated combatant prisoners of war to Switzerland was in its inception largely experimental. For that reason, and for the reason that the result of the negotiations respecting the transfer of combatant prisoners of war to Switzerland might have been prejudiced had the issue been enlarged, it was not thought advisable to include invalid civilians in the original proposal we made to the German Government. As the hon. Member is aware, negotiations are now in progress for the repatriation or internment in a neutral country of all British civilian prisoners of war now in Germany, whether invalids or not.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Independent of the negotiations now pending, will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever he can to secure the transfer of the invalid civilians who are now occupying a sanatorium at Ruhleben to Switzerland or home, as half of them are rotting and half of them are mentally deficient owing to long internment in that particular sanatorium?
      Lord R. CECIL: I would be very glad to do anything I can, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to imperil the fate of the larger negotiations by any fresh proposals at this moment.

      INTERNED IN NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked how many British subjects are now interned in neutral countries?
      Lord R. CECIL: The number of naval and military prisoners in neutral countries on 31st July was as follows:—Naval: In Norway, 105; in Holland, 1,838; in Denmark, 14; in Switzerland, 4; total, 1,655. Military: In Holland, 27; in Spain, 1 (one); in Switzerland, 446; total, 474.

      BANDS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
      Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at with reference to bands, including pipe bands, of third line units of the Territorial Force?
      Mr. WATSONasked whether third-line Territorial units are to be allowed to retain their bands, including pipe bands, provided that no bandsman of military age and fit for general service is employed?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The collection from Commands of the information necessary to form the basis for a 'well-considered decision has not yet been completed. This is being accelerated, but I cannot, I regret to say, announce any decision to-day. My hon. Friend will realise that if these bands are retained, the men will be drawn from the ranks of those who are unfit for military service, and to this extent men who might otherwise be suit-ably employed on munition or other work of a national character will be retained with the Colours.
      Mr. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind also the great value from the military point of view of having this music?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, that will be borne in mind.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      SIR FRANCIS VANE'S POSITION.
      Mr. KINGasked whether the Brigadier - General Commanding the 178th Brigade recommended Major Sir Francis Vane for mention in dispatches for his distinguished conduct when in command of the attack on the South Dublin Union; whether Sir Francis Vane came to London to report to the Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener the murder of Messrs. Skeffing-ton, Dickson, and M'Intyre; whether Sir Francis Vane was thanked by the Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener for this service; whether the report of the Brigadier-General was held back by Sir John Maxwell and not forwarded by him to the Army Council; whether Sir John Maxwell seat am adverse report on Sir Francis Vane's conduct, with the result that Sir Francis Vane is now unemployed; and whether, in view of the services of this

      5
      gallant officer, any action will be taken to make available Sir Francis Vane's services in the field?
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that Sir Francis Vane, one of the officers in command, made a personal report to Lord Kitchener respeting the murders of Messrs. Skeflington, Dickson, and M'Intyre, and thereby, one week after the crimes had been committed, obtained the arrest of Captain Bowen-Colthurst, for which action he was thanked by the Prime Minister and his action approved by Lord Kitchener; whether he is aware that the treatment of the civilian population by Sir Francis Vane during the rebellion has won the confidence of the Irish people; whether he is aware that Sir Francis Vane has been now unemployed for two months either in a military or in a civil capacity; whether he is aware that Major Sir Francis Vane was one of the first officers to report himself at the front in this War, coming from Italy at his own expense and joining the French Army at Belfort on 14th August, 1914, and on his return to England he, of his own initiative, raised 500 men for the Army from among the London stores and factories and for one year trained the officers and men of a battalion of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, whose attachment and loyalty to him have been publicly expressed; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member wishes to regard this matter in the light of the ordinary practice as regards mention in dispatches, I must point out to him with reference to the first and fourth parts of the question that it is not customary for Commanders-in-Chief to forward with their dispatches the reports of subordinate commanders, and the Army Council have no knowledge of any recommendation having been made by the officer referred to. On the general question of the further employment of Sir Francis Vane, I can only say a report has been received from Lieutenant-General Sir J. Maxwell that this officer's services are no longer required for recruiting duties, and as there is no other employment for which he is required he is now unemployed. He was adversely reported upon as a regimental officer and cannot be employed in this capacity again.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Colonel Maconochie, on the 8th May, reported as follows on Sir
      6
      Francis Vane: "That he rendered valuable assistance, that his dispositions were excellent, and that he recommended him to be mentioned in dispatches, and to be permitted to return to the front"; and whether it is a fact that Sir J. Maxwell has now discontinued his services solely because he reported, and insisted upon reporting, the murder of Skeffington and others in portobello Barracks?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have no reason whatever to think that is the case.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether this report which I have read is true or false?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will represent it to my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary for War.
      Mr. KING: As this is a matter which obviously is one of great public importance, will the hon. Gentleman press for a definite report upon the subjects mentioned in these questions and the allegations contained therein?
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Gentleman direct his investigations to this point— whether the gist of the matter is that a zealous and efficient officer has been punished because he set his foot in the way of the illegal operations of the military, and that the whole influence, esprit de corps, and chicane of Government Departments is now being used against him?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there is a word of truth in those allegations.
      Mr. LYNCH: Let the facts tell.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into the facts I have stated, and let the public know the facts?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have already assured the hon. Member that I will report what he has said to the Under-Secretary of State for War, with whom it will remain to decide whether or not an inquiry shall take place.
      Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that the inquiry into the death of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington shall be so arranged as to bring into consideration and report the matters brought forward now?
      Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is such a persona grata with the Prime Minister that I am quite sure his representation would be considered.

      BILLETING.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a soldier was billeted on Mr. John O'Dwyer, of Market Square, Kilrush, on the night of 1st July last; whether he is aware that, on account of the delicate state of health of a member of his family, Mr. O'Dwyer paid for lodgings elsewhere and incurred loss; whether he is aware that the some soldier was billeted on him again, arriving when the house had been closed and all the inmates were in bed; and, seeing that the exceptional powers of billeting are used by the police to cause annoyance to political opponents, whether any general instructions have been given to use billeting powers with tact and discretion?
      Mr. FORSTER: Special inquiry has been made into this matter, and as a result I am informed that a recruiting serjeant was billeted on Mr. John O'Dwyer, publican, of Kilrush, for three nights at the beginning of July. I am also informed that no member of the family of Mr. John O'Dwyer was sick, as has been stated to the hon. Member.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry and see whether the police are using these exceptional powers in a vexatious spirit, and, if so, will he put a stop to it?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have no reason to think that the police are acting otherwise than with perfect propriety.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is acquainted with the circumstances in which on two occasions parties of the Royal Munster Fusiliers were billeted at the house of Miss Kate M'Cormack, Irish House, Ennistymon, county Clare; whether he is aware that on the first occasion a price was agreed to and paid, but on the second occasion payment on the same scale, though at first agreed to, was subsequently to the event refused, the final payment involving also a reduction on the account already settled; whether he has considered the effect on recruiting of such proceedings; and whether he will do justice to Miss M'Cormack?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have already explained the position to the hon. Member. It is not admitted that any agreement was
      8
      made on the second occasion. The billeting took place under the Army Act, and only the legal amount can be paid.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is it admitted that there was an agreement upon the first occasion, and, if it is so admitted, as the money was actually paid, why was some part of that money deducted on account of a subsequent transaction?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think there was a deduction made in the first instance, as the hon. Member suggests, but the deduction was made by mistake, and the full amount was subsequently offered.
      Mr. LYNCH: Was not this transaction on the part of the War Office a cheating of this poor woman, who might not of herself be able to make complaint?

      WOUNDED SOLDIERS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the feeling among the relatives of soldiers and among the public generally that the military authorities are acting unfeelingly as well as unfairly by sending back to the trenches men who have newly recovered from wounds, in many instances time after time, before their turn comes to go into the trenches again; and whether he intends to take action in this matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I was not aware that there is any such feeling as my hon. Friend refers to. I can assure him that men are not sent back to the front until they have fully recovered from wounds and are fit for service in the field. When such men have returned to the front they would necessarily have to take their turn to go into the trenches with their battalion, but they would not, of course, be taken out of their turn in ordinary circumstances. Trained and experienced men are, of course, valuable, and I think I may say that commanding officers at the front are too well aware of the value of the services of these experienced men to subject them to any avoidable risk or strain.
      Mr. HUGH LAW: Is it a fact, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee the other day, that the wounded men are placed in a class as men who are the first to be sent back to France?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that I could apply that as a general rule.
      Mr. REDDY: Is it not a fact, as the hon. Member for Dundee said, that men who remain at home are promoted, even to the rank of major, and men in the trenches often receive no promotion at all?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that that arises out of this question.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      TUBERCULAR RBCEUITS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of tuberculous persons are being taken into the Army; that in a large number of cases these consumptive soldiers, without value from a military standpoint and an additional burden to the State, are at the same time a source of danger to healthy soldiers; whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Leeds Insurance Committee that out of 110 tuberculous insured persons who enlisted in Leeds during the year they had lost trace of sixty-six, but that out of the remaining forty-four about thirty had had to be discharged, whilst three had died; and whether it is proposed to take any action in this matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that considerable numbers of tuberculous persons are being taken into the Army, but I, of course, agree with my hon. Friend that no such persons should be taken. Instructions have been issued to recruiting medical boards to ask each man definitely whether: (a) he has been under treatment in a sanatorium; (d) his name has been notified to the sanitary authorities as suffering from consumption? No man whose answer to either of these questions is in the affirmative will be taken, but it will obviously be necessary to verify his statements. The Local Government Board have also arranged for local tuberculosis officers to supply particulars of all men of military age who are on the tuberculosis registers, and these particulars will be notified to the proper recruiting areas with instructions that such men are not to be accepted for service. The advice of these tuberculosis officers will also be asked for in cases of doubt. As regards the statement referred to in the latter part of the question, the Army Council have at present no information, but they have caused it to be referred for immediate investigation.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this new instruction regarding tuberculous men was given to the medical boards?
      Mr. FORSTER: I cannot give the date.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked him for the instructions to the medical boards this instruction was not included?
      Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the War Office or the medical faculty ascertain whether there is tubercle present in the human form or not?
      Mr. FORSTER: There are well-known methods for ascertaining that by suitable and searching medical examination.
      Mr. FLAVIN: By what process?

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War whether a young apprentice named Alfred Evans, a conscientious objector under the Military Service Act, was called up on 25th April, was sent to Felixstowe, where he refused to obey military orders, was sentenced to twenty-eight days' imprisonment, and confined in Harwich Circular Redoubt; whether, after serving one week, he was sent to France, where, still refusing to obey military orders, as they were opposed to his moral and religious principles, he suffered various penalties, including extension drill; whether, on 24th June, he was court-martialled and sentenced to death, the sentence afterwards being commuted to ten years' penal servitude; whether he was brought to Winchester on 13th July and his parents visited him on 18th July, having some conversation with him through the double grille; whether he had, in ignorance of the rules, incurred a further penalty by speaking to a fellow conscientious objector and had been given solitary confinement; whether he is aware of the effect of the experience of the past few months on these lads, who are intelligent, clean-living fellows whose only offence is their devotion to their God and refusal to take part in the destruction of human life; whether he and his companions now in Winchester Gaol are to be sent to Portland Convict Prison; and whether, in view of the Prime Minister's pledge that the men who are held to be genuine conscientious objectors will be released from the civil prison on their undertaking to perform work of national

      11
      importance under civil control, and that all the men whose objection to active military service is founded on honest conviction ought to be and will be able to avail themselves of the exemption which Parliament has provided, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: In view of the fact that this case will be considered by the Central Tribunal, no action in the matter is necessary.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War how men who have been undergoing imprisonment as conscientious objectors will be treated during the "period elapsing after release from prison and before the Central Tribunal has settled their cases; if retained in prison, will their condition be modified and their punishment relaxed; if retained in the camps or barracks of the Army, will they again be liable to courts-martial; if allowed home on leave, will they be held under surety bound to report themselves; and how many cases of this kind have been remitted to the Central Tribunal?
      Mr. FORSTER: Arrangements are being made whereby such men will on release from prison be granted furlough until such time as the tribunal may have adjudicated upon their cases. In the event of the Central Tribunal rejecting their claim such men will receive an order from the War Office to return to their unit. The hon. Member will realise that it is not possible to retain a soldier in prison on the expiration of his sentence. I am not yet in possession of information as to how many cases of this kind have arisen, but I do not think that up to the present moment there have been many such cases. As regards men in detention there have been twenty-nine cases, all of which have been dealt with on the lines indicated above.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the exemption from combatant service granted to Mr. H. Adams, a school teacher, by the Enfield Local Tribunal was withdrawn by the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal on 17th July; whether the chairman, Mr. Regester, refused to take the applicant's evidence, although he had documentary evidence showing that his objections to war dated back many years; whether the only questions put to the applicant by the chairman of the Appeal
      12
      Tribunal were questions as to his religious views, and as to whether he belonged to any Church or not; whether the appeal of the local education authority to the effect that the applicant's services were necessary to the successful conduct of the school was also disregarded, on the ground that the work of teaching was not of such national importance as to justify exemption; and whether, in view of these facts, he will order a rehearing of the case?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am informed by the tribunal that after careful consideration of the case they formed the opinion that the objection of Mr. Adams was not conscientious, and they withdrew the exemption from combatant service granted by the local tribunal, which exemption he had stated he was not prepared to accept. The applicant also stated that he was not prepared to do work of national importance approved by the tribunal as a condition of his exemption from all military service. As regards the appeal of the education authority, I am informed that this was not rejected for the reason stated in the question, but because, in the opinion of the tribunal, it was not expedient in the national interest that Adams, instead of being employed in military service, should continue to be engaged in his present work. I am not prepared to intervene in this case.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the North Staffordshire Appeal Tribunal has refused to hear the appeal of Mr. G. H. Howe from the decision of the Longton Local Tribunal declining to vary his certificate of exemption from combatant service; whether he is aware that the clerk of the tribunal stated that he had received instructions from the Local Government Board that Mr. Howe had no right of appeal and that his appeal was not to be heard; will he say whether such instructions were given with his sanction; and whether he will instruct the Appeal Tribunal to hear this man's appeal?
      Mr. LONG: I am making inquiries respecting the case.

      IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
      Mr. H. LAWasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the military authorities in Scotland are in some cases seeking to enforce compulsory service in respect of Irish migratory labourers not ordinarily resident in Great

      13
      Britain who have signed registration forms in this country; and whether, having regard to the pledge given by members of the Government that the Registration Act' would not be used for such a purpose, and to the provisions of the Military Service Act in respect of migratory labourers and other persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, he will issue instructions to prevent such action in the future?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries will be made and the result will, with my hon. Friend's permission, be sent to him by letter without the necessity for him to take any further trouble in the matter.
      Mr. DILLON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider some system of giving passports to these labourers before they leave Ireland so that they will not be molested, because I can assure him that this is an important matter and may affect English agriculture very seriously?
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman send instructions to the military authorities in Enniskillen to release two men who have been there for the last ten days, who were tried a fortnight ago and discharged and have not been arrested again? I put a question yesterday and got an unsatisfactory answer. I ask the hon. Gentleman now to wire to Enniskillen to release these men. One is blind of an eye and is ordered to go and serve as a military man, and he was only about eighteen months in this country altogether?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made. The suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo will be considered.
      Mr. LAW: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman will take such action as is indicated in my question, and that he will send out instructions?
      Mr. FORSTER: I want to make inquiries first, and as soon as the inquiries are made I will communicate with the hon. Member.
      Mr. FLAVIN: What are the Regulations with respect to registration forms? Are the men who have got those forms to carry them on their person or are they bound to keep them in their residence?
      Mr. FORSTER: I must ask for notice of that.

      SOLDIEBS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEASS OF AGE.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has
      14
      been called to the case of Private W, H. Dalziel, No. 4721, Highland Light Infantry, 1/9th, who, although only I7¼ years of age, has been sent to France and to the trenches, and has been refused leave to return to this country, the commanding officer at the end of June writing that he had no authority to send home youths of that age; that on 15th July he was wounded in the thigh and taken to hospital at Rouen; that they there refused to send him home and informed him that he would be sent again to the trenches in a few weeks; and, if so, will he see that promises made in the House with reference to boys under eighteen are fulfilled in this case?
      Mr. FORSTER: My Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already informed my hon. Friend that this case will be dealt with under the recently issued instructions which have been referred to in this House. Instructions have been given to the officer in charge of records in this sense.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Why has the War Office Order of 13th June not been observed? Only this morning I have heard from Glasgow that a boy under eighteen was shot last week whose parents had applied for his discharge over a month ago.
      Mr. FORSTER: I am very sorry; I have not heard of it. We are doing what we can to see that the instructions are observed.
      Mr. PRINGLE: How long does it take an instruction to reach the proper authority?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will see that depends upon where the authorities are.
      Mr. WATT: Will these boys be sent home—Yes, or No?
      Mr. FORSTER: My impression is that a youth over seventeen years of age serving in France may be Bent home if he is willing to come. If he is not willing he will be sent to the Training Corps at the base, and at any rate will be kept out of the firing line.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Is not the hon. Gentleman mistaken, and that under the Regulation a boy under the age of eighteen at the Front is sent home, and a boy between eighteen and nineteen is sent to the base?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think so. I think it is my hon. Friend who is mistaken.
      Mr. JOWETT: Has not the birth certificate been sent each time, in as many as three applications?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not know whether it was sent.
      Mr. JOWETT: It was sent on each occasion.
      Mr. WATT: Is it the superior officer who asks the boy to remain in France?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that is so.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the War Office any control over officers?

      OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAS (PAY).
      Major NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether officers when prisoners in enemy hands are placed on half-pay?
      Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, unless they are above the substantive rank of colonel.

      EX-CORPORAL JAMES BURTON.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it was with his sanction that the father of ex-corporal James Burton, No. 4190, Royal Army Medical Corps, who, at the commencement of the present War, was in the Army Reserve after having previously served nine years with the Colours including periods of service in India and South Africa, who, during the present War, was wounded at Ypres and afterwards, when he was supposed to have recovered, was sent to Egypt and then to Salonika with the Royal Army Medical Corps, at which latter place his strength gave way altogether and he was sent into hospital at Malta a nerve-shattered wreck who, on leaving the hospital at Malta, was discharged from the Army and, after a short stay in an asylum in the South of England, was finally sent into the lunaticasylum at Menston, Yorkshire, on behalf of which last-mentioned institution the Bradford Board of Guardians, in the absence- of adequate arrangements on the part of the War Office for meeting the cost in such cases, not to mention the failure to provide accommodation for them elsewhere than in lunatic asylums, has put the father of ex-corporal Burton to the indignity of proving that he is unable to bear the charge of 12s. per week
      16
      towards the cost of nursing back his war-broken son to health and strength if that is possible; and, if he has not sanctioned the proceedings in this case, what action he proposes to take in regard to it and other similar cases?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

      NATIONAL RESERVE.
      Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is now in a position to say whether men of the National Reserve who joined up at the outbreak of war for one year or for a second year if the War still continued will, on the termination of their two years' service, if not yet forty-one years of age, be kept on and come under the same conditions as the Regular soldier and be entitled to a bounty and furlough on completing their two years' service at the front?
      Mr. FORSTER: Men serving on a one-year engagement, whether National Reservists or not, will, if under the age of forty-one, be retained in the Army under the Military Service Act. They are not, however, eligible for the bounty given to men who were serving on an Army engagement when the War broke out and have since become time-expired.
      Colonel YATE: Why are they not eligible?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that at the time the bounty was given it was' intended to be given to those men who were serving at the outbreak of the War and since then have become time-expired.

      APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Central Appeal Tribunal, in considering the case of H. F. Runacres, formerly a theological student of Pusey House, Oxford, who claimed exemption on conscientious grounds, decided that his objection was a political one, and that such an objection was not a conscientious objection within the meaning of the Act; whether he is aware that the claims of many Socialists and other persons who do not plead a religious objection have been refused on this ground; and whether he

      17
      will take steps to represent to the tribunals that this supposed antagonism between politics and conscience ought not to be made a ground of refusing relief to a sincere and genuine applicant?
      Mr. LONG: I have no authority to give directions to the Central Tribunal in this matter. I see no reason to differ from the decision of the Central Tribunal in the case to which reference is made.
      Mr. MORRELL: Are we to take it that the Local Government Board holds that politics and conscience are necessarily incompatible?
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement in the question about Socialists is not in the least correct?
      Mr. LONG: Certainly I am aware.
      Mr. PRINGLE: In view of occurrences in the Cabinet, will they not have more sympathy with conscientious objectors?

      RUSSIAN SUBJECTS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he can hold out to allied aliens of military age the prospect of immediate naturalisation on their offering themselves for enlistment in the British Army?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I hope to be able within a few days to make a further statement on the conditions of enlistment into the British Army, and of naturalisation when enlisted, of Russian subjects resident in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. KING: Will it be made in such a form, as on the introduction of a Bill, that it may be discussed in this House?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No legislation is necessary.

      PUBLIC TBUSTEE'S DEPABTMENT.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say how many officers of military age are now retained in the Department of the Public Trustee; how many are single and how many are married; will he state what is the average age of the unmarried men; and whether he will consider the possibility of entrusting the work now done by these unmarried men to women or men outside the limits of military age?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The number of officers of military age now retained in the Department of the Public Trustee (excluding those rejected or postponed on grounds of health) is 65, of whom 19 are single and 46 married. The average age of the unmarried men is 27½. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on the 26th July.
      Mr. FABER: How many officials are there altogether?

      PETROL SUPPLY.
      Major WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Mechanical Transport, Royal Flying Corps, and Royal Naval Air Service motor daily between London and the Northern and Midland counties to transact business in the factories; and whether, in view of the train services, he will take steps to check this waste of petrol?
      Mr. FORSTER: There are local inspectors of Mechancal Transport in the Northern and Midland counties, so that it is not necessary to send anyone from London for this purpose, whether by road or by rail, but generally I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that motor journeys on duty exceeding forty miles can only be made when special authority has been obtained.
      Major GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of training Army drivers on large motor lorries burning about a gallon of petrol for every five miles run; and whether, in view of the petrol shortage, he will consider the desirability of training such men on lighter cars with about a quarter of the petrol consumption?
      Mr. FORSTER: It has been found, by experience, that it is impracticable to train lorry drivers on motor cars. Men have to be taught on the type of vehicle which they will have to drive on service.
      Major GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War whether convoys of 100 motor-vans and lorries have sometimes driven 200 miles from their place of manufacture in the North to pass tests in London, afterwards returning to be shipped from near their place of origin; whether, on such a journey, a convoy burns from 2,000 to 8,000 gallons of petrol according

      19
      to horsepower; and whether he will arrange for inspections to take place at the factories in future?
      Mr. FORSTER: The normal procedure in such cases where the port of embarkation is known beforehand is to have the vehicles inspected at the manufacturer's works and sent direct to the port. I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would give me any particular case where this rule has been departed from.
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the necessity for the curtailment by over 60 per cent, of the normal requirements of commercial and private users of petrol is due to a sudden unforeseen and temporary cause of which his Board could have had no expectation two months ago; whether he is aware of the loss to the revenue caused by the inability of the Petrol Commission to allocate petrol on which a licence Duty of 6d. a gallon is being paid; and will every effort be made to free tonnage otherwise employed and so secure a valuable sum to the revenue?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The probable necessity for regulating the use of petrol has been foreseen for some time, and was one of the reasons for which the Petrol Control Committee was appointed in April last. The considerations referred to in the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question are being borne in mind. Commercial users have not been cut down to the extent suggested in the question.

      PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for War whether any conference has been, or is likely to be, held between the military authorities of the Entente Powers to secure, so far as is possible, identical treatment of prisoners of war held by them and joint representations to the Central Powers as to the treatment of their prisoners in Germany and elsewhere?
      Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not aware that any such conference has been held or is in contemplation. Whether any joint representation to the Central Powers would effect any change in their attitude towards prisoners of war is not clear, but this will be considered.

      FIELD PUNISHMENT.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will inquire whether Mr. Arthur Sexton, secretary to the National Society of Chauffeurs, was assured by Sir Reginald Brade that no commanding officer had any right to exceed orders by inflicting first field punishment for minor offences, seeing that this punishment was substituted for flogging and no man was flogged unless he had committed a very serious offence; and, in view of the punishment inflicted on Driver Graham for a first offence, he will ascertain what punishment can be administered to the court-martial who were guilty of such a dereliction of duty?
      Mr. FORSTER: I fear that I cannot add anything to the answer I gave my hon. Friend yesterday. This man was dealt with not by his commanding officer but by a court-martial who were within their rights in giving the punishment named. The court-martial doubtless took all circumstances into consideration before awarding the punishment.
      Mr. WASON: Has not this man received double punishment, as not only was he sentenced to this heavy punishment, but he was deprived of his allotment?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that the deprivation of the allotment is a necessary consequence of the condemnation by court-martial.

      CAST ARMY HORSES.
      Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that cast Army horses at the front are habitually sold; and whether, in view of the fact that such horses have rendered valuable service to this country, he will consider the desirability of their being painlessly destroyed rather than sold abroad?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is the case that cast Army horses at the front are sold. Those fit for work and certified by a veterinary surgeon as fit to be exposed for sale are sold locally to farmers. They could not be sold profitably if brought back to England. From the sentimental point of view, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it is a better fate for a horse, no longer capable of service in the Army, to pass into the hands of our Allies, the French, for agricultural work than to be painlessly

      21
      destroyed as my hon. Friend suggests. I think it is an undeserved slur to suggest that the farming population of our Ally are not at least as careful of their horses as are our own farmers. Horses unfit for any work must in any case be destroyed, and I can assure my hon. Friend that this is done in the presence of one of our own military officers. These horses could not be brought to this country for destruction. Generally I may say with confidence that both the Director of Remounts and the Director of Veterinary Services in France have always kept prominently before their minds those considerations other than material which, I quite agree arise in connection with the disposal of cast Army horses.
      Sir G. GREENWOOD: May I point out that the suggestion that the Allies do not know how to treat their horses is not contained in the question, and has the hon. Gentleman not ascertained that these horses are very often sold when they are in quite an unfit condition and exposed to a great deal of suffering, and for the trifle which is obtained for them is it worth while to sell these poor old horses which have done battle for us, rather than to destroy them painlessly by the humane killer?
      Mr. FORSTER: Horses unfit for work are destroyed. Those horses still fit for work are sold.
      Sir F. BANBURY: As the suggestion that the Allies do not treat their horses properly is not contained in the question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that horses which have fought for us on the battlefield ought to be destroyed painlessly and not exposed to unnecessary suffering?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is asking the same question over again.

      LAND SETTLEMENT COLONIES.
      Captain C. BATHURSTasked whether a few of the thousands of hutments in military camps in England and Wales will be available, either before or immediately upon demobilisation, for the equipment of the three experimental land settlement colonies for ex-Service men?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is unlikely that any of the hutments will be available either before or immediately on demobilisation for the equipment of the three experi-
      22
      mental land colonies for ex-Service men. My hon. Friend's suggestion will, however, receive sympathetic consideration, and when it is decided upon what lines demobilisation will be carried out it should be possible to give a definite reply.
      Captain BATHURST: What is the earliest date upon which a definite reply can be given, and must the land settlement scheme proceed now upon the assumption that no such hutments will be available?
      Mr. FORSTER: The question of demobilisation, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, is even more difficult than the problem of creating the Army. I do not think that it would be right to count upon the hutments being available, but the suggestion shall be considered.

      OFFICERS' INCOME TAX.
      Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reduced rate for officers' Income Tax applies only to incomes of officers on the effective list; and, if so, will he make it apply also to the pay and retired pay of those officers on the retired list who are employed under the War Office in the present national emergency and are for the time being effective officers?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The conditions under which the relief in question is applicable are set out in Sections 30 and 31 of the Finance Act, 1916. The relief provided by these Sections applies to the pay of retired officers re-employed under the War Office during the present emergency on work of a military character, but not to their retired pay.
      Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he refers to the Income Tax they have to pay?
      Mr. McKENNA: I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given.

      EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the profits declared by shipowners, he will consider the advisability of taking a much larger proportion of the excess profits so as to discourage their profiteering on the

      23
      transport of food supplies and raw materials; and whether he will make inquiry into the feasibility of putting an increased harbour charge on neutral vessels?
      Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first part of the question, I fear I can add nothing to the statements I have already made as to the reasons which led me to propose that the rate of Excess Profits Duty should not exceed 60 per cent. It must be remembered that Income Tax and Super-tax are payable in respect of the remaining 40 per cent. The second part of the question concerns the Board of Trade.
      Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what returns have been made or receipts collected of Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax in respect of businesses carried on by a non-resident person with a resident person in this country; and whether any disputes have arisen or have been settled with Armour and Company and other large meat companies, who have conducted business on this side with the War Office, Admiralty, and Munitions Department, and in respect of which profits have been made available for collection of Income Tax under Section 31, Sub-section (3), of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915?
      Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I should be precluded from publishing details of the character suggested in the question, even if they were readily available. I may further remind him that the accounts of the Inland Revenue receipt of Income Tax, Schedule D, and Excess Profits Duty would not differentiate between the class of taxpayer which he appears to have in mind and any other class of taxpayer. As regards American meat companies in general, I may refer him to my answer of 29th June last to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (South). I am sending him a copy of that answer.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board, respecting the case of an applicant for an old age pension whose claim was dealt with recently by the Bradford Old Age Pensions Committee, the total income of the [applicant being 12s. 6d. per week allot-
      24
      ment and dependant's separation allowance from a soldier son, from which amount the pensions officer in calculating the applicant's means deducted 1s. 6d. per week for his son's unused (reserved) accommodation, thereby making it impossible for the old man to claim more than 2s. a week under the Old Age Pensions Act; whether he will instruct the pensions officer in this and other similar cases to exclude separation allowance for the purpose of calculating the means of an applicant for a new pension in like manner as he has instructed pensions officers to exclude separation allowance for the purpose of calculating the means of soldiers' dependants who were already pensioners when claims for separation allowances were made for them?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension in regard to the nature of the concession made to existing old age pensioners. In those cases the support given by the sailor or soldier should aleady have been taken into account in calculating the means for old age pension purposes, and, where this is the case, no action is taken for reduction or withdrawal of the pension in consequence of any increase in means due merely to the excess of the separation allowance and allotment over the value of the support as previously estimated for old age pension purposes. There is, therefore, no case, on the analogy of the treatment accorded to existing pensioners, for excluding dependant's separation allowance and allotment in calculating the means of a claimant to an old age pension.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have again considered the question of giving to the old age pensioners an extra payment since the deputation of the Trade Union Congress Parliamentary Committee put the case before him on Wednesday, 19th July?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes, Sir, the matter has been since considered. I am glad to say that I was able to announce to the deputation certain administrative measures taken by the Government which will, we hope, go far to mitigate the hardship which some pensioners are suffering.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what they are?
      Mr. WARDLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give to the House an indication of what the measures are?

      WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (REGULATIONS).
      Mr. WILKIEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing with the various local War Pensions Committees due to the delay of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation in issuing Part I. of their Regulations; if he can state the reason of such delay; and whether he can expedite the issue of such Regulations?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I regret that any inconvenience should have arisen in consequence of these Regulations not having at present been issued. The Statutory Committee have given unremitting attention to them, but great care was required in framing them, and actuarial advice had to be obtained. The Regulations have now been submitted to the Treasury for approval, and as soon as that approval is obtained they will be issued.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Regulations are to be submitted to the House of Commons for their approval or criticism, apart from the Treasury, before they are published?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The House of Commons will have an opportunity, no doubt, of debating them, and that opportunity will be given before very long.
      Mr. HOGGE: What is the use of debating Regulations after they are framed and people have actually been paid? Why cannot the House of Commons, which controls these matters, discuss them before they are assented to?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The House of Commons gave power to the Statutory Committee and the Treasury, and that power is being exercised in the usual way.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: What is the object of these Regulations?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The object of the Regulations is to erect some standard by which the flat rate of pension may be supplemented, and to, as far as possible, enforce that general standard throughout
      26
      the country acting through local committees and on their recommendation in each individual case.

      ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION ACT, 1915.
      Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether it is intended to renew for a further period of twelve months the provisions of the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, c. 76, under which the elections of local authorities and other bodies were postponed and provision made for the filling of casual vacancies?
      Mr. LONG: The answer is in the affirmative.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will that require a Bill?
      Mr. LONG: It will have to be included in the Clause of a Bill.

      MILITARY SERVICE (CIVIL LIABILITIES) COMMITTEE.
      Mr. WATSONasked whether the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee are declining to grant relief to, or to entertain any claims by, wives of soldiers who have no children, even if such wives are unfit to work; and, if so, for what reason the Committee adopt this course?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: No, Sir. The Committee are not declining to grant assistance to wives of soldiers who have no children where the wives are unfit to work.
      Mr. WATT: Is it the usual practice of this Committee never to give a grant if there is more than £2 per week after paying the rent?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Committee has not been authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a grant when the amount is larger than £2 per week. That was thought to be a very considerable concession at the time and a concession for which we have received hundreds of letters of gratitude.

      INTERNING NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he adheres to his policy

      27
      of interning any man of enemy birth where there is doubt of his conduct; whether he will reconsider his decision to release J. G. W. Grüban if evidence can be produced that he has sold German machines to the Commonwealth of Australia as of British make; and whether an official of the Ministry of Munitions appeared before the alien tribunal and asked for his internment?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The only power of interning naturalised British subjects of enemy birth is that conferred by Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations; that Regulation applies only to cases where internment is required for the public safety or the defence of the realm, and I have not said anything beyond that. The charge referred to in the second part of the question was brought before the Advisory Committee, who found that it related to what happened before the War, and were of the opinion that it did not come within the scope of Regulation 14B. As regards the last part of the question, two persons on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions appeared before the Advisory Committee in support of the case for Griiban's internment. The Committee were, however, informed by the Ministry that the breaches of their Regulations, with which Grüban was charged, would be a matter for proceedings by the Ministry against Griiban's firm, if necessary, and that the Ministry did not desire that Grüban should" be punished by the Committee in respect of them. I would add, with regard to this case generally, that it has been repeatedly stated in the House that persons against whom internment orders are made under Regulation 14B have the right of appeal to the judicial Advisory Committee. When, as in this case, that Committee have given prolonged consideration to such an appeal, and have recommended that the internment should not be maintained, I should require to be satisfied that there were important new facts which the Committee had not had under their consideration before deciding to over-rule their recommendation.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it the fact that the Committee sat three days to consider whether this man should or should not be interned, and is it also the fact that the Ministry of Munitions applied that this man should be interned and that a representative from the Munitions Department
      28
      made that request to the Committee, and, if so, why should there be any hesitation at all seeing that this man was an enemy alien when the War broke out? They ought to be interned.
      Mr. SAMUEL: With regard to the application from the Ministry of Munitions I have dealt with that in my previous reply. It is the case that the Advisory Committee sat for three days to hear this one case, and at the end were unanimously of opinion that he ought not to be interned.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: The Committee ought to be abolished.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Table, so that we can judge for ourselves?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will consider that suggestion.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Advisory Committee dealing with Irish prisoners hear over a hundred cases per day and hear no evidence of any kind?
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary what were the alleged public grounds on which J. G. W. Grüban was naturalised in September, 1914; whether he is aware that Grüban took no interest in any public affair except a welcome to the Kaiser; whether he is aware that Grüban was not engaged upon Government work when he was naturalised; and whether Grüban is still in possession of his Prussian military uniform?
      Mr. SAMUEL: As I have already stated, in answer to the hon. Baronet's question of the 25th July, the certificate of naturalisation was granted by my predecessor on the ground that Grüban was the head of a large business which it was considered important should be kept going, as it employed a considerable number — several hundreds — of British workpeople. If naturalisation had not been granted, it was understood that he would probably have to close down his works and discharge his workmen. I have no information that Grüban was engaged upon Government work when he was naturalised. As regards the last part of the question, it was alleged before the Advisory Committee, during the hearing of Grüban's appeal against the order for his internment, that he had been seen in

      29
      a Prussian military uniform. The Committee endeavoured to obtain evidence on the point, but none was forthcoming.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that it would be impossible for this business to be carried on without the naturalisation of this man?
      Mr. SAMUEL: That was the information before my predecessor.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has had nothing to do with this business for a long time, and that he was fired out?
      55. The hon. Baronet asked the Minister of Munitions if a solicitor was sent to the firm of Haigh, Grüban, and Company, Limited, to investigate into its conduct as a controlled munition firm, under the management of J. G. W. Grüban; whether the aforesaid solicitor reported many breaches of rules and regulations and the making of false returns; whether since Grüban left the firm in March last the Ministry have been satisfied with the conduct of the present management; and whether the Home Office have been informed of the experience of the Machine Tool Committee respecting Grüban?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The affairs of this firm were specially investigated on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions by one of its officers, and his investigation disclosed certain departures from regulations and inaccuracies in return. A supervisor was subsequently appointed, and the Ministry are satisfied with the present conduct of the affairs of the firm. The Home Office have been fully informed of all the circumstances.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the right Bon. Gentleman admit that false returns were made by this man? If so, did his Department ask that he should be interned?
      Dr. ADDISON: The man made a number of false returns—I am not sure that that is quite ah accurate way of putting it—a number of false statements, anyhow. The matter was submitted to the Committee, whose views were passed on to the Home Office.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Was this man prosecuted under the Munitions Act for making a false return and subjected to the penalty provided by that Act?
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not know about that. I do not know that he was liable to prosecution.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, for any false return.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Have any steps been taken under the Trading With the Enemy Act to wind-up this company?
      Dr. ADDISON: A supervisor was put in to manage the business a long time ago.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Seeing that these aliens get contracts, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why loyal Irishmen, although on the tender list, are not even invited to tender for contracts?

      STATE HOLIDAY POSTPONEMENT.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that munition workers will receive extra pay for work done on their cancelled State holidays this month, it is the intention or desire of the Government that these State holidays shall be cancelled for the general community of workers as well?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a similar question put by the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division on the 19th July, to which I would add that it is the Government's desire that these holidays should be postponed but not cancelled. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the statement which will be circulated in reply to Question 54.
      Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that munition workers object very much to this pay being given for these holidays, and to have it thrown at them?

      ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY.
      The following question stood on the-Paper in the name of Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEY:
      47. To ask the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of those concerned, he will now give instructions for the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the efficiency, administration, and economy of the Royal Aircraft Factory to be laid upon the Table of the House; and if he Will now confer with the Secretary of State for War

      31
      as to the advisability of placing the Royal Aircraft Factory under the direction of the Minister of Munitions, who is already responsible for the supply of all aircraft weapons and ammunition?
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEY: In putting this question, may I say that the Report has now been laid?
      Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board):I will answer the second part of the question. The suggestion contained in the second part has been considered. The Royal Aircraft Factory is primarily and mainly an experimental establishment. It is consequently essential that it should be in close touch with and under the direct control of the Director-General of Military Aeronautics at the War Office, who is responsible for the development of military aircraft. It is, therefore, not thought advisable to place the factory under the Ministry of Munitions.

      AIRCRAFT ENGINES (MANUFACTURE).
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions for the Report made by the Ministry of Munitions, and dated 27th June last, upon the labour conditions in connection with the manufacture by a private firm of aircraft engines of Royal Aircraft Factory design to be laid upon the Table of this House?
      Major BAIRD: I regret that the information given in the question is not sufficient to enable me to trace the Report which the hon. Member has in mind. If he will supply me with fuller particulars further inquiry will be made.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman have the Report handed to the Air Committee of Inquiry if I tell him where he can find a copy?
      Major BAIRD: I must see the Report first.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that if it is not a flattering Report it will not be handed to the Committee?
      Major BAIRD: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we cannot find the Report and do not know where it is.

      ENEMY ALIEN.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether a German named E. Dieckmann, a blouse manufacturer, of Gresham Street, now interned at the Alexandra Palace, has been permitted for the last twelve months to carry on business by an English manager; and whether he is still permitted to see his accountant and sign cheques once a week?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that the case of Dieckmann has been referred to the Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Trade in connection with the Trading With the Enemy Acts in order that it may be considered whether Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, comes into question. In reply to the latter part of the question, Dieckmann's business is being wound-up, and in this connection extra visits and interviews have been permitted and Dieckmann has been allowed to draw cheques.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of the question—whether this man has been allowed to carry on business from the internment camp for the last twelve months, and, if so, why?

      FRIENDLY ALIENS (DEPORTATION).
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information concerning any deputations received by him, or requests for deputations, of persons who have approached him with proposals as to the policy of deporting Russian Jews to Russia?
      Mr. SAMUEL: A small number of requests to receive deputations have been made to me. I have received one deputation of Russian journalists. It was of a private character.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked whether citizens of France, Italy, and Belgium of military age are liable to be deported without such an opportunity of appearing before a tribunal as is enjoyed by Russian citizens?
      Mr. SAMUEL: For many months His Majesty's Government have rendered assistance to the French, Belgian, and Italian Governments by returning to them their own subjects who are recalled to the Colours. The Russian Government have

      33
      given permission to their subjects living in the territories of their Allies to enlist in the Armies of their Allies, and those subjects therefore stand on a different footing. I see no reason for altering the arrangements hitherto in force with respect to the French, Belgians, and Italians. I would express my regret that an answer which I gave to a supplementary question on the 18th July is open to misunderstanding. I had in mind only the new arrangements which are in prospect, but are not yet in operation, with respect to Russians.
      Mr. KING: Does that mean that French Japanese, or Portuguese political refugees may be deported without appeal to any tribunal?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Japanese and Portuguese Governments have made no request, so far as I am aware, for the return of their subjects.

      BAKEHOUSES (FEMALE LABOUR).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether any proposals have been put forward for introducing female labour in bakehouses during the night; whether the representatives of both the employers and employed have denied the necessity for any such step being taken; and what is his intention in this matter?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): A conference was called recently by the Home Office between employers' and operatives' associations to consider and, if possible, settle the conditions under which women might be employed in bread baking to replace or assist men. No definite proposals for the night employment of women were put forward, but the question was discussed at this and subsequent meetings. Both parties have now expressed themselves as not favouring such employment, and no provision therefore with regard to it will be included in any general agreement that may be arrived at.

    MUNITIONS.

      WORKEBS (WAGES ORDER).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked whether the wages prescribed in the Order 447 recently issued under the Munitions of War Amendment Act, 1916, are to be regarded
      34
      as minima or as fixed wages; whether it is possible for special classes of workers engaged in ferns to Which the Order has: been applied to make we of the machinery provided by the Acts of 1915 and 1916 to obtain a higher rate of wages, or whether the arbitrators appointed under these Acts for the settlement of differences between employers and employed will be precluded by the terms of the Order from dealing with the question of wages on their merits?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have made careful inquiries into the point raised in the hon. Member's question, and I am informed that it was the intention of the tribunal that the rates prescribed in the Order referred to should be regarded as the rates which should ordinarily be paid; but it is not intended that these rates should operate to prejudice the position of any person who is at present receiving higher wages nor to prevent employers from recognising special ability or responsibility.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Do I understand that these wages of 4d. and 4½d. an hour are fixed wages, and not minimum wages at all?
      Dr. ADDISON: I understand that that point was specially considered by the tribunal, and that the intention of the tribunal was that they were to be regarded as ordinary wages and not minima.
      Mr. ANDERSON: I think it disgraceful that that should be the state of affairs.

      NEW INDUSTRIES.
      Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that manufacturers in this country have since the War employed capital and time in the building of factories, manufacture of bottles, and production of mineral aperient waters now being used in this country and exported to our Dominions and neutral countries, he could see his way to give a definite assurance that these new industries will be adequately protected by the Government from dumping after the War by proprietors of German and Austrian waters who employ little or no labour in this country and, not being possessed of factories, etc., here, pay next to no rates and taxes for the upkeep of our own country and market?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot give any undertaking as to a particular industry pending consideration of the general policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government after the War.
      Major HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how manufacturers can be expected to give their time to the creation of new industries when they are liable to have those industries partially destroyed after the War?

      EGGS (TRANSIT).
      Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received complaints as to the delay in the transit of eggs consigned from Ireland to industrial centres in Great Britain and as to the breakages which take place, especially in the case of eggs carried by the London and North-Western Railway Company; and whether, in view of the present shortage of our food supply, which is accelerated by waste of this character, he will take steps to secure an immediate remedy for the state of things complained of?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I am making inquiry in regard to the complaint on this matter which my hon. Friend has forwarded to me, and will communicate with him on the subject.

      FLOWERS AND FRUIT (IMPORTS).
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total money value of the flowers and fruit imported into this country during the last year of which he has a record; and whether in view of the recent curtailment of the import of necessaries such as paper pulp and petrol he can hold out hopes of a release of tonnage at present occupied in the carrying of flowers and fruit?
      Mr. HARCOURT: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham on the 19th July, copy of which I am sending him. In addition to the prohibitions established some time ago on the import of dried and preserved fruits and vegetables, a Proclamation was issued on Friday last prohibiting the import of oranges from foreign countries except under licence. I hope that by permitting the import of oranges only in licensed ships it will be possible
      36
      to secure a considerable saving in tonnage without appreciably restricting the acutal quantities imported. There is no restriction on the import of petrol.

      SHIPPING FREIGHTS AND PROFITS.
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the balance sheet of Messrs. Furness, Withy and Company, which states that, notwithstanding restrictions owing to Government work, £1,386,959 has been earned in a year; whether he is aware that the shareholders have obtained a multiplied dividend, and £300,000 has been placed to provide for trade contingencies, and that the profits are almost twice the largest sum hitherto recorded in a similar period; and whether, in view of the connection between earnings and the high price of foodstuffs and raw material, he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee of experts to consider and report on the subject of freights and consequential cost to the community?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The fact3 in regard to the balance sheet of Messrs. Furness, Withy and Company are substantially as stated by my hon. Friend. The Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Tyneside Division of Northumberland are considering the increase of food prices, and will recommend whatever action they think practical and expedient.

      FAWCETT ASSOCIATION.
      Colonel YATEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the annual meeting of the Fawcett Association and to the fact that the central committee of the association voted £10 to assist those of their members who objected to military service; and whether he will adopt measures to put a stop to this condition of things in the postal service?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): I am not responsible for the way in which Post Office servants choose to spend their money.
      Colonel YATE: Is not this Fawcett Association a purely postal organisation, and is not its report published in the "Post Office Journal"?
      Mr. PEASE: As far as I am aware the members of the Fawcett Association are exclusively members of the Post Office. I believe they do send the reports of their meetings to the "Post Office Journal "At the same time I cannot control the way in which they spend their money.
      Colonel YATE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman signify his disagreement with them for spending their money on conscientious objectors?
      Mr. PEASE: No; I do not think I am called upon to do so.

      SPANISH BRANDY.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury for what reason secret instructions have been issued forbidding payment of duty on Spanish brandy now in bond in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding that such brandy has been imported and admitted into bond under the Regulations of the Board of Customs and Excise; and if instructions may be given to release Spanish brandy which conformed with the Regulations in force at the date on which it was landed?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise have found it necessary to call for more specific evidence than was produced on importation of the age of some recent consignments of brandy before allowing it to be cleared for home consumption under the terms of the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act. As such evidence comes forward, and is found satisfactory, delivery for home consumption of the relative consignments is authorised.

      BOMBAY (SALE OF FOREIGN LIQUORS).
      Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the opening of a new shop for the sale of foreign liquors near Thakurdwar, Bombay City, without the local advisory committee being consulted,whether he is aware that in another case, in Bombay, a similar shop has been opened, although there were already two licensed premises within a short distance of the site and in spite of the fact that many of the residents, Hindu and Mahomedan, objected to it; whether he is aware that the establishment of
      38
      liquor shops under these conditions is in contravention of the orders of the Government of India; and whether he can give an assurance that the local advisory committees will in future be consulted in all such cases?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I have no information regarding these cases except that supplied to me by my hon. Friend, but I will make inquiries.

      INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Regulation recently issued excluding conscientious objectors from the Indian Civil Service applies to and includes the Departments of Public Works, Forests, Police, and other Departments of the Government of India; and, if not, will he have the Regulation amplified to include and apply to all branches and Departments of the Government of India?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Regulation covers only the Civil Service of India as it is made under a Statutory provision relating solely to that service. But the principle would be equally applicable to the open examination for the police service, if and when they are resumed. As regards other Departments, the question is dealt with separately as and when appointments are made. Recruitment for them is practically in abeyance at present.

      SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
      Mr. ASHLEY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether week-end leave for officers and men now serving at home has been suspended for 5th-6th August; whether, if that is so, he will exempt non-commissioned officers and men training for active service abroad from the operation of this Order, in view of the fact that only about 60 per cent, of them between joining the Army and going on active service have any leave, apart from the four days given just previous to the draft leaving this country?
      Mr. FORSTER: Arrangements will be made for a proportion of officers and men serving at home to go on leave on the date suggested. The number will be decided by the military authorities in each command.
      Mr. ASHLEY: Thank you.

      PETROL COMMITTEE.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at 11.30 on Thursday morning, 27th July, the electric light was full on in all the large working rooms and passages of No. 19, Berkeley Street, lately taken over by the Government for the use of the Petrol Committee; whether he is aware that this expenditure of light was going on daily throughout war savings week, and will he state why this waste is permitted in a Government Department specially created to economise?
      Mr. HARCOURT: As some of the rooms and passages of the Committee are not very well lighted, it is necessary, on a dull day, to use artificial light if the staff are to carry out their duties efficiently. Every precaution is taken to prevent the waste of artificial light.
      colonel LOCKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that yesterday was a dull day?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think this question refers to yesterday.
      Colonel LOCKWOOD: I saw it myself yesterday.
      Mr. HARCOURT: I understood there was a general desire that the Petrol Committee should have as much enlightenment as possible.
      Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it conducive to economy to take a large building where, as he says, it is necessary to have the electric light on during the day?
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only on one day, but on every day of last week, the electric light was burning up till 11.30 and 12 o'clock'! I myself went into the house and saw the electric light burning, not in one or two rooms, but in every room— every large room.
      Mr. HARCOURT: If my hon. Friend says he went into every room—
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Every large room!
      Mr. HARCOURT: I must accept his word.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this waste is stopped?
      Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. I have already taken steps to see that no light is kept burning unnecessarily anywhere.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Why did not you say so?
      Mr. G FABER: When did the right hon. Gentleman know of the matter?
      Mr. HARCOURT: Directly I saw the question on the Paper. I then took the steps of which I have spoken.

      ENEMY FIRMS.
      Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the hostile demonstration which occurred on Wednesday last at the office of Messrs. Benjamin, at Bermondsey, on account of this being a German firm owned and managed by two men of German nationality; and whether, in justice to British firms in the same trade whose representatives are serving in the Army, he can see his way to have this firm wound-up?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen Press accounts of this incident and of the subsequent Police Court proceedings. As regards the concluding part of the hon. Member's question, the matter has been referred to the Board's Advisory Committee, who will, I understand, consider it within the next few days.

      ENEMY PROPERTY.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of claims which have been made by British creditors against the property of enemies, estimated at £6,500,000, which has been vested in the Public Trustee by the Court and by the Board of Trade, respectively; and what amount of such claims has been paid?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The Public Trustee informs me that he is preparing a statement showing the amount of claims made by British creditors against the property of enemies which has been vested in him, but that it will take some time to complete this statement. The claims already paid by the Public Trustee amount to £149,838 11s. 4d.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is

      41
      aware that on the demand of the Public Trustee and his legal advisers the Court has decided that a British creditor of an enemy debtor whose debt was owing at the commencement of the War, and was payable in Marks, should now only receive the present depreciated value of exchange of Marks into sterling instead of the rate of exchange prevailing on the date when the debt ought to have been paid, and that such decision involves a considerable loss to British creditors to the advantage of enemy debtors; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
      Mr. HARCOURT: I am informed by the Public Trustee that no such decision has been given by the Court.

      WOOL.
      Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked what were the exact quantities of wool shipped from Australia and South America, respectively, to Italian ports in 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915; has any portion of the shipments of wool to Italy in 1914 and 1915 found its way to Germany through Switzerland; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the Allied Governments, including Italy, to prevent Germany from obtaining wool in this manner?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): The answer to this question contains numerous statistics, and with the permission of my hon. Friend I would propose to have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

      INDIAN TROOP TRAIN (DEATHS OF SOLDIERS).
      Major ASTOR(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information about the deaths of soldiers from heat stroke on the troop train from Karachi?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have a telegram that I have received from India. I will give a paraphrase of it.
      "Ballarat. Your telegram of the 28th instant, 30th July. We can now give a considered opinion, having received report of Committee. The responsibility for diverting the ship from Bombay to Karachi rests with Brigadier-General Roe, who was acting as Quartermaster-General at the time. He knew un-acclimatised troops had never before been sent in large numbers by rail in the middle of summer through the Sind Desert. He knew, or should have known, that the Commander-in-Chief in December, 1915, had decided that Karachi should not be used as a port at which wounded and
      42
      sick British troops should be landed and distributed to other stations on account of danger of sending them in the hot season through Sind. It follows that before Ballarat was diverted to Karachi Acting-Quartermaster-General should have consulted Commander-in-Chief, and he did not do this. Having taken on himself responsibility he should certainly have warned Karachi military authorities to take special precautions for safety of troops during journey by rail. He did not do this. We therefore must hold him responsible, and propose to remove him from his appointment of Deputy-Quartermaster-General.
      It is clear from evidence that the mischief began before disembarkation, many men having been seen on deck bareheaded in the sun. All the officers on board were quite inexperienced, and we cannot therefore hold them blameworthy. The General Officer Commanding at Karachi was responsible for all arrangements for railway journey in his capacity as embarkation officer. It is shown from evidence that on the day concerned he was very busy, but he had ample warning of Ballarat's arrival. Though he knew responsible members of his staff, with one exception, were inexperienced, he took no steps nor gave any orders to see that the safety or comfort of the troops was provided for. In this we consider he failed in his duty, and we propose his removal.
      Special blame we consider attaches to the Assistant Director of Medical Services at Karachi, an officer of long experience of the Indian Medical Service. In the circumstances, it was undoubtedly his duty to see that every precaution suggested by medical science for the safety of the troops was taken. He failed, in our opinion, to do this. We therefore propose to remove him.
      A number of omissions and errors on the part of other officers were committed, but these were due partly to inexperience and partly to adherence to regulations intending to govern only the ordinary trooping in cold weather. We do not propose to take any action in these cases. The only excuses that can be urged in favour of the officers who are, in our opinion, responsible are that many of the casualties were due to facts that in many cases the men left their carriages bare-headed, and that the temperature during journey was unusually high. Nevertheless, though these facts may have increased the number of casualties, we are clear that there can be no doubt that the train left Karachi insufficiently equipped, over-crowded, and without experienced officers, either medical or combatant. We place for these reasons the responsibility on Brigadier-General Roe, on the General Officer Commanding, and on the Senior Medical Officer at Karachi All that was possible seems to have been done by the local authorities beyond Karachi throughout the journey."
      I should add that I have expressed my concurrence with the course the Government of India have announced that they intend to take with regard to the three officers. I am inquirying whether special instructions for the removal of drafts of troops during the hot weather have already been issued, and, if not, suggesting that they should be issued at once, and I am communicating with the War Office at once, in order that officers taking drafts out to India may be warned to take all precautions.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any special compensation will be paid to the relatives of those who suffered through the incompetence and negligence of those officers?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain—I am speaking from memory—how

      43
      the matter stands, but I gave orders that steps should be taken to treat these casualties as casualties on active service, if that lies in my power. That may require the assent of the War Office.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these officers are not given other positions of responsibility?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I can trust the Government of India, when they have removed officers from their commands, not to give them other positions of responsibility.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman now hold an inquiry into the conduct of the Government of India? Is he aware that a report was made to them before the outbreak of War that with this class of carriage then in existence at Karachi it was dangerous to move troops over the desert even in the cold season, and that report was made to the Government who, nevertheless, allowed the ship to be diverted to Karachi?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The ship, as I stated, was diverted, not by the Government of India, but on the action of the Quartermaster-General on his own responsibility.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: But was that in the hands of a very high officer?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no knowledge.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will give me precise information of what the report was, I will make inquiries.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Will you give an indemnity if I give his name?
      Sir J. D. REES: Were no orders issued by Army headquarters in India prescribing some special care should be taken to meet the novel case of the arrival of Territorial troops?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commander-in-Chief in December, 1915, had decided that Karachi should not be used as a port at which sick and wounded troops should be landed from other stations.
      Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government of India did not act beforehand, and not wait until agitation had taken place in this House?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The first intimation came to me from the Government of India and not from this House, and in the telegram in which they communicated the news of the incident to me, they said they were making an inquiry, the result of which I have now given to the House.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether, in the event of compensation being paid to the relatives of the victims, he will see that the cost will fall on Imperial revenue and not on Indian revenue, seeing that the Indian people had nothing to do with it?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These were drafts for the Indian Army.
      Mr. LYNCHrose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of any further questions.

      MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a demand for a Grant for the widow and orphans of Captain Fryatt, assassinated by the German Government, being brought, according to the right hon. Gentleman's intimation, before Parliament, having regard to the indignation aroused by this execrable crime and the sympathy of the Empire with the family of the victim, such demand will be brought before the House of Commons in the most solemn form by a Resolution proposed in a Committee of the Whole House appointed to sit on a future day for this purpose, as in the case of Sir Henry Havelock in 1857 and the cases of Lord Kitchener in 1899 and 1901 and Lord Roberts in 1908?
      The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and learned Friend's notice only reached me an hour or two ago, but I can assure him that I will carefully consider his suggestion.

      ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
      Mr. BILLING: In view of last night's Zeppelin raid over seven counties, may I ask if the Prime Minister will now consider the advisability of reprisals? [HON. MEMBEBS: "No!"]

      Dogs Act.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many prosecutions have taken place in the county of Dumfries under Section 6 of the Dogs Act, 1906; whether he is aware that the paucity of cases under that Section is to be accounted for by the fact that, where a complaint is lodged under that Section the sanitary authorities give notice to the person against whom the complaint is lodged that such complaint has been made, with the result that when the locality is officially visited the cause of complaint has disappeared; and whether this line of action has the sanction of his Department in the administration of the Act of Parliament?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): I am not in a position to say how many prosecutions have taken place in the county of Dumfries, but I am informed that the Act referred to is duly enforced. I am not aware of any such general practice as that suggested by my hon. Friend, but if he will furnish me with the facts in any recent cases I shall be glad to make inquiry.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why cannot my right hon. Friend find out the number of these cases and the facts as to the practice pursued?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that it is not the practice.
      Mr. WATT: Are the cases so numerous that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the number of them?
      Mr. TENNANT: I have not got the number, but, if my hon. Friend is very anxious to have the number, I may be able to supply it to him.

      Island of Sark (Vehicles on Sundays).
      Mr. MALCOLMasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the penalties inflicted by the Seneschal of Sark upon two cabdrivers in the island of Sark who infringed an ordinance relating to the restriction of vehicles being driven on Sundays by obeying an order to attend at the harbour on Sunday, 2nd July, to meet His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, who was visiting the island; and whether he can remit these sentences and procure the cancellation of this and other obsolete ordinances?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My attention had not been previously drawn to the matter. I
      46
      am making inquiry, but there has not been time for a reply to reach me. I will communicate with the hon. Member when my inquiries are complete.

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to:—
      Police, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now
      Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, with Amendments.

      POLICE, FACTORIES, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
      Changed from "Police, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill," Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
      BILL PRESENTED.
      ARMY ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL,—"to amend Sub-section five of Section seventy of the Army Act," presented by Mr. LLOYD GEORGE; supported by Mr. H. W. Forster; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    SUPPLY PROCEDURE.
    Mr. DILLON: I wish to raise a question about the Orders of the Day. I always understood that the settled custom was to put the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill as the first Order of the Day, or, at all events, not to put any contentious business before it. I notice that a cententious Bill, which may lead to some considerable discussion, is put as the first Order to-day, and the Consolidated Fund Bill as the second Order. It is a very bad precedent, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it has been done?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Consolidated Fund Bill takes first place owing to Parliamentary tradition and custom, and if any notice had been given to us that any particular question was likely to be raised on the Bill, I should certainly have followed that custom.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I gave you notice.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will leave that aside for the moment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: You have introduced a Bill to square me, at all events.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yesterday we were going to take the Report of the Special Commissions Bill, which, I hoped, was not a contentious measure, nor do I think it is. There are only questions of detail. But I quite agree that the Consolidated Fund Bill ought to take first place, and, if the hon. Gentleman persists in his right, I will give way to the suggestion.
    Mr. DILLON: I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister. I am a custodian of the old customs and Rules of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman having acknowledged that the Consolidated Fund Bill ought to come first, if he thinks the other Bill will not take very long I will not press my point. I want to raise a very important question on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but if there is any prospect of the other Bill getting through in the course of an hour or two, I will raise no difficulty, but I do not want to let the matter pass.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the Prime Minister say whether he intends to give the time of the House to-morrow to the Second and Third Readings of the Bill to be presented to the House to-day by the Secretary of State for War, and which ought to have been presented eight weeks ago?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will not have the first place.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: When will the Second Reading be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We will put it down for to-morrow. I cannot help thinking that the Debate on the Special Commissions Bill will be concluded in a very short time. I think the outstanding points have been settled.
    Mr. DILLON: I will not press the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: What will the business be on Thursday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Colonial Office Vote.
    Mr. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of putting one of the two Bills relating to the destruction of property in Dublin on the Paper two days in succession, and then not going on with it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will not be taken this week.
    Mr. CLANCY: I understood from the Home Secretary it would be taken?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, not this week.
    Mr. CLANCYI do not understand why it should not be taken.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Attorney-General is not here.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Why is he not here?
    Mr. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman will admit, I think, that this is an urgent matter, and, therefore, why should not some arrangement be made to give precedence of other matters, which are not so urgent?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will be taken at the earliest available opportunity—I hope early next week.
    Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing

    55
    Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed,"—[The Prime Minister.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: Dawn to what Bill on, the Paper?
    The PRIME MINISTER: To No. 6 (Trading With the Enemy (Copright—No. 2) Bill).
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That includes No. 4, which is a new Bill. There has already been one Bill of that description withdrawn in deference to requests made, and now No. 2 has been introduced. I do not think we ought to take that Bill after eleven o'clock at night.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): We shall not take that after eleven o'clock at night.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, thirteen days, either before or after the fifth day of August, shall be allotted under Standing Order 15 for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall effect as if in paragraph 7 of that Standing Order the twelfth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph 8 of that Standing Order the thirteenth day were substituted for the twentieth day so allotted."
    This Motion with regard to Supply arises in this way: Standing Order No. 15 provides that "not more than twenty days being days before the 5th August shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates." Last year, on the 14th of July, 1915, the House consented to a Motion substituting seventeen days for the twenty days provided under the Standing Order. This Motion is on the same lines as last year, and suggests thirteen days before or after the 5th of August, instead of the twenty provided by the Standing Order. The House may like to know how we stand in regard to this matter. During this Session we have had ten allotted days in Supply. We have had four other days in Supply, which for one reason or another have not been technically allotted days, and that makes fourteen days. Further,
    56
    we have had three Votes of Credit, taking five days, and four Consolidated Fund Bills, which have occupied eight days; so that altogether this Session we have had twenty-seven days of Supply, We have had four days occupied in getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy, Army and Civil Service Estimates, and adding those days we arrive at a total of thirty-one days which this Session have been devoted to Supply. To these thirty-one days we propose by this Resolution to add another three, making the total thirty-four days in all. The remaining topics for which hon. Members have asked for opportunities are the Colonial Office Vote, which we propose to take on Thursday, the Scottish Votes, and the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. In answer to some supplementary questions put yesterday that Vote is Class VI., Vote 7. There has also been some request for a discussion on the Treasury Vote. I do not know if further discussion is desired by any considerable number of Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very much!"] If so, they will have an opportunity. It is proposed, if the House agree to my Motion, that the Votes in Committee of Supply shall be taken on the twelfth day, and the Report on the thirteenth day. We do not propose to take the Appropriaton Bill during this portion of the Session. The House will see that the Standing Order provides by fixed procedure for not more than twenty days, but if this Motion is accepted we shall have devoted thirty-four days for that purpose during the present Session.
    Mr. DILLON: I cannot accept for a moment the figures and calculation put forward by the Prime Minister. The effect of this Motion is to cut down the number of days allotted to Supply, and this has been done year by year since the War commenced. Twenty days was the minimum under the new rule when it was instituted. As the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, it used to be the universal custom to add to the twenty days every Session two or three extra days, and I do not think a Session passed without the addition of at least one or two extra days. It is perfectly natural that in a time of great pressure the days allotted to Supply should be somewhat curtailed, because during war time the business of the House is paralysed, and, in my opinion, too much paralysed. I think this House under the first pressure of the War allowed itself to be almost completely

    57
    wiped out of existence, but a great change has come over the spirit of the House, and it is no longer impressed with the idea that the Government are to be allowed to carry on the War sub silentio, without any criticism whatever. There is a spirit in the House of a very different character from that which prevailed during the early days of the War. I want to draw attention to the fact that during the whole of the last two years I do not think there has been a single day devoted to Irish Supply. I have come to the conclusion that if any section of hon. Members of this House, from motives of loyalty, refrain from demanding their rights, they get no credit whatever for their action. Although for the last two years we have had much to complain of, not only as regards the government of Ireland from a purely Irish point of view, but as regards the almost incredible blunders of the War Office and Government in dealing with Ireland and recruiting in that country, which was largely responsible for the Irish rebellion, we maintained silence, and although our right was established by long usage to have three days set apart every year for Irish Supply, we acquiesced in the total abrogation of our right, and the disappearance of Irish Supply days altogether. We did not ask for those days, and we have got very little credit for our action.
    Now we are going to adopt a different course. For two whole years we have maintained silence and have never asked for a day for Irish Supply. We have made no complaints and we have got nothing but kicks, and the result has been a serious injury to our party and our influence in Ireland. We have been fighting your battles in Ireland to the best of our ability. It may have been a mistake on our part to forfeit our right of criticism as to the conduct of the Government. I think it was. I have often discussed this matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond), and our only motive in abstaining from discussion and maintaining silence was not to trouble the Government during the conduct of the War. We had in our hands abundant information as to the conduct of the War Office in Ireland which would undoubtedly have impressed this House, and we could have made it pretty hot for the Government, as was urged upon us fre-
    58
    quently, and this was a subject of constant discussion and consultation in the councils of our party. We thought we ought to have had a full dress Debate attacking the Government upon its policy in relation to the outrageous conduct of the War Office, which has muddled the war abroad, and there is no use in denying it. They have muddled the war at home as well, so far as Ireland is concerned, because it was the War Office and the Coalition Government that made the Irish rebellion. I tell you now that if the War Office and the Government had handled the Irish situation rightly you would have had at least twice the number of Irish soldiers fighting for you at the front, and you would have had a steady stream of recruits going forward with enthusiasm. I put it to the Prime Minister after the announcement made last night that the most patient people in the world will turn at last, and now that we have fully installed a Unionist Government in control of Ireland we must claim the full measure of our rights.
    Whatever is done for the small remnant of this Session, we must insist on getting in the coming Session our full three days for Irish Supply. I do not know yet whether it is the intention of the chairman of our party to insist on a Debate on Irish administration during this Session. I do not think that opportunity could be denied us. I want to raise the question of Irish administration on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which I think is a more suitable occasion, because if we have a Debate on Irish administration upon the salary of any Minister we might be ruled out of order, and it might be said that there is no Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench with any responsibility for the government of Ireland except the Prime Minister himself, if he has any responsibility. The really responsible man is Sir John Maxwell, and we shall have him on the gridiron tonight in the discussion upon the Appropriation Bill. That was the reason I raised the point as to precedence for the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. We may have an opportunity of dealing with that subject to-night, and therefore it may not be necessary to insist upon a debate of Irish Supply. As a matter of fact, there are no Irish Ministers, for they have all disappeared, and we cannot get hold of anyone representing the Irish Government.

    59
    I desire to warn the Prime Minister that henceforth we shall insist upon returning to the old conditions and getting our old rights, namely, three days out of the twenty for Irish Supply. We cannot be expected to continue to impose upon ourselves the restraint which was have done for two whole years since the outbreak of this War. With regard to restraint, I think we can bear comparison with any other section of the Members of this House, for there is no body of men who, under such circumstances, have given the Government more fair play, although we were horribly treated by the Coalition Government, which was formed against our protests and behind our backs at a time when the Liberal party had for four years been maintained in office through our steady and loyal support. The Government did not think it worth their while to consult us in any way when they were altering the whole framework of the Government, and we were practically told that we were outside and had no interest in that matter.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: You were asked to join the Coalition Government!
    Mr. DILLON: Yes, but could not join it. We never can join any Government, and the hon. Member knows it, until our country gets self-government. Everybody in the House knows that. I do not want to boast, but there are many men among our party who could have been in the Government twenty years ago. When the Government of 1892 was formed, we could have had two or three posts if we had desired, because that Government depended absolutely upon our support. We have never consented to join any Government, and we never can without forfeiting the confidence of our people until the Irish question is settled. The Government knows that perfectly well. The Coalition Government was formed behind our backs without our being given a hint of what was going to be done, and without them listening to our counsel. I venture to say that the counsel of the Irish Members is not entirely worthy of contempt, because we really have had some experience in this House and of the working of parties. We objected to it, first of all, because we thought that it was a bad instrument for conducting the War, and, secondly, because—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a very long way from the question which we are now discussing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask for more days, in order to discuss Irish Supply, he is entitled to do so, but to go into the question of the formation of the Coalition Government, now more than a year ago, is hardly relevant to the question whether Supply should be limited to thirteen or to sixteen days.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not want to contend the matter with you, Sir, but I thought it was in a sense pertinent, because it is the formation of the Coalition Government which has forced us to break our silence and to demand the three days. If it had not been for that, we should have acquiesced in the policy of the Government in cutting down the days of Supply, but the whole matter has been revolutionised, and, so far as I am concerned, I will be no party in the future to abating one tittle the established rights of the Irish party to criticise this Government.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The Prime Minister, in the statement he made, did not give us any idea when he hoped to move the Adjournment for the Recess. I hope, before this Debate closes, that he will be able to give us some indication as near as possible when he proposes to do that. With regard to the demand made for other Votes, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of a day for discussing the Ministry of Munitions. There are many important questions in connection with that office which I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing before the House adjourns. There are questions of labour and of production which it would probably be to the advantage of the Government itself to give us an opportunity of discussing. The point before us is whether private Members of this House—we have no official Opposition now—are going to relinquish many other opportunities which we should have had of raising other matters in connection with the administration of the Government. I am bound to say that our case on this occasion is not so strong as it has been on previous occasions. By a curious number of circumstances we have had many opportunities this Session which we have not had in previous Sessions of raising matters of public interest, because, after all the really important matters all concern the War, and owing to the Votes of Credit

    61
    and other propositions we certainly have had opportunities. Still, at the same time, if we are going to relinquish these opportunities with regard to several Departments which we might well utilise, I think we are entitled to ask the Government how they are going to use the number of days with which we are going to present them. It is pertinent to ask, for example, whether any of that time is going to be occupied by putting registration proposals before the House before the Adjournment. I should like to have a declaration on that matter. Are we to have a day to discuss the proposals of the Government on registration if we consent to this Motion? I should also like to invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when the new Bill dealing with the extension of the life of Parliament will be introduced. How many days does he propose to devote to that measure? If possible, we would like to know how long the life of Parliament is to be prolonged. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give us some information on these points.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the word "thirteen" ["thirteen days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
    The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we have had a very large number of days allotted to Supply, and he has included in those days the Votes of Credit, but if any hon. Member will look at the Standing Orders he will see it provides that the Votes of Credit are not to be included. The words are:
    "Provided that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or additional Estimates presented by the Government for war expenditure, or for any new service not included in the ordinary Estimates for the year, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid."
    Therefore, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is hardly correct, because by the Standing Orders any days devoted to Votes of Credit should not be included. What is the actual effect of this Order? I am rather surprised that the House has not raised that question. The effect is that we are only, going to have one and a-half or one and three-quarter days more. We have already had ten days. There will be one whole day more, and on the twelfth day the guillotine will come into operation at ten o'clock. There are a great number of very important matters
    62
    to be considered. There is, first of all, the question of the Treasury. No one can deny that one of the most important matters connected with the War is finance, and, while we have not been able to discuss Supply in connection with the Army and Navy except on the Votes of Credit, which are outside the Supply Order, we could, if we had the opportunity, discuss the question of finance on the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That has never been put down. I made the request more than a week ago to the Patronage Secretary (Mr. Gulland) that we should have a day for the discussion of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I made it also to my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot). There are two Patronage Secretaries at the present time, and I took the opportunity of making the request to both of them. I ventured to ask my Noble Friend if he acquiesced in that demand. One of the secretaries of the Unionist War Committee also made the request a week ago.
    Sir C. HENRY: The request was also made by Members on this side of the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a new thing.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I said that if the request were made for a discussion on the Treasury Vote we should be prepared to agree to it, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) at once made the request.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Very well. There are very important matters to be considered. The Prime Minister has dealt with the Treasury Vote, but there is also the question of the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions. There are, therefore, a very large number of important questions which ought to be considered, and it will be quite impossible to consider them in one and three-quarter days. I therefore beg to move to amend the Motion by leaving out the word "thirteen" in order to insert "fifteen," and later to leave out the word "twelfth" in order to insert the word "fourteenth."
    Mr. ASHLEY: How many more days does that give us?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have added two more days in each case, and I think that is right.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will not go into the points raised fey the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), because I do not understand that at this moment he is asking for a day for Irish Supply. With regard to the points raised in other quarters of the House, I think, when considering how much time has been actually given to Supply, we are entitled to include the three Votes of Credit and the four Consolidated Fund Bills which have occupied eight days, and upon the Second and Third Readings of which general questions of Supply might easily be raised. I do not think, therefore, that I was in any way mistaken or controverting the fact when I said that we have had thirty-four days of Supply in one form or another, including the Votes of Credit, as compared with twenty days in the Standing Orders, which I agree do not include Votes of Credit. I suggested that an extra day should be given to the Colonial Office Vote and to the Scottish Vote.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not sure that Scotland wants it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should say an "extra" day.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have had "ten days, and I said "three extra days."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The three are not extra.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The three are extra to the ten. Do not let us get into a quarrel about a question of simple arithmetic.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are not extra to the twenty.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Three extra to twenty would be twenty-three. I think that is right.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is right.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will not call them extra days, but of the three additional days one is to be given to the Colonial Office Vote, another to the Scottish Vote, which I am afraid, notwithstanding the sanguine view of my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) will be demanded, and the other we propose to give to the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: May I point out to the Prime Minister, with regard to the Vote for the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee, that there is a great deal of unrest in the local authorities about the appointment of the Committees, and it is very urgent that Vote should come on first?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Surely that unrest can be made articulate on the Vote for the salary of the Vice-Chairman?
    Mr. SAMUEL: We want it to come on as soon as possible.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend agrees that is the proper course.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I understand, wants two more days, one of which is desired for the Vote of the Ministry of Munitions and the other for the Treasury Vote. The effect of his Amendment will be to give those two more days. I am disposed to accept it. It is not an unreasonable request. Perhaps it will meet the right hon. Baronet's wishes if the Munitions discussion is taken either on the last day in Committee or the last day on Report as the case may be, and the same arrangements with regard to the Treasury Vote possibly will suit the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Let us conclude a bargain on that basis giving two extra days, one for the Treasury Vote and one for the Vote of the Ministry of Munitions, on the understanding that they are to be the last two days—that is to say, the days when the Committee Votes are taken and the day when the Report Votes are taken. On that understanding, I will accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am very glad the Prime Minister is able to announce that he will give us these two extra days. He has, however, made it appear that he has made a great concession to the House in allowing fifteen days for the discussion of Supply instead of the normal twenty. He indulged in some very ingenious arithmetic by which he found that thirty-four days would have been given to Supply, but by the same arithmetic in any other Session the same total could be arrived at, because the twenty days are always exclusive of the days on which Mr. Speaker is not out of the Chair, and of Votes of Credit. The

    65
    real comparison that ought to be made, therefore, is between the twenty days in the Standing Order and the fifteen days we are now to have. Last Session we had seventeen days. This year it was to be thirteen, and, proceeding on that basis, next Session we should have eight. My real motive in rising is to ask the Prime Minister whether next Session we cannot really reverse the order and have twenty days given to Supply. I want to submit to him that it is not less important during a great war to have days devoted to Supply, but that it is more important. I think anyone who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) will recognise that it has been a real disadvantage to the House, and to the country, that we have not had a discussion on Irish Supply in this House during the last two years. Some mistakes which have been made might have been avoided if Irish grievances had been brought to light, and discussion had taken place in this House. The truth is that in most matters concerning any war a policy of silence is not the wise policy. We have no estimates, and cannot have any estimates, of expenditure, and the only control we really have left over the management of affairs in the House of Commons is the discussion which the House gets on Votes of Supply. I therefore appeal to the Prime Minister—it is too late in the Session now to ask for twenty days—to give an assurance that next Session we shall start with the understanding, and the Government will so arrange business as to achieve, that the full twenty days of Supply shall be given to the House.
    Sir E. CARSON: The arrangement that has been come to with the Prime Minister is, at all events to my mind, fairly satisfactory in all the circumstances. At the same time, as we are now knocking off certain days of Supply I am really more concerned about what we are going to do with the other days that the Government are giving, and I would like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that at a very early date, before the holidays, if there are to be any holidays, at all events before the Adjournment comes on, we should have a Registration Bill, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, there is no necessity that he should be taken by surprise, that while I believe the House would be quite willing to give him every kind of facility, even for the passing of his Bill for the extension of the life of
    66
    this Parliament, I do not think they will do so unless the Government really apply themselves to this question of registration. The way in which the matter has stood over for the past twelve months is to my mind almost a public scandal, having regard to what may happen in regard to the voice of the country. I hope we shall get an assurance that there is no intention of prolonging the life of this Parliament, which I have no doubt the House is quite willing to do, until the country is put in such a position that if there is an election the register will be on a satisfactory basis. That is one of the matters the Government ought to keep in mind at the present time in regulating the course of public business.
    Mr. LOUGH: Before the Prime Minister answers, I desire to refer to a subject to which allusion has not been made. I do not think the Government's proposals are unreasonable in all the circumstances, especially after the way in which they have met my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), but in stating what we have done in Supply the Prime Minister made a singular omission. He did not tell us at all how the Votes had been dealt with, and what we will have to do when the guillotine falls. As the right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) beside him, I think it would be an advantage to hear what will happen on that fatal night, which I always regard as the blackest night of Parliamentary discussion, when vast sums are voted without any discussion. I should like to hear from him how many Votes we have to take, and what amount of money we have to vote on that occasion without a single word of discussion. It has struck me that the House of Commons has been singularly lenient with regard to the allotted days of Supply, and that Votes have been very well obtained, as well as the Report stages. There was one night last week, I think, on which a tremendous amount of Supply was put down, and I think the House got almost through it all. I regard the automatic closure of Supply on the last night, and I have always done so, as a pure farce, discreditable to the proceedings of this House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must not speak disrespectfully of the Standing Orders.
    Mr. LOUGH: Certainly not, Sir. I will confine my language within the utmost

    67
    limits. Perhaps I may say that however well-intentioned that Standing Order was, its effect on this House has been a little unfortunate.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss it now because there is no opportunity of altering it.
    Mr. LOUGH: No. I am not going even to discuss it. I only want to ask for information, and on these occasions when the twenty days which are in the Standing Order are varied—for instance, last year they were made seventeen, and this year they are going to be fifteen—I only desire that the Prime Minister should tell us how far the guillotine is necessary at all at present. I, for one, would be extremely glad to hear that matters have been so effectively dealt with on the days of Supply that the guillotine had become entirely unnecessary, and I believe that until it does become unnecessary this House will not recover its ancient prestige. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many Votes remain?
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I think one or two words ought to be said from these benches before the Prime Minister answers against the precedent that has been set. It is not so much the necessity for drawing our work to a close this year, but the precedent, first of making twenty days into seventeen, and then into thirteen, or, with the modification, fifteen. There is a strong feeling against this among many of us, and I hope there will be no question of doing it again. I should also like to say that there is a strong feeling in this House that the Irish Members have a right to their full time, and that they will get much greater support for their grievances, after the way in which they have supported the country in this time of trouble, from the benches on this side of the House than they have in the past.
    Mr. PRINGLE: As one who protested against this Resolution last year—indeed, with very little encouragement or support from any quarter of the House—I think I am entitled to welcome the opposition and the protest made against the Prime Minister's proposal to-day. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones) referred to the value of criticism in this House. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman in the past allowed his enthusiasm on this question to be suppressed.
    68
    I think it is important that when this decision is being taken with regard to the time of the House that we should have some assurance from the Government in the sense suggested more by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Banbury). If we are to surrender the days given to us by the Standing Orders, then we should have an indication from the Government of the method in which they are going to employ the time. Undoubtedly the questions mentioned by both those right; hon. Gentlemen are questions of the greatest urgency. I think that at no time should the questions of a register and of a General Election have been dissociated. The great mistake was made a year ago when we dealt with the registration question without any reference to an election. I think it is extremely important that both problems should be dealt with together, and before the rising of the House. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be in a position to give an assurance that the Government will be able comprehensively to deal with these questions before the House rises for the Recess.
    Mr. BRYCE: There is one question which I think the House would like very much to discuss, and that is the administration of the Board of Trade. I do not know whether it is worth while asking for a day for that now, because the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) is not in attendance; but if the Prime Minister was able to say that early in the next Session a day would be given for discussing the conduct of the Board of Trade, I think it would reassure the House. I know a great many people want to talk about it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Will the Prime Minister tell us what effect the proposal of the Government, as modified by the acceptance of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), has upon holidays? It is quite clear that when a Government proposes to settle the number of Supply days they have in their minds the termination of this part of the Session, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister, in answering, could tell the House when he proposes that this part of the Session should come to an end, and for how long the Recess should last. That would be for the convenience and to the advantage of Members.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will endeavour to deal with the various points that have been raised. First of all, I was asked what the programme of the Government was going to be next Session, and whether twenty days would be given to Supply. That is a question I cannot answer. I do not know who will be responsible for the Government next Session. I have not the faintest idea. At any rate I am not in a position, nor is anybody, to make any announcement on that subject. I can only deal with the Session with which we are now concerned. In regard to that, first of all I will deal with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough). He asked, or I understood him to ask, in what way we had occupied the days that have been actually allotted to Supply or consumed in Supply.
    Mr. LOUGH: How many Votes have been passed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Of the allotted days, two were for Civil Service Votes on Account, Committee and Report; Army Votes A and 1, Army Vote 12, the Office of Works, the Board of Agriculture, the Insurance Commission, the Home Office, the Post Office, and the Board of Education. On the four unallotted days, Supplementary Estimates, Navy Voes A and 1, another day for Army Votes A and 1, and the Local Government Board. Those are the actual heads of Supply dealt with by the House. I cannot say for the moment the total amount of money voted on those days, but those are the subjects to which the House, not at the request of the Government but of Members interested, have applied the allotted and unallotted days. I have pointed out before that four days were taken to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, and one for the Navy, one for the Army, and one on the Civil Service. In regard to how we shall occupy the time of the House if the Motion in its amended form is now carried, our hope was that we might move the Adjournment on some date about the 17th of this month, August. The House has now, if the Motion as amended is carried, added two other days, and it may, therefore, become not possible to adjourn quite so early as that.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The 17th of August with two days added?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to give any pledge, but the 17th was
    70
    the day on which we hoped the House might be in a position to adjourn.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the Prime Minister say for how long he proposes the House should adjourn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope for a substantial time. [Laughter.] When I say a substantial time, shall I say six weeks—possibly a little longer? I do not like to commit myself at this moment to that, but it will be for a substantial time.
    As regards the use of the time beyond that which is allotted to Supply between now and the 17th of August, there is one Bill which it is, of course, absolutely essential should be passed—that is the Bill for prolonging the life of this Parliament, which otherwise expires in September, to some more remote date—I will not say for how long, but, at any rate, for a certain number of months. My right hon. and learned Friend asked me whether that proposal would be accompanied by a proposition on behalf of the Government in regard to registration and the creation, I will not say of new electors, but of a new register. Undoubtedly the House will be entitled to ask the Government, when they bring forward their Bill for the prolongation of the life of this Parliament, to be put in possession, at any rate in outline and principle, of their proposals with regard to registration. On the other hand, of course, it is quite impossible, if we are to have a Recess beginning on the 17th August, or any date about that time, that these proposals should themselves be the subject of legislation before we adjourn. Our idea, therefore, is that when we bring forward, as we must, the Bill for the prolongation and extension of the life of this Parliament for a certain number of months, we shall put the House and the country in possession of our proposals in regard to registration, and that the discussion—the detailed discussion—of those proposals must necessarily be reserved until after the House resumes.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will they be in a Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think so—
    Sir E. CARSON: Because it might be only a statement.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I want to guard myself against misunderstandings, which are so easily engendered in regard to these matters. What I want to guard against is conveying the suggestion that the Government is to present a Bill which

    71
    must be carried through all its various stages before the House adjourns, unless there is general consent. That would be quite out of the question. The Government think that both parts of their proposals should undoubtedly be presented before the House adjourns.
    Sir E. CARSON Sir E. CARSON rose—
    Mr. DILLON: Is it in order on this Motion to debate the Registration Bill and the prolongation of the life of Parliament? You, Sir, called me to order when I was discussing it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no debate upon it. I understand the question is whether the Government proposes to proceed with these proposals and lay them before the House.
    Mr. DILLON: There has been considerable debate on this special point. The only question before the House is as to the number of days to be devoted to Supply.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not want to debate the matter. Nothing is further from my thoughts, or wishes, but I was asked the question how the Government proposed to employ the time, after the days in Supply had been exhausted, before the Adjournment took place, and, in courtesy, I was bound to reply. I do not want to go into any controversial matter whatsoever in connection with that or any other business or any question which is not relevant to this Motion. I think I have now answered all the questions put to me, and I hope the House will now agree to the Resolution.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "twelfth" ["the twelfth day were substituted"], and insert instead thereof the word "fourteenth." Leave out the word "thirteenth" ["the thirteenth day were substituted"], and insert instead thereof the word "fifteenth."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
    Main Question, as Amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, fifteen days, either before or after the fifth day of August, shall be allotted under Standing Order 15 for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, in-
    72
    cluding Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 of that Standing Order the fourteenth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph 8 of that Standing Order the fifteenth day were substituted for the twentieth day so allotted."

    TIME (IRELAND) BILL.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I beg to move "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to assimilate the time adopted for use in Ireland to that adopted for use in Great Britain."
    I wish to ask leave to introduce a one-Clause Bill dealing wth the assimilation of the time in Great Britain and Ireland. Perhaps the House will allow me to make a brief statement on the subject on the introduction of the Bill, in the hope that, perhaps, it may obviate discussion in the later stages of the Bill. As the House is aware, the clock time in Ireland is twenty-five minutes behind the time in this country. In all quarters in Ireland it has been pressed upon me that the hour should be assimilated. For the convenience of international communication almost all civilised countries in the world have adopted what is known as standard time, and the world is divided up for time purposes into zones, each of which has a time differing from the next by one hour. Eastern European time is two hours before Greenwich time, Central European time is one hour before Greenwich time, and Western European time is identical with Greenwich time. All the countries of Western Europe have Greenwich time, except Ireland. France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain all have standard time according to the standard zone. Ireland alone has hitherto been in isolation. A few years ago there was a strong movement in Ireland for the unification of the time, and the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Derry, and other towns sent in resolutions in favour of this proposal. The Associated Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom also resolved in favour of the proposal, and a Bill for the purpose passed the House of Lords in 1912, but it was not considered by the House of Commons. As all Members for Ireland are no doubt aware,

    73
    the Dublin Chamber of Commerce has recently passed a resolution urging that the Government should make this proposal. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce has done the same, and also the London Chamber of Commerce. Several Nationalist Members of Ireland, and also Members representing Ulster counties, have asked me to introduce the Bill. The Astronomer Royal of Ireland and the Astronomer Royal of England have been consulted, and the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, the Post Office, and the Railway Executive Committee have all declared themselves in favour of this proposal. The reason why this Bill is introduced at this moment is that a convenient time for making the change is at the moment when we revert from summer time to normal time, in the early hours of the morning of the 1st October next. At that time the clocks throughout the United Kingdom will be put back one hour, and instead of making a double change in Ireland, it is suggested that if the clocks in Ireland were put back thirty-five minutes instead of one hour, then the unification long desired in Ireland would be effected without inconvenience. That would make good the previous difference of twenty-five minutes. In these circumstances I hope the Bill will meet with acceptance from the House.
    Mr. DILLON: I must confess that I am amazed to hear the Home Secretary's statement that he had received communications from all parties in Ireland in favour of this Bill. I cannot believe it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a great number of Nationalist Members had asked him to introduce this Bill. I never heard of the Bill until, to my amazement, I saw it on the Paper this morning. It certainly never came before our party. When an attempt was made previously to alter Irish time, so far as my memory carries me, it was decisively defeated by our party, who objected to it. I do not like to take up another irrecon-
    cilable attitude towards this proposal. Although I am opposed to it, I should like to keep an open mind, but I am certainly absolutely astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, without consulting the Irish party at all, should put a notice on the Paper to alter the whole time of Ireland, without giving us time to consider the matter or let him know what our views are. Surely, although we are under a Unionist Administration, we have a right to keep our clocks. It is a most unfortunate development that suddenly, on the very eve of the announcement of yesterday, we should have the Home Secretary coming forward without saying "By your leave" to the Irish party, and proposing to alter the whole of our clocks in Ireland. I am afraid he is infected by the new spirit. We are not at all alarmed or terrified by the fact that we are isolated from the rest of Europe. We are isolated by what Disraeli called
    "the melancholy ocean."
    We have managed to get along for 600 or 700 years—I do not know how long ago it was that clocks were invented—without assimilating our time to that of Great Britain. We have got along very well. It reminds us that we are coming into a strange country. I decline to be a party to the alteration of Irish time to English time until I have had an opportunity of consulting my Constituents, who are very good authorities, because nearly every voter I have comes across the Channel every year to cut your hay and gather your harvest and has therefore great experience in the difference of time. Having sat for thirty years for my Constituency without a contest, I have never heard a single one of my Constituents complain of the difference of time. Therefore I utterly decline to be a party to this Bill until I have had an opportunity of consulting my Constituents, and I intend to divide against it.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 48.]

    AYES.

    [4.56 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Beach, William F. H.

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Beckett, Hon. Gervate

    Bull, Sir William James

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G

    Bann, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Bird, Alfred

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Bliss, Joseph

    Cater, John

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Illingworth, Albert H.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Jones, Leil (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rowlands, James

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, Joseph

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Coote, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt. Colonel A. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Sutton, John E.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

    Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Fell, Arthur

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wardle, George J.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Merison, Hector

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Murray, Major Hon. Arthur C.

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Grant, J. A.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

    Haslam Lewis

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Hodge, John

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hohler, G. F.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Randles, Sir John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Hudson, Walter

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hackett, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Herbert, Major-Gen. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shee, James John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pratt, J. W.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Joyce, Michael

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kelly, Edward

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cullinan, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Dillon, John

    Martin, Joseph

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Donovan, John Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Doris, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molloy, Michael

    Graham, Edward John

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Mr. Lundon and Mr. Hazleton.

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, and Mr. BRACE. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

SPECIAL COMMISSIONS (DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA) BILL.
As amended, considered.
SPECIAL COMMISSIONS (DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Commissioners.)
  (1) The following persons, namely

  The Right Honourable Earl Cromer,

  The Right Honourable Andrew Fisher,

  The Honourable Sir Thomas Mackenzie,

  Sir Frederick Cawley, Baronet, Member of Parliament,

  Mr. James Avon Clyde, King's Counsel, Member of Parliament,

  Captain Stephen Lucius Gwynn, Member of Parliament, and

  Mr. Walter Roch, Member of Parliament,

  And at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the Retired Lists,

  are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the origin, inception, and conduct of operations of war in the Dardanelles, including the supply of drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and equipment to the troops and Fleet, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.
  (2) The following persons, namely,

  The Right Honourable Lord George Francis Hamilton,

  The Earl of Donoughmore,

  Lord Hugh Cecil, Member of Parliament,

  Sir Archibald Williamson, Baronet, Member of Parliament,

  Mr. John Hodge, Member of Parliament, and

  Mr. Josiah C. Wedgwood, Member of Parliament,

  And at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the Retired Lists,

  are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the origin, inception, and conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia, including the supply of drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and equipment to the troops and Fleet, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.
  Amendments made:
  "In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "and" ["and Mr. Walter Roch, Member of Parliament"].
  Leave out the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the Retired Lists," and insert instead thereof the words "Admiral of the Fleet Sir William Henry May, G.C.B., G,C.V.O., and Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson, G.C.B."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move to leave out the word "origin" ["inquiring into the origin"].
  I move this on behalf of the hon. Member (Mr. Peto), whose idea was that "origin" and "inception" are practically the same thing, and that "direction" would be better. For example, Sir John Nixon did not conduct the operations in Mesopotamia though he was responsible for them.
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): If the House desires this alteration I have no particular objection. I agree that it is difficult to see any great difference between "origin" and "inception," but I think there is not much added by "direction." Direction of the campaign is, I think, covered by the conduct of the operations of the War, and my own impression is that whilst the Amendment could do no harm, it would not really affect the scope of the inquiry.
  Sir E. CARSON: I do not suppose there is a great deal in it, but, as far as I am concerned, I prefer the wording of the Bill as already settled by this House. I think there is a difference between "origin" and "inception," and that "origin" refers to the policy, and "inception" is the way in which it was started. I do not think there is the slightest harm in keeping the two words in, and as a matter of drafting I prefer the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made:
  After the word "Dardanelles" ["operations of war in the Dardanelles"], insert the words "and Gallipoli."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "and" ["and Mr. Josiah C. Wedgwood," Member of Parliament"].—[The Prime Minister.]
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and at least one

  79
  naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists," and to insert instead thereof the words

  "Admiral Sir Cyprian Arthur George Bridge, G.C.B., and

  General the Eight Honourable Sir Neville Gerald Lyttelton, G.C.B."

  The Committee passed an Amendment to add one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists. These two officers both belong to that category. One is a distinguished admiral, and the other is a general of very large experience in days gone by, who occupied the post of Chief of the General Staff two years ago.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: I am in the rather invidious position of having to find fault with the name of Sir Cyprian Bridge, but I think I shall be able to show that I am speaking in his interest. I believe the House was astonished to hear that this distinguished admiral was to be appointed on this Committee. There is a great deal of difference between eleven and seventeen. A person of eleven is a boy while a person of seventeen is a man. Add on thirty years to each and between the ages of forty-one and forty-seven there is practically no difference at all. Again add on thirty years and you get to seventy-one and seventy-seven, when there is a very great difference. Seventy-seven is far too old to indulge in this sort of thing. It is a common delusion with men of that age that they are as good as ever they were. When I hear a man say that I know, he is on the down grade. This inquiry, if it is to be of any use at all, must be probed to the quick, and that will very likely imperil some high reputations in this country. Some may be in this House and some in the other—either naval or military people. It will be a very disagreeable task for those entrusted with it, and I do not think it is fair that a man of the age of seventy-seven should be entrusted with this duty. It is not fair to him, because his declining years ought to be years of peaceful contemplation. My belief is that before this business is over you will have killed two or three of your older members. I have known Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge for a great many years. He is a very distinguished officer, and has held high command. I was with him twenty-nine years ago, when he was a very senior captain and I was a very junior commander. We
  80
  have been very good friends, and I am, sure he will be the very first man to recognise the justice of what I say. I was not here when the first Amendment was moved, but I should like to say that everybody will receive the nomination of Sir William May with unbounded approval. It will give absolute satisfaction to everybody in the Navy, either on the active or the retired list; but it will not be the same with regard to the nomination of Sir Cyprian Bridge. They will say that this man is too old. Admiral May is only sixty-seven, and there is an immense difference between the age of sixty-seven and seventy-seven. Sir Cyprian Bridge retired in 1904, and I do not think that anybody will imagine that a man's brain gets stronger when he is over seventy. The fact is, and experience shows it, that they are not quite the same. I do not know the actual reason why the Prime Minister has selected Sir Cyprian Bridge, but I would point out that at the age of seventy-two, five years ago, Sir Cyprian Bridge was a most strenuous advocate of that very unfortunate and now defunct Declaration of London, and, by so doing, he completely lost the confidence of the Navy in his judgment. I am afraid that if the Prime Minister persists in adding the name of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge to the list—I shall certainly not divide against it—it will not be acceptable with the Navy, and I do not think that the nation will regard the nomination as quite satisfactory.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. and gallant Friend recognises, it is a most invidious task either to impugn or even to defend the selection of a particular officer for a function of this kind. No one disputes that Sir Cyprian Bridge is an officer of the highest distinction. I had not the faintest idea that he had ever been connected with advocacy of the Declaration of London. At any rate, he was selected for this Commission simply on his naval record, which, I think, nobody can dispute. Really the whole gravamen of my hon. and gallant Friend's objection is to Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge's age, seventy-seven. When I first became a member of the Cabinet, now a very long time ago—twenty-four years—the Prime Minister of that day was eighty-three, and no one disputed his capacity to discharge in this House and out of it the duties of his office. His predecessor, Lord Beaconsfield, held the office of Prime Minister, and discharged the duties of that office with the

  81
  very greatest distinction up to a time, I think, when he was seventy-five or seventy-six years of age.
  Sir H. MEUX: And died directly afterwards.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Within a year. He died prematurely, as I think, because he was suddenly released from the cares of office and had not enough to do to exercise his faculties. However, that is speculation. My hon. and gallant Friend says there are not many men of great age in this House. If he will go down the corridor, and look in another place, he will find that there are some of our most distinguished public men in full possession not only of their faculties, but of their critical acuteness, men of great experience, who are beyond the age of Sir Cyprian Bridge. There is no more fallacious test to apply to a man's ability than to ask him in what year he was born. The question is, is he still active and virile, and in possession of his intellect, and can he still exercise, with an expert knowledge, the duties which a member of this Commission has imposed upon him? As the only ground of objection is that this distinguished officer is seventy-six or seventy-seven years of age, I do not think the House ought to undertake the invidious task of rejecting a nomination, made after full consideration, to a post which the gallant Admiral himself is perfectly prepared to accept.
  Sir H. MEUX: I, never!
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Admiral has evidently misunderstood me. I never suggested for a moment that he would accept it. The gallant Admiral we are now considering has expressed his willingness to serve on the Commission.
  Sir E. CARSON: Has the Prime Minister ascertained in regard to Sir Cyprian Bridge whether he would like to go to Mesopotamia?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think under the Bill, if it is necessary to hold a local inquiry, it is not necessary for the whole of the Commission to go. Under an Amendment to be proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, the Commission may delegate the powers to two or three Commissioners to hold a local inquiry.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I cannot say that I am quite convinced by the arguments of the Prime Minister. What I want to call his
  82
  attention to is this, not that a man of seventy-seven may not be entirely in the full possession of his faculties—here I may point out that of the four gentlemen mentioned in the Amendment the youngest is sixty-seven—but whether we ought not to have some persons put on the Commission who have got some knowledge of modern war. The object of putting these naval and military officers on the Commission is that the Commissioners may have some expert advice to enable them to put pointed questions to the witnesses they examine, and also to weigh the value of the answers. I maintain that, at any rate, on each Commission there ought to be one younger man, because a younger man will possibly and probably have some knowledge of modern warfare—some knowledge of submarines, aircraft, and everything that is up-to-date. The objection to the officers named is that because of their age—they are either Field-Marshals, Generals or Admirals—they have gone out of active service before all these modern inventions of war came in.
  Sir H. MEUXmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. ASHLEY: My gallant Friend says that Admiral May is on the active list.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand he has now retired.
  Sir H. MEUX: No, I do not think so.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I am only contending for a general principle, and that is that these naval and military officers who were put on at the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Meux) were to be a sort of military and naval advisers and assessors to the Commissioners, so that they might give due weight to the evidence coming before them. I am afraid that, however distinguished or able they are, owing to their age, and owing to their having been, except in one case, out of active service for some years, they will not be of very much use, and will not be able to tell the Commissioners what questions they ought to ask. They will be no more help than any ordinary member.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend who has just spoken is certainly running counter to the decision which was come to in Committee. On the Amendment which was passed it was specifically stated that the officers, naval and military, to be added to the Commission should be on the retired list. If you are going to place

  83
  naval and military officers on the Commission there is a good deal to be said for their being taken from the retired list and not from the active list. I think it would be putting an officer on the active list in a very invidious position—a serving officer whose whole future is at the disposal of the Government of the day or of successive Governments—if you ask him to sit in judgment upon the highest authorities in the State, in the Admiralty, and in the War Office, and to review their proceedings, and express an opinion upon them. That is not at all satisfactory, and it would be placing such officer in a very unfair position. I have always felt that Sir Cyprian Bridge is a man of commanding intelligence in naval matters, and, certainly, as far as age is concerned, if the Prime Minister had wished to add to the list he mentioned, he might have added the name of Lord Barham, who was over eighty when he issued the famous Concentration Order for Trafalgar. I would not have spoken on the subject if it had been on the personnel of the Dardanelles Commission, in which I am more particularly, interested. In regard to Mesopotamia I hope the Committee will not depart from what was decided at an earlier stage as to the appointment of naval and military officers from the retired list and not from the active list.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) asked a very pertinent question whether this Commission would not have to go to Mesopotamia. I suppose the Prime Minister is familiar with what Plato said—no man is fit to travel after sixty.
  The PRIME MINISTER: A very foolish remark.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Perhaps the Prime Minister would also say it was a foolish remark on the part of Napoleon, that no general was fit to command after sixty. These fallacious tests, as the Prime Minister calls them, have always been applied. The Government apply them to retiring officers from the Army and Navy, and from the Civil Service. I quite agree that Sir Cyprian Bridge is, as the right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) says, a man of commanding intellect. No one who reads his books can doubt that he is a man of great judgment. The Government had an exceedingly hard task in selecting these officers. They were limited to the retired list—rightly,
  84
  I think. I do consider that Sir Cyprian Bridge has passed the age when he has the qualifications for travelling and going through the large task with which this Committee will be faced in hot climes in Mesopotamia, and it would have been better for him to turn to the Prime Minister and to say, in words from Herodotus—
  "I am too old, oh King, and slow to stir, so bid thou one of the younger men to do these things."
  Sir J. D. REES: I know nothing about admirals, but I do know something about Mesopotamia. When this Bill was before the House on the previous occasion, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India waived aside my Amendment, on the ground that it was not necessary. Now we are told that if it is necessary that they should go, members of the Commission can go under the Bill. Speaking from memory, I think I am correct in saying that I have at Basra seen the thermometer at 133 in the shade. At any rate, Basra is one of the hottest places in the whole world, being surrounded by the greatest expanse of sand, north, south, east, and west, without the proximity of water, which moderates the temperature. The heat is so intense that I think the Prime Minister might very well consider what my hon. and gallant Friend has said about the capacity of even an admiral of the age of Sir Cyprian Bridge to stand a temperature of that character. It is solely on the point of climate that I speak. I am aware that a delegation might go, but in that case everybody over a certain age might be left at home, and only the young ones go out to Mesopotamia, so that you might have all the young and inexperienced in Mesopotamia, and the weighty officers left at home. I think this question of climate should be taken into account in regard to the fitness of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge. In any other respect it would be an impertinence for me to object to his qualifications.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am a little surprised to find the ground of objection taken by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway to the name of this admiral, because when this Bill was last before the House objection was taken to the name of Lord Cromer as Chairman of the Dardanelles Commission on the ground of age. Lord Cromer is seventy-five years old, and, as was pointed out on that occasion, he has been suffering recently from severe illness; but hon.

  85
  Members who now object to the name of this admiral did not think that that was sufficient ground of objection to the name of Lord Cromer, and I cannot see why they should take exception in this case when they refused to do so in the other. I think that we are getting away from the subject, because when it was first proposed to put forward the names of distinguished officers of the Army and the Navy in connection with these Commissions, they were suggested not as members at all, but as assessors, and the reason was that these Commissions wanted some technical advice on Army and Navy matters. The Prime Minister accepted the suggestion that these representatives of the Services should be put on as assessors, and only yielded to further pressure from various quarters of the House that they might be placed in a somewhat invidious position if they had not the same rights as members of the Commission, and he agreed then that they should be made members with the same rights as the other gentlemen. The real test is not what is the age of this admiral, but whether, as has been argued, he is sufficiently acquainted with modern naval conditions to be of value to the Commission, and the test which you want to apply is that men who would be all right as assessors ought to be all right as members of the Commission. Therefore, unless hon. Members above the Gangway have got some objection to the name of this distinguished officer—this is a matter on which I am not myself in a position to judge—on the ground that he is not sufficiently acquainted with modern conditions, I do not think that it would be possible for them to press their objections to the name of this admiral.
  Colonel YATE: I apologise for troubling the House, but I have only just seen these names, and I must ask the Prime Minister to tell me whether Sir Neville Lyttelton has had any Indian experience, and, if so, what has been his Indian experience? Lord Nicholson, we know, has had large Indian experience, but he is to go to the Dardanelles, and I desire to know something of the Indian experience of Sir Neville Lyttelton.
  Sir J. D. REES: He was Military Secretary for five years to the Governor of Bombay.
  Colonel YATE: It is very necessary that officers going to Mesopotamia should have full acquaintance with the question of the
  86
  supplies of the Indian Army; and if the Prime Minister has any knowledge at all of Sir Neville Lyttelton's experience I should be glad to hear what it is.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Neville Lyttelton, who later on in his career was Chief of the General Staff here, as the House knows, had a distinguished career in South Africa. Earlier in life he was Secretary to the Governor of Bombay, and prior to that he had served with the Rifle Brigade in India.
  Mr. BRYCE: I think that it would have been very difficult to have chosen two officers, on the whole better qualified than these two gentlemen. It is impossible to find officers on the retired list who have experience of modern conditions. That is unfortunate, because undoubtedly the question of aircraft will come up very largely in connection with this Mesopotamia Expedition. I believe that the Aircraft Service was exceedingly badly done, and that actually, when detachments were sent out, they were forbidden to take their machines with them. Altogether it will be found that one of the great handicaps of that expedition, and one of the reasons why the relief force failed, was that the aircraft force was so badly organised. However, I believe that it was quite impossible for the Government to have found two better men for the Mesopotamia Commission than the two distinguished officers who have been proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move to leave out the word "origin" ["origin, inception and conduct"].
  It appears to me that while the word "inception" may properly be left in, because it refers to the actual special beginning of this particular campaign which is the subject of inquiry, the word "origin" is sufficiently wide to include a great deal more than this. If you take the origin of these operations, it might bring in the Balkans. I suppose it would be considered as taking in the advance from Basra northwards, which was the fatal step, all the arrangements having been perfectly good up to the taking of Basra. If this is to be considered very likely it will be an extremely relevant fact. The point on which the inquiry turns will be—what was the cause then for sending this expedition away up from Basra, where it sat in safety, more than five hundred miles through sandy desert and along

  87
  shoal river into the heart of Turkish Arabia? Then the answer probably will be that it was to create a diversion with reference to Balkan politics. That would open up Balkan politics, and then I do not know why we should not get in Austria and then Germany, and so on up to the very beginning of the whole War. I do not know why the word "origin" was put into the Bill. Whatever may be its origin, it is far better now to leave it out. The very last thing that is wanted is to have a very extensive inquiry. I deplore the whole inquiry myself. I believe that if—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out that an Amendment was moved on the Clause relating to the other Commission to leave out the word "origin" and that that Amendment was withdrawn. The present Amendment is only allowable on the principle that there is some special point in this second inquiry.
  Sir J. D. REES: The Amendment to the same effect on the earlier Clause was submitted but not discussed. The hon. Gentleman got up to move it, and then withdrew it before it was discussed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was discussed.
  Sir J. D. REES: To-day?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
  Sir J. D. REES: If it was discussed, it was the most attenuated discussion that I ever heard in my life. It was such a discussion as not to be worthy of the term discussion, which is a sufficiently comprehensive one. I am quite aware that it is not permissible to discuss the policy of the inquiry, and I only made a partial reference to it, and was unfortunate in having trespassed to that extent. I submit that if we are to go into "origin," reference will have to be made to dispatches which will have to be published, and one result will be that in future whenever an officer in command of an expedition receives an order to carry out something which he thinks may be unsuccessful, he will very likely register a protest that he ought not to do it, but will do it in obedience to orders. All these subjects come in again under "origin." They open an immense vista, which would include every conceivable subject. The more this inquiry is limited and the more limited the words which are used in connection with each reference, the better it will be for all concerned. I am quite aware of the
  88
  importance of the point to which, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have called my attention, but I submit that the case of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia are quite different. The Dardanelles is a dead and gone expedition, but the Mesopotamia Expedition is alive, and what matters in regard to that is of the utmost importance, whereas what happened in regard to the Dardanelles matters to nobody except to the reputation of certain higher officers concerned. Here we are dealing with an expedition in which the lives and fortunes of men are still at, stake. For this reason I submit not only that I am in order, but that I am right in moving the omission of the word "origin," that there is a complete difference between the two cases, that injury may be done by overstepping the limits in Mesopotamia, and that there is an absence of any such consideration in regard to the Dardanelles.
  Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: I quite agree with everything which my hon. Friend has said. I take the opportunity of saying that, while it is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has said, that this Clause was discussed in regard to the Gallipoli question, is was so rushed that none of us here made out what happened. We really had no opportunity of saying a word upon it, and I think that that is the most important thing almost in the Bill. These are my reasons. First, you have got two Committees, whose composition seems to me to be admirable, but if you are going to go into the whole of the question, as my hon. Friend has said, then you are going to occupy the time of a number of very valuable men, because there is absolutely no end to this question. As he says, you might just as well discuss the whole of this War as to go into the question of policy. We shall want to know what everybody thought about the whole thing, from King Ferdinand of Bulgaria down to the chorus girls in Athens. I am not going into the Gallipoli matter, but we know what the live people in Australia think now. They want to get on with the work, and they do not want to go back on their past mistakes, and we know what the Australians, who are dead, and the New Zealanders thought.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are limited here solely to the Mesopotamia Inquiry. The other matter is past and decided.
  Colonel HERBERT: Perhaps we shall have a chance on the Third Reading. Finally, on this particular point, I will say this: There is a number of groups inside and outside this House who are interested in this question, and who are actuated by different motives. There are some people who want to vindicate themselves, and other people who are desirous of attacking the Government. There is a third class, and the hon. Member for Mayo I think is one, who are anxious to raise questions with regard to the mention or the non-mention of troops in various parts of the world; and, finally, there is a last class of people who are anxious to do as much as possible for the men who are now fighting. In the interests of our fighting men I should like to see all these questions of strategy, policy and all the rest relegated to the background, and one clear issue presented for inquiry.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Again I find it a very hard thing to understand why this Amendment has been moved by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. It is quite true that we did not spend, the last day on which the Bill was before the House, a great deal of time in discussing this particular Amendment, but I think that the principle behind this Amendment was very fully discussed. It seemed to me to be as to whether the reference to the Commissions should be a wide one or a narrow one. There was no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House that the reference should be as wide in each case as it could possibly be made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee was anxious to move an Amendment that stood in his name on that occasion, and, although it covered a very wide ground, objection was taken to it, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman himself agreed, that words such as he proposed were rather limited than otherwise, and that those which have been put into the Bill were considered the very best words, giving the widest scope possible to the work of this Commission. I do not think that on the Report stage we ought to depart from that. I think the considerations which applied to the Dardanelles Commission apply with equal force to that for Mesopotamia, and the fact that the campaign in Mesopotamia is still going on is, to my mind, no ground whatever why there should be an alteration in the reference to the Commission in that case. I do not agree with the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment, that the origin of matters connected with the
  90
  campaign in Mesopotamia is one with which the public or the House is not concerned I think that all these matters ought to be gone into, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not give way on this very important point.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House will, perhaps, permit me to observe how difficult is the position of the Government when trying to follow the wishes of the House as regards the scope of the inquiries; and, in reference to the Bill, the Government are very much in the hands of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed great readiness to adopt suggestions from all quarters of the House. But I cannot help noticing that no sooner do we do something to please Members of the House than another section of it expresses displeasure at the change, and it is very difficult to arrive at a settled opinion I venture to say that we ought to stand by the wording as it is now, that is, the wording which was chosen by the House, the wording deliberately adopted in Committee, in preference to the wording that has been put down by the Government. The wording put down by the Government was the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College, Dublin. But that appeared not to be wide or precise enough for some Members of the House, and we took the present wording, which we consider the best wording as regards one Commission, and I do not think that it will be wise or desirable to alter it in respect of the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) complained that this question has been inadequately discussed, and perhaps I may understand that to mean that he had not participated in the discussion. Now that he has raised a discussion, I hope that he will not think it necessary to spend further time, and that he will allow us to get on with the other Amendments.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that I referred to the discussion to-day on the word "origin"? I did not refer to the discussion on the previous occasion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Commissioners.)
  (1) The Commissioners appointed under this Act (in this Act referred to as the Commissioners) shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are

  91
  vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:

  (a) The enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and the issue of a commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad; and

  (b) The compelling the production of documents; and

  (c) The punishing persons guilty of contempt;

  and a summons signed by one or more of the Commissioners may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production, of documents.
  (2) A warrant of committal to prison issued for the purpose of enforcing the powers conferred by this Section shall be signed by one or more of the Commissioners, and shall specify the prison to which the offender is to be committed, but shall not authorise the imprisonment of an offender for a period exceeding three months.
  (3) Any person may appear before the Commissioners by counsel or solicitor if authorised to do so by the Commissioners.
  (4) The Commissioners may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and three shall be a quorum.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the following:
  "(3) The Commissioners may authorise the representation before them of any person appearing to them to be interested by counsel, or solicitor, or otherwise, if they consider that any injustice would ensue if that person were not so represented."
  This is a subject which was discussed in Committee, and some difference of opinion was disclosed as to the best course to pursue, but, so far as I can recollect the opinion of the House, it was considered that it would certainly be undesirable, as a general thing, that anyone who appeared before the Committee should have a right to be heard by counsel or be represented by counsel. On the one hand, our object or desire was to restrict the use of counsel within the narrowest limits, in order to expedite
  92
  the inquiry as much as possible, and to secure an early Report. On the other hand, it was urged that there might be cases in which, if representation by counsel were not allowed, real hardship might be done to a person if he were not represented by counsel. It might be that the person concerned was unable to be present, and that he ought to have somebody to watch for him; and the words I propose are in effect to embody the view, that the use of counsel should be restricted to exceptional cases, within the discretion of the Commission, and that the Commission should have the right to authorise any one person appearing before them to be represented by counsel, or solicitor, or otherwise, "if they consider that any injustice would ensue if that person were not so represented." The words "or otherwise" would cover the case of an officer preferring to be represented by an officer to being represented by counsel, and it would also cover the case raised by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, a case which would not be covered by the use of the word "counsel."
  Sir E. CARSON: I only rise to ask a question of my right hon. Friend, and that is as to whether counsel who are Members of this House will be able to appear before these Commissions, because, in my opinion, it is an improper thing for counsel who are Members of this House to appear before a Committee who are representative of this House, and where reports may come under discussion. I would like, if the right hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance, that counsel who are Members of this House will not be admitted.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India will make it clear that that is so, and that the rule of the Select Committees of this House will govern this particular case, so that no counsel who is a Member of this House can appear before this House of Commons Committee, because it is really a House of Commons Committee. I submit that perhaps an expression of this view by the right hon. Gentleman will probably be sufficient. On a former occasion I referred to the "Titanic" Inquiry, before which a Member of this House appeared. The judges had permission to allocate certain sums, and I have no doubt that he thoroughly deserved all that was given to him, and that he did good

  93
  service. But that is what we want to guard against. If every person interested were to be represented by counsel, the inquiry might go on for years. I am very glad my right hon. Friend has brought forward this Amendment, because I think it is an improvement on the original Sub-section in the Bill. The original Sub-section gave power to the Commissioners to allow anyone, if they thought proper, to be represented by a solicitor or counsel. The present proposal narrows that down, and says that people can only be represented at the inquiry "by counsel, or solicitor, or otherwise, if they consider that any injustice would ensue if that person were not so represented." I should like the Solicitor-General to give me his attention for a moment. As I understand now, it is the intention that counsel or solicitors shall only appear before the tribunal if the Commissioners consider, as the Subsection says, "injustice would be done." I think that we should provide for a case like that of General Townshend, who cannot be present; and if a statement were made by the Secretary for India in the course of this Debate as to the limitations upon allowing persons to be represented, it would almost meet the case. Certainly this is a great improvement on the original Sub-section.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or otherwise, if they consider that any injustice would ensue if that person were not so represented."
  In other words, I seek to practically reinstate the Sub-section as it was, and I should like the House to understand that I do not, in this instance, seek to speak on behalf of a very much misunderstood class. I am seeking, if I can, to do what appears to me, rightly or wrongly, to be in the interests of those who are accused, and whose, reputations are in jeopardy. I agree that there should not be a free power to everybody whose conduct is in question to be represented by counsel before the inquiry, for that would cause prolongation of the proceedings and possibly chaos. There was in the Sub-section a discretion in the Commissioners to determine whether or not they would grant leave to any persons who desired that they should be so represented. But now the Government has denned the
  94
  reason, and the sole reason, for which leave can be given by the tribunal, and it is with that I quarrel; because what is to happen now is this, that although a man's whole reputation is at stake, and his whole career may be injured, the Commissioners are to have no power to give him leave to be represented by counsel unless they think "any injustice would ensue if that person were not so represented." What does that mean? The Commissioners may say, "We are here to do justice, and, whether this gentleman is represented or not, justice he will get." Who is to determine whether or not justice or injustice will be done, and whether a person's reputation may not be jeopardised through that person being unrepresented? When is the application to be made? If the application is to precede the calling of the witness, who is to tell, in the case where the accused person is absent, whether or not injustice will be caused by denying him representation? I urge, in the interests of brevity as much as anything else, that the Commissioners should have the right to give leave in cases where they think fit. Surely you can trust them.
  6.0 P.M.
  There is a reason, and a strong reason, why, in some instances, leave should be given. Upon this tribunal there is nobody of any judicial experience whatever. Take the ordinary rules of evidence. Those rules are mainly founded on common sense, and are framed in the interests of the accused. There is the rule, for instance, which provides that you cannot rely on hearsay evidence. Surely that is a reasonable rule to be enforced in these times. It is really becoming a perpetual practice now to suggest that if you have a trained advocate appearing before a tribunal you will, for that reason, prolong the proceedings. It is just the contrary. The expert advocate, to be successful, must be brief; if he is not brief he cannot be successful. If you have a trained advocate you have someone who, on behalf of the accused person, can test the evidence which is given before the tribunal, and ensure that it shall be given according to the ordinary common-sense rules which obtain all over the world in our Courts. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put in these-words, as they would be an undue fettering of the discretion of the Commissioners. Let the Commissioners give or refuse leave as they think fit when they have heard, heard, if

  95
  needs be, an outline of the case. To say that they should come to the conclusion that they themselves cannot do justice unless a legal advocate is employed is an undue restriction of their power. There would, I suggest, be ample protection for the brevity and clearness of the proceedings if you left in them a discretion, which they can be trusted to use, with a due view to the shortness of the proceedings.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  It is so many years since I practised that I hope that the stigma of being a lawyer hardly attaches to me. I believe the rule has always been that a Commission has power to settle its own procedure, and that it is left to them to say whether or not parties shall be represented. The Vivisection Commission, for instance, would not allow any counsel to appear before them. I cannot see in this particular instance why discretion should not be left to the Commission to-day.
  Question, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes would restore the words we have just struck out and make the Statute exactly what is was.
  Mr. MALCOLM: In the words struck out you left the initiative to the person affected to seek representation, whilst in this proposal the initiative is left to the Commissioners.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: May I also point out that the new Sub-section extends the privilege of appearance to people who are not counsel or lawyers at all, whilst the original Sub-section confined it to counsel?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is a very fine distinction.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I put down these words to meet what I deemed to be the general sense of the House. The House is very seldom unanimous, but anybody who sat through the discussion saw that from the beginning it was in favour of the possible admission of counsel in particular and rare cases and against anything like a general appearance of counsel before the
  96
  Commission. I think these words will secure that result and on the lines desired by the House, and I must ask the House, therefore, to adhere to them. If the House had intended to do otherwise there is no reason for striking out the words which already appeared in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) raised a question which I think is rather difficult to deal with. I am not sure that I ought to argue it at this point. Perhaps I may just say on the question whether Members of this House should appear before a Commission of this kind, largely composed of Members of the House and reporting to the House, I do not think there is anything that I can say that can have any authority, but I must say I share the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) that Members of the House should not appear before Commissions of this kind, and if counsel are required they should be chosen elsewhere. This is not a matter which we could specifically provide for in the Bill, and it is not one on which I could possibly speak with authority.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am very satisfied with the Clause as proposed. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams) said that there was nobody on the Commission accustomed to the laws of evidence. I notice that there are the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Mr. Clyde) and for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), who are both barristers of law, as is also, I think, the Member for Galway (Captain Gwynn), and I can hardly imagine that Lord Cromer and Lord George Hamilton are not familiar with the rules of evidence. My hon. and learned Friend also said that the presence of counsel would not prolong the proceedings because counsel, to be successful, had to be brief. I think what he meant was that counsel, to be successful, must be briefed.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I would like to point out that a case of this kind is not like the "Titanic" inquiry. Counsel who appear before these Commissions will, I presume, be paid for by the people who engage them, and not out of public funds.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert

  97
  the words "but the Commissioners may delegate to two or more of their number their powers of holding sittings for the purpose of making inquiries and taking evidence abroad, and any powers in relation thereto."
  Colonel YATE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to make the number three instead of two?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no objection, if the House wishes.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, though I do not think it matters so long as two or three are gathered together.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I think it might possibly be convenient that the Commissioners should have power to send two members on certain occasions. If they want to send more they are able to do so under the provisions of the proposed Amendment. I do not see the necessity for making it necessary that they should send three.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Does the right hon. Gentleman cling to the word "abroad"? It might be convenient to delegate another occasion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are on the question as to whether "two" should stand part of the proposed Amendment.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The words "two or more" are surely sufficient, and it is better to leave the Amendment as it stands. I am glad that the Amendment has been proposed.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I think two or more is really preferable to three, since if you put in that number you are tied down to it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the sense of the House is obviously in favour of retaining the Amendment as proposed.
  Colonel YATE: The reason I proposed the Amendment is that we have now got eight members on the Commission, and I thought it was advisable that there should be a minimum of three as delegate of sittings.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I take it that at the sittings abroad they will have all the powers of the Commission. In Committee I moved an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman accepted with regard to recording evidence. I want to be sure if two or more members go to Mesopotamia or any other place that that Clause will apply, and that when the Reports of these Commissions are presented we shall have not only the evidence given before the full Commission but also that given before the delegated authority. I would like from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance about the powers of these Commissioners to whom the work may be delegated.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): The powers given to the Commission to delegate their power to take evidence and any power in relation thereto will give to delegates from their membership full power to summon evidence and all the other powers of the kind. As regards the second point, there is not the least doubt that the provision would apply to the delegates.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is essential to put in the word "abroad."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes.
  Mr. MALCOLM: The reason I ask is this, that it might expedite matters a little bit if the Commission could divide up into two or three bodies and allocate to two more of its members certain work in connection with the inquiry, while the others got on with other matters. If it were not for the word "abroad" it would be possible for the Commission to so divide up and to do two things at the same time.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I conceive that the House desires that the Commission should act as a whole. At the same time, there is the desire that the Commission should have power to delegate full powers to a portion of its members to conduct inquiries for it, and that it should not be necessary for the whole Commission to go to Mesopotamia or India for inquiries there. The effect of the hon. Member's proposal would be that the Commission would break up into a series of bodies. I should be very sorry to see that. I think it ought to take evidence as a Commission and not as a series of Sub-Commissions.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Discretion to Hold Proceedings Either in Public or in Private.)
  (1) The Commissioners shall, having regard to the interests of the public and to naval, military, and diplomatic considerations, allow or refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present during any proceedings of the Commissioners: Provided that a full and complete record in shorthand shall be kept of all evidence taken whether in public or in private.
  (2) If any person who is present at any proceedings of the Commissioners at which the public or any portion thereof are not allowed to be present discloses, without the authority of the Commissioners, either directly or indirectly, anything that has taken place at those proceedings, he shall be liable to punishment for contempt of Court.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Commissioners" ["the authority of the Commissioners"], to insert the words "or without proper authority given on behalf of His Majesty."
  We have had some discussion on this subject in the Committee stage, and we undertook to put in these words. I must just be permitted to refer to the Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Hazleton), because the Government propose to accept that Amendment, and it really bears on the Amendment I am moving. That Amendment will deprive an Officer of State of the plea which he could urge before the High Court, and which would be accepted there, that a document is privileged, and that he should therefore not be called upon to produce it. This inquiry will sit, so far as is necessary, in secret, and a record will be kept, but the whole of that will not be published, and under these circumstances we conceive that we should not plead privilege as a reason for not disclosing a document if the Commission call for it. But if the Commission is treated with frankness, and the evidence is treated as confidential, it would be contempt of Court to make this information public without the authority of the Commission, so long as it sits. We shall have to lay before the Commission documents which are highly confidential, and during the War it cannot be allowed that anyone who has been present at a private sitting of the Commission when the documents were produced, that when
  100
  the Commission ceases to sit or when the War is over, he should treat all these confidential matters as being public and as being material which he can make use of in public. We propose this machinery in order that we may give the Commission the fullest possible information and, at the same time, guard against the abuse of the information given to them by its production without proper authority being given.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "liable to punishment for contempt of Court," and to insert instead thereof the words "guilty of a misdemeanour, and the Official Secrets Act, 1911, shall apply as it applies to a misdemeanour under Section two of that Act."
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Why is the restriction against the publication of the official secrets confined in this way? Why should the restriction not apply to cases where the public are admitted—official documents may very easily be produced while the public are present?
  Sir G. CAVE: The public will be permitted to attend the meetings of the Commission, and anybody may hear the evidence produced. Such persons should not be under a penalty if afterwards they publish what has really been made public before the Commission. If any objection is raised to a document being read or made public, the Commissioners can provide that that particular part, of the evidence shall not be heard in public.
  Amendment agreed to

  CLAUSE 4.—(Indemnity to Witnesses.)
  (1) A person examined as a witness by the Commissioners shall not be excused from answering any question put to him, or from producing any document, on the ground that the answer thereto or production thereof may criminate or tend to criminate him.
  (2) Every person examined as a witness who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, makes a full and true disclosure touching all the matters in respect of which he is examined, shall be entitled to receive a certificate signed by the Commissioners, stating that the witness has, on his examination, made a full and true disclosure as aforesaid.
  (3) If any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court-martial) is at any

  101
  time thereafter instituted against any such witness, in respect of any matter touching which he has been so examined, the Court having cognizance of the case shall, on his application, and on proof of the certificate, stay the proceeding.
  (4) Nothing in this Section shall apply to the case of proceedings for having given false evidence before the Commissioners, or of having procured, or attempted or conspired to procure, the giving of such evidence.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "from" ["excused from answering any question"], insert the words "producing any document or giving any information on the ground that such document or information is secret or confidential, or is entitled to be withheld under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, or from."—[Mr. Hazleton.]
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
  I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. My real object is to hear from the Government exactly how far they intend to go. This has to be read in conjunction with Sub-section (3), and as I read these two Sub-sections together it appears to me it would be possible for anybody guilty of gross neglect or misdirection to tell his whole story without anything being done under any circumstances to punish him. How far do the Government intend to go in this connection?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That point will be raised later.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I understand that the point will be raised later, and therefore I will not now press it.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3), and to insert instead thereof, at the end of Sub-section (1), the words "but any answer so given shall not be evidence against that person in any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court-martial) at any time thereafter instituted against him, and any document so produced shall not be evidence against him in any such proceeding unless the production of that document could be enforced in those proceedings or evidence of that document could be otherwise obtained in any such proceedings."
  The general view of the House appeared to be, in the Committee stage, that you should not give witnesses appearing before the Commission such full protec-
  102
  tion as is given to witnesses under the Corrupt Practices Act in connection with election petitions. In those cases it is provided that any witness who makes a full disclosure shall be given a certificate of full indemnity from the judges who hear the petition. That is a very full protection, but the general view of the Committee was that the protection of witnesses before these Commissions should not go so far. It is not the desire of the House that those who come before these Commissions should by reason of their having made the fullest disclosures be wholly protected from any subsequent proceedings, but, at the same time, it is recognised that if we call upon witnesses to make full disclosure they should not be subject to proceedings on the evidence they themselves have given. In other words, their evidence should not be used against them in subsequent proceedings. Any charges made must be proved in some other way than by the evidence given by the person before the Commission. It would not be fair, and you could not expect a full disclosure of evidence by a witness if his evidence was such as to incriminate himself and thus make him afterwards subject to a charge based entirely upon his own evidence. Therefore we propose to leave out the words to which objection is taken in Sub-sections (2) and (3), and insert these words which are adapted from the Corrupt Practices Act. The result will be that any answer or evidence given by a witness shall not be used against him in subsequent proceedings.
  Sir W. BEALE: I think there is a very important point which is liable to be overlooked. I find no fault with the Clause as it stands, but is the policy right? Are you not in this way rather sacrificing the chance of getting at the truth from anxiety to serve somebody out for misdoings. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in very much deprecating anything condoning misdeeds that may be disclosed in the course of this inquiry, but I think if you do not have a power in the Commission to give an absolute indemnity you will run a great risk of not getting at the whole facts. You may define cases in which a person is entitled to an indemnity, but there ought to be power for the tribunal to grant absolute indemnity if they find it necessary. It occurred to my mind in connection with a case which is probably out of recollection of most Members of the House—the case of the Sheffield outrages in the year 1868—that

  103
  the very greatest difficulty was experienced in getting at the facts there. Witnesses went very near to the point of confessing, but one after the other wanted the assurance, "Will you indemnify me and other people as well?" I have refreshed my memory by looking up in the Annual Register of 1868, and it is evident how difficult it was for those who conducted the inquiry to get at the truth, one man after another gasping out, "Will you give me an indemnity and also an indemnity for the men I shall name?" I do not say that it will be necessary to go so far in this case. It is not like a criminal case where a charge of murder is involved. Incidentally I should say that the outcome of the inquiry to which I have referred was to acquit the actual trade unions, and to fix the blame on individual cases. There is no real likelihood, I think, of incrimination here, as there was in that case. The fear of giving evidence may be there. I scarcely think so. Yet it may exist to some extent, for I cannot conceive that one officer will willingly say things, or will volunteer to say anything he can keep back which will cast blame on a comrade, or any other person. But if the tribunal itself has the power, not only to promise himself an indemnity, but one in regard to the others whom he may mention, I think we should have a very much better chance of getting at the truth. I hope I am not actually out of order in speaking on the Clause, which I do not oppose. But what I wanted to point out was that in the interests of getting at the truth, the wording should be in such a way that the Commissioners will have the power to give a further indemnity if need be.
  Mr. DICKINSON: That is the point I put down in an Amendment on the Committee stage. I think, having carefully considered the words of the Government, they meet the difficulty very satisfactory. I hope they will be passed.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I was going to School at the time of which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has spoken I have, nevertheless, read about the matter, and I have had the good fortune to meet many of the members of the Royal Commission of which he spoke, and also the smaller Commission of Inquiry, which had special and exceptional, powers. In conversation with them I gathered the feet that they did not at all enjoy the exercise of those tremendous
  104
  powers with which they were invested. Without the Solicitor-General's Amendment you tend to take away from the tribunal the power of dispensation in that which I believe to be one of the most fundamental and therefore one of the most sacred principles of our criminal jurisprudence—that a man shall not be compelled to incriminate himself. That I believe to be not only a most sacred, but one of the most characteristic principles of our criminal jurisprudence—one of which we are most proud, and one of which we have most reason to be proud.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I put down an Amendment on the Committee stage which I still think would have met the justice of this case. It was that the Commission should have no obligation in cases where the Commissioners reported against the witness. I have some doubt whether the Clause which the Solicitor-General now proposes is quite strong enough, and whether it may not suggest some fear in the minds of witnesses that after all the only protection they are going to have is that that which they actually say in Court cannot be used against them, though it does not follow that others may not be called into the question in respect of the evidence given. It does not at all follow from the suggested Amendment that the whole body of a witness's evidence, in any subsequent case, may not be the subject of proceedings against him. In any such proceedings no such answer as they have given should be used unless it is otherwise produced at the inquiry. So far it is only absolute protection against the words they have used that is provided for, and it is not, I am afraid, complete protection.
  Mr. SCANLAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the wording of his new Amendment is satisfactory by providing that the tribunal should have power to give an indemnity, but I do not think I have ever seen anywhere anything more illusory in the way of protection than the words set down by the Solicitor-General. The only thing the witness is protected against is that what he says in giving his evidence may not be used in evidence against himself in any criminal proceedings which might afterwards be taken. How would this work out? In the measure in which the witness is frank before the Commission, and discloses anything that may possibly exist of a case against him by the mere

  105
  fact of this disclosure, he enables the machinery of prosecution to get up evidence on which he can be convicted on a charge which is possible only by the disclosure in the evidence which he gave before the Commission. It may be that in certain circumstances it would not be right to say that a witness who came before the Commission and who had been guilty of a considerable offence should escape altogether merely because he gave evidence. I think that would be absurd, because then the more guilty a man was the more readily he would go into the witness box and give evidence, because by the giving of the evidence he would altogether escape and get scot free. Surely there is a middle course? The Commission is a body of people selected by the House because the House believes in their fitness to discharge this duty judicially and properly. I think the Solicitor-General would make his Amendment acceptable to my hon. and learned Friend who has an objection to it, and to everyone who objects to it, if he takes power in the Clause for the Commission to issue, in a good and proper case, a certificate of indemnity to a witness against prosecution in respect of any matter on which he has committed himself by giving evidence. I humbly submit that as it stands the protection given by the Clause is illusory. It should be strengthened by conferring on the Commission the power to give a certificate which would be absolute for the protection of witnesses in the case which seems proper and reasonable to the Commission.
  Mr. HOHLER: I confess I do not appreciate the difficulties to which reference has been made. It is understood that this is the usual condition, and that those giving evidence will be precisely in the same position as in a Court of law. Whether the witness appears by counsel or not he will be entitled to say, "I refuse to answer such-and-such a question on the ground that it will incriminate me." The Commission cannot get behind that. The witness has committed no contempt. What he has done is his legal right. There is no difficulty about this matter, for the legal position is quite understood.
  Sir G. CAVE: With respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman for Bassetlaw said, nothing the witness says would incriminate himself or could be used against him. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo, it may be remembered that in the discussion in Committee Members strongly pressed the Government not
  106
  to insist upon certain specified words. The point taken was this: If you authorise a Commission to indemnify a witness who makes a whole disclosure, then the man who is most to blame comes before the Commission, and if he makes a full disclosure of his misdeeds, he will be entitled to an indemnity. This is not what the House desires. The point is that but for this Clause a particular witness might say, "I decline to answer because the answer would incriminate myself, and may expose me to later proceedings." We want to avoid that. We want to make provision that no witnesses may object to answering the questions of the Commission on the ground that the answers might incriminate them. Having done that, it is surely right to say that we must not take advantage of the provision.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Reports.)
  Any Report of the Commissioners shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and the Commissioners may, if they think fit, make interim Reports: Provided always that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Mesopotamia campaign shall proceed with all possible expedition to inquire with regard to the provision for the sick and wounded, and shall report the result of their inquiries on this matter before proceeding to the rest of their inquiry.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, after the word "Commissioners" ["any Report of the Commissioners shall be"], to insert the words "and any Minority Report, if any."
  It is obvious that if there is a Minority Report that the House should be in possession of it, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move to leave out the words "before proceeding to the rest of their inquiry," and to insert instead thereof the words "as soon as they are completed."
  I accepted in the Committee stage an Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. The object of it was to direct the Commissioners dealing with Mesopotamia to inquire with all possible expedition into the provision for the sick and wounded, and to report the result of their inquiry in this matter before proceeding with the rest of their inquiry.

  107
  The Amendment was in manuscript, and I accepted it without seeing exactly what would be its effect. I communicated to the hon. Gentleman afterwards the suggestion in its altered form and as it is on the Paper. The result of leaving the Bill as it stands would be that supposing the Commission for any reason could not conclude their inquiry into the arrangements for dealing with the sick and wounded, they would be precluded from occupying the interval by going on with any other part of their inquiry.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that that Special Report is solely to go before the Special Commission, or will it be published meanwhile?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet received the Report, but, at any rate, I do not think that is a matter I can discuss on this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  TITLE.
  Special Commissions (Dardanelles and Mesopotamia) Bill.
  Amendment made: After the word "Dardanelles," insert the words "and Gallipoli."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Commander BELLAIRS: When the proposals of this Bill were first before the House—before, in fact, it was introduced—I ventured to offer my opposition to the whole principle of having these vast inquiries during war time. When the Second Reading came on I did not speak, because the Prime Minister made an appeal to the House that only Committee points were being dealt with, and we might well get into Committee, whereas I wanted to explain my opposition to the Bill as a whole Since that time we have had indicated to us the opposition of Australia, so far as Australia is represented by its Press, and the Australian Minister of Defence has clearly stated that he cannot regard Mr. Fisher as a representative of Australia, because Australia was never consulted in regard to this Bill. I do not throw that out as any count against the Government, because in the very nature of things the Government could not consult Australia in the time at its disposal, but it is a point which ought to be considered by the House
  108
  in regard to passing the Bill. I would myself make a suggestion to the House, and it is this: we all have expressed unanimously the most sincere regard for Sir William Robertson, the Chief of the Staff, and he has been made to a very large extent the arbiter as to the production of Papers which this House was led to expect, and it has not got, because the military authorities object. The author of these inquiries, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University, in his speech expressed the greatest possible admiration for Sir William Robertson. He showed implicit confidence in his judgment, and I think he and all parties would be agreed that if Sir William Robertson were to say that no possible good could result from these inquiries being held during the War, that they would mean taking up a great deal of time by very important officers at the War Office and probably at the Admiralty too, the War Office being already undermanned, that they would tend to want of unity of the Services because of the jealousies which they would create, and the schools into which it would divide the Services—I am perfectly certain if he were asked those questions, and gave that answer, every Member of this House would be against passing this Bill and setting up these Commissions. Perhaps I am wrong there, but I think, after all, we are out to win this War, and if it were to have, in the opinion of the military authorities, any effect militating against the winning of the War, I believe the majority of the House, at any rate, would object to the passing of this Bill. We should reflect that we are carrying this Bill in the absence of something like 140 Service Members. They are the best judges of what the effect will be on the Service, and they are not here to exercise their judgment.
  I would ask the House to remember to what the original inception of this Bill was due. It came on the morrow of the defeat of the Government; in fact, almost two defeats—one on the question of registration, and one at the hands of the Welsh Members—and it came as the greatest surprise to the House that the Government itself proposed to adopt the demands of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University. He might indeed have guessed they would look upon it as straining at a gnat after swallowing a camel, if they accepted these two Commissions, because the Government have already set tip in

  109
  connection with the War over 100 Committees; in fact, the maxim of the Government would appear to be that there is safety in the multitude of Committees. But these Committees, I submit, are altogether exceptional, because they would be on a great scale—an inquisition into the Services which might have bad effects both on discipline and on unity. They follow out an ingrained habit of the country, which is rather a peace habit than a war habit, of referring everything to a committee. When Douglas Jerrold said that if England were submerged by a tidal wave the survivors would make it an excuse to hold a dinner to celebrate the event, I think he could with even more truth have said the survivors would make it an excuse for a committee, or several committees, to study the tidal wave. It is a harmless habit in peace; it may be a very dangerous habit indeed in war time. We have two inquiries which, I think, to a certain extent have lessons for us in regard to the Dardanelles and the Mesopotamia Commissions; they are the Irish Inquiry and the Air Committee. We have had the results of the Irish Inquiry and nothing whatever has been done by the Government on their Report; hence, what is the value of it? We have had another inquiry during the War on the Air Service—I think it was on 13th April that the terms of reference were given to this House. The Prime Minister stated that it would be set up as expeditiously as possible. We were led to believe that the time of Sir David Henderson and his valuable staff would not be unduly wasted. It has been sitting ever since. Those skilled officers have had to waste their time preparing their case, diving into the archives of the past in this War and defending their reputations. We are still waiting for the Report. We do not know when we will get it. I would also point out to the House that the chances are very strong indeed we will not get the Report from our new Commissions until after the War, and, if that is true, there is far more value in holding them after the War, when the whole of the diplomatic correspondence and everything connected with the War can be examined in the light of full publicity. In that case I think the British public would attach greater weight to the Reports, but, if they are to come after the War, how do we suppose we can in any single degree gain from these inquiries during the War? I fail to see it.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Somerset (Colonel Aubrey
  110
  Herbert) has been a prime mover in this matter, and I am glad to see he agrees with me with regard to the Dardanelles, that we had better not have this inquiry during the War. His speech leads me to make one remark with regard to the Mesopotamian Expedition. He is himself very certain of good resulting from the inquiry into Mesopotamia. He tells us that a great many people are shaking in their shoes because of this inquiry, and that they will put in more work in the next few days than they have put in during some years, or words to that effect. Later on in his speech he indicated who was responsible—the Commander-in-Chief in India and the Finance Minister of the Council, Sir William Meyer.
  Colonel HERBERT: I indicated that the responsibility must lie between those two gentlemen, but I did not go further than that.
  Commander BELLAIRS: He indicated that the responsibility must lie between those two gentlemen, and he concluded his speech by suggesting that whoever was the guilty party should meet the fate of Admiral Byng. I do not think that is a good spirit in which to approach inquiries during war, and nothing but harm will result if that is going to be the spirit in which these inquiries are set up. I do not believe there is a large body connected with the Army or the Navy who, as a result of setting up what is practically a civil Commission, will put in more work in a few days than they have in the past years. I spent my early years in the Service in close contact with military men, but that type of Army or Navy officer, with such a low tradition, is quite unknown to me, and I do not honestly believe he exists. My further objection was indicated in an Amendment during the Debate on this Bill. I pointed out that the entry of Turkey into the War was due to the escape of the "Goeben" and "Breslau." That will be excluded. We would not exclude it in a peace inquiry, nor would we exclude diplomacy. Naval people maintain that the Foreign Office never informed them that Turkey had a secret treaty with Germany. All these things would undoubtedly be looked into if we had an inquiry after the War. I will not pursue that subject; it may be out of order. What I should like to say to the House with regard to the responsibility of soldiers and sailors is that you have rapid machinery ready to hand if the Government choose to use it, for they can bring those soldiers and sailors to a

  111
  court-martial, and such Courts used to be held in public and the proceedings submitted to this House. It is an entire mistake to suppose that you must have complete evidence of guilt before you can bring an officer before a court-martial. That is not the case. That sort of court-martial took place in regard to General Whitlocke in 1807 for neglect and incompetence in surrendering Monte Video and Buenos Ayres, but in 1805 there was the typical court-martial on Sir Robert Calder, who won a victory. That victory might in some degree be compared with "the glorious 1st of June," but Nelson had taught the country to expect a higher scale of victory, having regard to the somewhat inefficient navies of France and Spain. The result was that, although Sir Robert Calder drove the French Fleet into Ferrol Harbour and won a victory, he was brought before a court-martial and his career was broken, because the victory was not up to the high standard of the profession in those days.
  I submit it is always possible, on the slightest suspicion of an officer not having done his best, to bring him before his peers, that is a court-martial, to get at the whole of the facts, and I submit that step ought to have been more frequently taken. You will not by a civilian Committee get at the whole of the facts. We have the example in the Crimean War Committee. A certain number of officers were impugned. They were reported against by the Crimean War Committee. What did these officers do? They at once put in an application to be tried by their peers, by their own profession who understood all the difficulties with which they had had to contend. They submitted their evidence to a Committee of seven generals, and they were exculpated. I think on the whole the House has sufficient fairness of mind to say that the report of seven generals on a question of military efficiency was more likely to be correct than the Select Committee this House itself set up. I have already said that these Commissions may have bad effects on the discipline and unity of the Service. I do know that reputation is everything to an officer, and he will defend his reputation by all means in his power. If he knows his reputation is to be shortly inquired into, he will constantly be talking matters over with other officers, and there will be a tendency in the Service
  112
  to resolve itself into cliques and schools, and this in the middle of a great offensive war. I have here what I think was a remarkable document, namely, Lord Randolph Churchill's Minority Report to the Hartington Commission, in 1886, and he remarks on this matter that for the officer
  "Professional reputation is everything next to life itself, and the loss of it means professional ruin."
  7.0 P.M.
  That is how it affects the Army or Navy. But it is totally different with a statesman or politician. If cliques and schools are caused by these inquiries, and the knowledge spreads that officers are being dragged before these inquiries, it will be harmful to the unity of the Service I believe that no good, in regard to the conduct of the War, is likely to result, because the Reports of the inquiries are not likely to come out during the War. Many changes have already been effected. In Mesopotamia the War Office has taken over the direction of affairs, and I believe Sir William Robertson has had charge of them since last February. I know there were some questions of supplies which remained to be dealt with, but I believe they have been dealt with, and therefore all the good that can be effected by these inquiries has already been accomplished. What we desire is that the Government which chooses the men in command, and so is indirectly responsible for any inefficiency, and which is responsible for all the administrative mistakes which preceded the War, and for the whole preparation for war, and for subordinating military to political considerations, should be brought to book. There is no machinery at present by which we can do that. We used to have publicity, and that was feared by statesmen, but now our statesmen, under conditions of secrecy, which they say are necessary, escape altogether, and I think what we desire is some machinery which will bring those responsible to book. If inquiries are held in public after the War we shall have that machinery during the whole of the sittings of the Commission. The Reports of these Commissions are not likely to come out during the War, and therefore all the gain that would otherwise result to this War is lost.
  By inquiry after the War the great gain you will get is that you will not disturb the Army and Navy during the vital peril of this War. You will not try General Townshend in his absence. The investigation will be public and it will include the diplomacy and give you full scope to carry

  113
  out a full and impartial instead of a partial inquiry, and by the machinery I suggest you would preserve the unity of the Services, the importance of which everybody knows. We all know the spirit which Chatham infused into the Services when he took the helm, and he did that by bringing them into absolute unison. Clive and others worked together in India with successful results, because the French failed in this respect. Wolfe and Saunders worked in unison in Canada and the French did not, and we won Canada. Hon. Members can seek the advice of any soldier or sailor now serving at the front; again, let them ask anybody serving at the War Office—are they not undermanned at the present moment in regard to the work which they have to do? Will not the setting up of these Commissions mean that six, seven, or ten of the very best officers at the War Office have to be employed getting together the evidence, and they will have to be constantly watching what the Committees want instead of concentrating their efforts on the great offensive against the enemy? That is a question upon which the House should give a considered verdict with a sense of reasoned responsibility, and they should come to no decision which in the slightest degree entails any loss to our successful offensive in this War.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: We have listened to a most remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Maidstone, but I venture to think that he will be quite alone in the opinions which he has just expressed in this House. I know that great mistakes have been made, and the country will not be satisfied until they have been cleared up and until those responsible have been brought to book.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Yes, inquire after the War!
  Mr. ROBERTS: I was going to allude to that point. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he made an appeal to the House not to enlarge the numbers of the Commissions in both cases, and I think he was right. No doubt his reason was that the smaller the Committee the sooner you get the result. We all know what happens on a Royal Commission. I had the honour of serving on one two years ago, and in my opinion there were too many on that Commission. Each member of a Royal Commission has the right to put questions to every witness, and the chairman calls upon each member in turn all
  114
  round the table to put what questions they like. Therefore, the more you have on a Commission the longer the inquiry will take. The other day the House did not follow the advice of the Prime Minister, but increased the Commission on the Dardanelles to nine and the Commission on Mesopotamia from six to eight members. I am not going to say a word against the policy of having a Navy and an Army officer on these Commissions, but would it not have been better to have put them on in the first instance? I think the Committee should have been kept smaller in both cases. I am afraid these Commissions will sit for a long time, and when they report the public will have forgotten the circumstances. Public memory is very short indeed, and by the time you get these Reports published public attention will have been drawn to other things, and they will have forgotten the circumstances which we are now considering. For these reasons I regret that the numbers of the Commissions have been increased. I appeal to the Government to impress upon the noble chairmen of both these Commissions the very great importance of having their Reports as soon as possible. The chairman of a Commission has great influence, and he can speak to the members and tell them what the House of Commons wants to have their Report as quickly as possible, and if they cannot furnish the whole Report quickly that they should present an Interim Report as quickly as possible, dealing with the most important questions. If the right hon. Gentleman will convey that hint to his colleagues I shall be very much obliged. Of course I support the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I regret that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) thought it his duty to make the speech which he has made. I think that speech is one which ought to have been delivered on the Second Reading. I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down in thinking that the hon. Member for Maidstone will find himself almost alone in the views he has expressed to-day. My hon. Friend began by referring to Australia, and I think on the strength of an isolated extract from one of the Australian papers—
  Commander BELLAIRS: Two extracts.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: On the strength of two extracts the hon. Member for Maidstone stated that Australia was against this Bill. For my part I do not believe a

  115
  word of it, and I think we may very well leave the views of Australia in the hands of Mr. Andrew Fisher, who has consented to be a member of the inquiry, and I cannot believe that Australia, which has sacrificed so many brave men in the Dardanelles, could be against an inquiry such as that which we are now setting up.
  Commander BELLAIRS: They want it after the War.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: What right has the hon. Member to speak on behalf of Australia? I venture to say that the opinion of Australia to-day would be found to be in favour of this inquiry if the people had an opportunity of expressing their views. It is no use my hon. Friend saying "after the War." One of the principal reasons for urgency in regard to an inquiry of this character is that many of the most vital witnesses will probably be dead after the War. Many of them are old men, and they are available now and they may not be available after the War. The hon. Member says there should be one grand council to inquire into the whole subjects connected with the War, but I can assure him that there will be plenty of other subjects to inquire into when the War is over for which we shall require the appointment of many other Commissions besides those which we have set up already. I was very sorry that the hon. Member brought in the name of Sir William Robertson, and he said that he thought no one would be more opposed to these Commissions than Sir William Robertson himself. He stated that if he thought Sir William Robertson was asked he would say that this inquiry ought not to be held.
  Sir E. CARSON: Sir William Robertson never said so, because he holds a different view.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I never said that Sir William Robertson said so.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Member left the distinct impression by his remarks that Sir William Robertson did not welcome this inquiry, and if he refers to his speech to-morrow he will find that there is no other possible interpretation to be placed upon his words.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I suggested that questions affecting the Army could wait and that Sir William Robertson ought to be asked by the Government, in view of the high testimony the House has paid to him, and which the right hon.
  116
  Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had paid to him, whether any gain in this War will result from the setting up of such an inquiry as this, during the War.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think that is rather ingenious on the part of my hon. Friend. No one in the whole of the House has said a word against Sir William Robertson, and I think it is rather unfair that his name should be introduced in the way it has been by my hon. Friend. He asks why was Sir William Robertson not consulted about it. I have not the slightest doubt that he was consulted before this inquiry was promised. If he was not, I think the Government neglected their duty in not consulting the Imperial General Staff, as they did when they promised to give us the Papers. Sir William Robertson's action is not being inquired into because he was not at the War Office at the time, and consequently his time will not be occupied in regard to any of these inquiries. It is not a question of whether the Government were right or wrong in having these inquiries, because they had no other choice. I believe if the Government had opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College it would have been carried against them in this House. Therefore, the Government were compelled to recognise the position and grant the inquiry which was asked for. My hon. Friend opposite does not seem to realise how widespread was the interest in these inquiries. Does he remember that there were over two hundred thousand casualties in the Dardanelles? Does he not know that we lost hundreds of men because the slightest steps were not taken to find water within forty-eight hours of the landing, and that valuable lives were thrown away by the neglect of certain persons? Are these questions which ought not to be inquired into without delay?
  Commander BELLAIRS: I indicated a much more rapid method of inquiry into these disgraceful disasters, and that was an inquiry by separate courts-martial. It is the duty of the Government to court-martial the officers responsible.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes, but I understood that my hon. Friend is in favour of no inquiry until after the War, so whatever applies to this inquiry would also apply to the courts-martial. There is a civil

  117
  side to this question. The civil population has a right, in the first place, to know who was responsible for the Dardanelles Expedition, under what conditions it was launched, what was the plan which we were going to pursue, and how far are the Government responsible for its failure. Up to the present day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) has had to bear all the unpopularity and all the burden of censure in regard to it. Let us know, as the result of this inquiry, who were the persons responsible, and let the public know, and let the public judge. No more important inquiry in the interests of the nation has taken place for a very long time than these inquiries which we are now setting up. With regard to the Mesopotamian Expedition, my hon. Friend asks what immediate good you are going to do. If it were shown to be necessary to make entirely different arrangements with regard to medical supplies, surely that would be some immediate good, and we have instructed the Mesopotamian Commission to give us a report as soon as possible. Does the hon. Member know that men wounded in Mesopotamia were first attended in London? I met a young man the other day who was hit in one eye in Mesopotamia, and he never saw a medical officer till he came to London, although he travelled through India looking for one. His eye might have been saved, but now he may lose both of them. These are the sort of things we want inquired into. We want to know who was responsible, and that in future they will have no further responsibility or power. As one of those who asked for the inquiry, I thank the Government, having once granted the inquiry, for the spirit in which they have met the suggestions we have made. I believe we have provided machinery for a good inquiry into both cases, and I hope that the result will be a satisfaction to the country as a whole.
  Sir E. CARSON: I desire to express my very grateful thanks to His Majesty's Government for having granted these inquiries. I think the inquiries were inevitable. The idea that you can have an abandoned expedition in which you have lost something like 200,000 in casualties and have no explanation given or no person held liable is simply ludicrous and monstrous, if this House is to have any authority at all. There is a distinction to be drawn between the Dardanelles and
  118
  Mesopotamia. The Dardanelles Expedition is a disaster which is over. That is no reason why it should not be inquired into, and why those who are liable for the disaster, if there is anybody liable, should not be brought to book. But Mesopotamia is a living expedition. The sufferings are going on still in Mesopotamia, and I have risen chiefly to say that I hope the Commission appointed with reference to Mesopotamia will commence at the present state of affairs and not at the inception. Let them get at existing conditions, and see how they can remedy them in the interests of our men and, indeed, in the interests of humanity. I believe, if there were nothing else to do, that is good work to-day on the part of the House of Commons. Nobody who has not had the crrespondence with reference to what has taken place there that I have had could believe, if the statements are true, and they come from all quarters, that such a state of negligence could have existed, resulting in the wasting of precious lives of the best men that have ever been sent out to fight for this country. I have only one other word to say. I was glad that the Secretary of State for India to-day read out to this House the telegram saying that there is a real responsibility being put upon officials who undertake to deal with the lives of these men. I think it would be well that we should occasionally, instead of having these things hushed up, have Ministers come here and say, as he did, that a Committee has inquired into the matter and has found this, that, and the other person responsible, and has not hesitated to deal with the situation that has arisen. I am glad that he has shown an example of the proper way of dealing with these matters, and of letting people know that our men, after all, are not mere pawns to be moved about here, there, and everywhere else, but that they are the greatest asset in this country, and that the country is determined to take care of them.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I rise, in the first place, because I think it is necessary to enter a protest against the view that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has put forward, that it should rest with the Chief of the Staff to determine whether this House should order an inquiry into the operations of war or not. I cannot, as an old soldier, recognise that any officer could assume such a position as that. The

  119
  Chief of the Staff, whom nobody in this House holds in higher respect than I do, or for whom no one has more personal regard than I have, would be the very last person to assume the position of having to decide whether the House of Commons is wise in its judgment in ordering an inquiry into what everyone admits to be a most unfortunate series of disasters. A certain amount of complication has been caused by the Government, in its anxiety at last to do the right thing, surrendering so completely and dealing with two entirely separate and different sets of operations in the same Bill. I am of the opinion that, whereas the Mesopotamia operation demanded immediate and searching inquiry, the Dardanelles Expedition, as a most unfortunate incident which has now passed into history, might possibly have been allowed to remain until a later period for inquiry. If there be any danger of that which the hon. Member for Maidstone seems to fear—the danger of an interference with those who are directly concerned with the actual carrying on of operations at present—I feel sure that the distinguished Chief of the Staff is quite capable of dealing with that difficulty should it arise.
  I can only join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down in saying that I thank the Government for having at last decided to have this inquiry made, though I confess that a great deal of public anxiety might have been spared had the Government began by publishing Papers which we know are in existence, and which are the result of the Departmental inquiries which have already taken place. One reason why I attach greater importance to the Mesopotamia inquiry than to that of the Dardanelles is that it bears upon the condition of co-ordination and co-operation which should exist between the British war administration and the Indian war administration. If we study the Papers which are at our disposal, and which were published some ten years ago or more, at the time Lord Kitchener took over the position of Commander-in-Chief in India, we can realise what the condition of the Indian Army was. In Lord Kitchener's own words, as nearly as I can remember them, "it was not an Army prepared for
  120
  Imperial Service, but it was a purely local Army." That separation of the Indian Army from the other Imperial Forces of the Crown in itself created a condition of danger which could only lead to the breakdown we have seen when great Imperial operations came to be undertaken. I look to that inquiry which I hope will be carried on with energy, probing the circumstances to the very bottom, to provide the material by which the British and Indian Forces will at no distant date be welded into a stronger and far more important machine for the defence of the honour and integrity of this Empire than has ever been the case before.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that nothing I shall say will prolong the Debate. I rise rather in the hope that I may contribute to shortening it. I would like, in the first place, to say that nobody can be more conscious than I am of the inconveniences and even the dangers which necessarily attach to inquiries of this kind while we are still at war, but the House was fully conscious of those difficulties and dangers at the time they unmistakably showed their desire that these inquiries should take place. That question was prejudged before this Bill was introduced, and I really do not think that we can usefully rediscuss the propriety of such an inquiry at this late stage of the measure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson), expressed the hope, which I think is widely felt in this country and which has found embodiment at any rate to some extent in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), that the Mesopotamian Commission should begin their inquiry at the present condition of things and report early, with special reference, not to military movements or anything of that kind, but to the provision made for the forces in the country now. I have seen the Chairman of the Mesopotamian Commission, who came to ask me some questions as to the information which the India Office could place at his disposal, and I think without any breach of confidence I may say, first, that it was obviously his desire that the whole of the proceedings of the Commission over which he presides should be as businesslike and expeditious as possible, and, secondly, that he was conscious of the desire to which my right hon. and learned Friend gave expression, and I

  121
  think will direct the Commission to the fulfilment of that desire, so that we may be provided as early as possible not merely with a Report on the treatment of the sick and wounded generally for which the hon. Member for Mayo asked, but with a Report specially calculated to tell us what is the present position in those respects.
  Wider questions have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway (Commander Bellairs), as they were raised by Lord Cromer in another place, questions of great importance, going to the very root of Army organisation in India. From the moment that we establish these Commissions their procedure and, within the terms of the reference, the scope of their inquiries lie with them, and not with us. It is impossible for the Government, which, after all, is on its trial, to issue instructions as to what they shall or shall not inquire into, or how they shall conduct their inquiries. I think, however, that such questions as the right hon. Gentleman has raised will inevitably come before them in the course of their inquiries. All I venture to say is, firstly, that I hope the House will excuse me from arguing any of these questions that are coming before a tribunal now that we have decided to invite the decision of a tribunal on them; and, secondly, that hon. Members will refrain from arguing in advance, or saying what decision they think these tribunals should arrive at. It is not fair to the persons concerned to discuss names and particular responsibility. It would not be possible for me to make the defence which in other circumstances I might make, and should be bound to make, of certain of these people, and I submit to Members in all parts of the House that, having the Commissions the House desired to be established, having confidence, as I think everybody has, in the personnel of those Commissions, we ought now to set them to work as rapidly as we can, and ought not to attempt to pre-judge any of the questions or responsibilities about which we have asked for a Report from them.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) on the telegram, referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), which he read out to-day, to say with what satisfaction we all received it; and to express the hope that action somewhat similar may be taken in connec-
  122
  tion with Mesopotamia, as soon as that may be possible. We all have perfect confidence in all the members of the Commission appointed, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would ask him, if there is another opportunity later on, to think of the very serious questions that will have to be considered or inquired into by this Commission when they go to Mesopotamia—the number of men whose names are mentioned, and the very difficult questions that will come up before them. With a view to giving confidence not only in Mesopotamia but throughout the Service generally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the suggestion that there should be no possibility of only two members being sent to Mesopotamia. I think it would be fairer to the persons whose names have been mentioned, and to others, if three were given as the number, as two seem too small a proportion to take this very onerous charge upon themselves. If three were chosen I think it would meet with more general acceptance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think of that before this Bill is finally passed.
  Mr. LYNCH: Before this Bill passes I want to say one or two words which strike at the very root of the whole principle. It seems ungracious to press for a Bill, and I am one of those who pressed for this Bill, and then when it is brought in to delay or criticise it over severely. But I think if the Government had properly conducted their business neither of these Bills would have been necessary at all. These are Bills which deal with administration, all the administration which these Bills touch being within the province of the Government, and being, in fact, its proper business. So that the very necessity for the introduction of this Bill—and I believe at this stage it has been necessary—has been the severest criticism of the operations of the Government. I say now here that I hope the country will realise it. Eventually they will. This Government from the very beginning has managed this War with signal incompetence. This Government is not winning this War. Under present conditions, with the factors now in operation, we are moving inevitably to a draw, most disastrous of all results—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Bill.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.

  PETROL SUPPLY.
  Order for Third Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the petrol question, and in doing that I should like the House thoroughly to understand that I have not the slightest objection to any restrictions being made which are really necessary. If it is necessary for the more successful waging of the War to inflict inconvenience on people using either private or public motor vehicles, I should be the last man to object to that being done. We all have to put up with inconvenience, and we as a nation, I think, have shown that in the vast majority of cases we are quite willing to put up with that, or any other inconvenience, which is necessary to pursue the campaign to a successful issue. While I hold these views very strongly, I think the Government must remember, and the Petrol Committee must remember, that Englishmen do not care to be treated unfairly, and that the duty, both of the Government and of the Petrol Committee, is to administer the particular subject which they are called upon to administer in a fair and proper manner. It is no excuse to say, "We have not any time to attend to it," or, "We have not a staff." If the Committee have not time to attend to it, they should not take up a job; and if they did take it up, they were bound to carry it out in a proper and businesslike manner.
  The question divides itself into two parts; the first is the method of the Petrol Committee, and the second the method of dealing with the supply of petrol by the Government. With regard to the method of dealing with the question by the Petrol Committee, I have a large number of letters here showing the manner in which applicants for petrol have been treated. Some of the writers of these letters ask me not to give their names; others are willing that I should so do; but I think it might perhaps be simpler if I give, what I do not myself like doing as a rule, my own case, because at any rate I am not ashamed of my own case, and I can state it more or less correctly. My daughter told me that there was going to be a limitation of
  124
  petrol, and produced a form, and asked me how I should fill it up. I have done my best to comply with the request of the Government, and to use as little petrol as possible. We have had no chauffeur for more than a year, and the only time my car was used was when my daughter could drive it. She looked after the machinery. There is no question of any joy rides, or anything of that sort, and it has only been used for the purpose of taking me to the station to come to this House—I happen to live six and a half miles from the station—and for duties connected with my magisterial work in my county. I said, "Fill up the form properly." The form asked, "What is it used for?" I said, "Put in what it is used for, and the number of gallons, and whatever it is you require." She said, "Some friends of mine are going to put in a very much larger number than they require, and they say that you will be very foolish to put in the number you require." I, very foolishly, said, "I do not agree with that at all. I feel sure that the Committee who have sent out the form in which they have asked you to fill up and give all sorts of particulars will like to see what particulars have been put in it, and," I ventured to say what perhaps I ought not to have done, "when they see my name they will believe that I have told the truth; or, if not, they will make some inquiries." So we put in a certain number, which, so far as I remember, was 15 gallons a month. I receive 6 gallons in a month; 1½ gallons a week, and it takes me a gallon to go to the station, so I can go once to the station. I do not know whether any hon. Gentleman here who sometimes think that I take up a little more time than I ought to do, are concerned in this matter, but I can go only once to the station. My car is a 20–30 Renault. I thought I had experience of Committees. I thought the Committee in the multitude of their work and the great number of applications had overlooked my application, so I approached one of the members of the Committee. I said, "I think you have made a mistake, you probably have not seen the form I filled up, and when I tell you what has happened you will be inclined rather to increase the allowance." He said, "Oh, no, certainly not! We cannot do anything of that sort." I said, "Why not," and he said, "We do not look into individual cases. We have not time. What we do is this: We find out how much petrol used to be given, and we say, 'A person applies for

  125
  a 100 gallons; we will give him so much. Another applies for 50 gallons; we will give him so much. Another applies for 20; we will give him so much'"—the percentage, I believe, decreasing slightly as the amount rose.
  That seems to me to be a most extraordinary way of undertaking a duty. We do not want a Committee to do that. A clerk could do that. A small staff of clerks could do that. We do not want all the paraphernalia of a Committee merely to receive an application for 100 gallons and to give so much and another applicant for fifty gallons and to give so much. What has been the result of that? I have a case where certain people who own a car applied for two amounts and each have got their amount. That is an absolute fact. There was a case stated in the "Morning Post"—this I do not know myself—and it was sent by a gentleman who gave his name. He was apparently connected with some motor institution, and he filled up an application for a lady. Then as she thought he would probably forget it she filled up one too, and she got both. There is a case that the London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle Workers have given me: There was a man called Jacobs who had 100 gallons allowed him a month, another man, 90; another, 80; and then there was a driver with one cab who had 70 gallons allowed him and another only ten.
  Sir C. HENRY: For three months?
  Sir F. BANBURY: For one month. I shall be very glad to give the particulars to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt). I understand there again that one cabman by error filled up two forms and got petrol for both. I have a variety of letters broaching upon, this subject. I do not know that I need take up the time of the House with all of them, but I have one from a clergyman, whom I know, and he says:
  "I see you are kindly taking up the cudgels on behalf of the poor motorists. You won't have far to go to find a good instance; for I, with my three Parishes, seven miles long, and my Rural Deanery, twenty miles by thirteen, am to be reduced to less than a can a week. Whatever shall I do? I told them that I had already reduced my consumption to the lowest possible level. This was partly, though not wholly, from selfish reasons. I suppose they will think me an ass for being so honest as to let them know, and I hope you will kindly wire into them."
  That is a very good instance of what is occurring, and what I object to. I have here a copy of a letter which has been written to the Committee:
  "I have to-day received an intimation that I am granted a licence for thirty gallons of petrol per month,
  126
  but I think that the Committee must be under a misapprehension with regard to the use to which my motors are put. They are in no sense of the word pleasure cars, they are only taken out for useful purposes, and I never take a drive in them just for the sake of the drive—"
  I am cutting out a good deal—
  "I am living at my country house which, at the urgent request of the military authorities, I have turned into a convalescent hospital for officers. The nearest chemist is four-and-a-half miles distant, and there is no station nearer than two-and-a-half miles. My horses were commandeered at the outbreak of War, and there are no facilities for hiring conveyances in the district. The patients I have here at present are for the most part seriously wounded, and were unable to travel from London by train, I was therefore obliged to hire a Daimler car last Tuesday to bring them down here, as I had not the petrol to enable me to use one of my own motors for the purpose—"
  What is the use of restricting the amount of petrol in this way? What difference does it make whether it is used in a Daimler car or a hired car? In all probability, the hired car uses a larger amount of petrol.
  "On Thursday another patient had to be brought from Londonderry House. He was a stretcher ease, but in order to economise in petrol I had to use my small car, and the poor man had in consequence a most uncomfortable journey."
  It shows that here is a case where the requirements were not for pleasure purposes, but really for doing some good connected with the sufferings of soldiers and the War. I might bring forward any number of examples, but I do not want to weary the House. I think I have given quite sufficient. I will leave, for the moment, the question of the Petrol Committee to consider the question of the manner in which the Government has dealt with the supply of petrol, because that has also something to do with it. It was only a short time ago that we had a discussion in this House, on the Vote of Credit, about ten oil tankers, and we were informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office that the Admiralty had taken those ten oil steamers and filled them with barrels. I believe they did so under the impression—I am not quite sure about this—that they would not sink if they had barrels in them. They found that the experiment was useless, and they had to take out all the barrels. Those barrels are blocking up space which is required for something else wanted for the War. The cost of this experiment, including the loss of the steamers to the country for some time, was something like £800,000.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think that is so. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here. He very kindly offered to give me

  127
  the figures, and said they would be given before the Public Accounts Committees. He did not want to take away clerks from the Admiralty for that purpose. I was informed again to-day, by a Member of this House who knows, that the loss was something like that sum if you include the loss owing to the steamers being laid by all that time. I do not think I am far wrong. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was an experiment owing to the War, and he was a little angry with me because I said it was owing to the inefficiency of the Admiralty. I am not going into it again. It is quite evident that, while the Government knew that this question of petrol was important, they must have known that, if they made experiments upon these steamers, they would lose the opportunity of importing a large quantity of petrol into this country. They might have made the experiment by filling one steamer with barrels, not the whole ten, and so found out whether or not the experiment was a success, while, in the meantime, they might have used the remaining nine steamers to bring the petrol over. This is a curious circumstance, which will interest the House: 40 per cent, more petrol was applied for by users than has been brought into the country. That ought to have opened the eyes of the Committee. They found this out and knew it, and ought to have said to themselves, "This is a curious thing; we must investigate it." They said, "We have not the time and the staff." This Committee was appointed in April, more than three months ago, and surely in three months, especially with the extraordinary instance of 40 per cent, more petrol being applied for than was ever brought into the country, they might have looked into the matter and endeavoured to treat users with some sense of justice.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Does the 40 per cent. include the petrol used by the Government, or is it for private and commercial users?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said that 40 per cent. was applied for by private consumers and not by business people. The applications that went to the Committee were for 40 per cent. more petrol than came into the country.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Will the right hon. Baronet say how that can be if the country did not know what was the amount used for commercial purposes before?
  Sir F. BANBURY: That was found out by the Committee. A certain amount of gallons were applied for by the people who had to go to the Committee, and when the Committee added up the total amount of gallons applied for they found that it was a very much larger quantity than that coming into the country. It was evident that the people had applied for more than they were in the habit of using. This is a matter which does require investigation and amendment. It may be said that it is a very difficult task to set any Committee, and I may be asked, "What is your solution?" The solution is this: That the Committee ought to have said that a certain proportion of petrol should be given to the owner of every car. It may be that the owners of the very high-power cars might have had a little less in proportion. An endeavour should have been made to make everybody use his car in a proper manner, and not to allow, as I have shown to be the case, a large number of people, by misrepresentation, to obtain a much larger quantity of petrol than that to which they were entitled. I do not believe there would have been any great difficulty in so arranging the method of dealing with the applications that a fixed amount, according to the size of the car, could have been allotted to each person who applied. The result would have been that everybody would have been more or less on the same footing and there would have been some attempt to prevent those people who had been using their cars merely for the sake of pleasure going on with it, and, at the same time, allowing those people who use their cars for practically business purposes to continue their use.
  I might mention that in discussing the matter with one member of the Committee I was told I could use horses. It is not everybody who has horses at the present moment. If they have horses, as in my case, they have no men. All my men have gone to the War, with the exception of my head man. Certainly around me, and I believe in the greater part of the country, local authorities have had the very foolish idea, chiefly in the interests of motorists, of tarring the roads, and the result is that when there is a slight shower of rain the roads become like ice. I have three miles of tarred road over which I have to go to the station. It must be remembered that the condition of the roads has altered very much in the last two years, and if you deprive motorists of the legitimate means

  129
  of motoring you do inflict a very considerable hardship on them. Another point, which I do not press, but which has been brought to my notice, is that they pay taxes to the Government for the privilege of using motor cars. Now the Government come down and give them such a little petrol that they cannot use their cars. Is the Government going to return the tax? That would not be an unfair proposal. I do not see much encouragement from the representatives of the Government present for that idea. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Acting President of the Board of Trade will look into this matter and see if genuine hard cases cannot be reconsidered. I have never yet met a Committee which did not sometimes make mistakes, and I have never yet met a Committee who refused to consider the mistakes when they had made them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me some assurance that this matter will be reconsidered as soon as possible.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): There are many other points to be discussed on this Bill, and it may shorten the discussion on petrol and be for the convenience of the House if I tell them now as much as I can on the matter. First of all, we have to consider the circumstances which led to the present situation. There is plenty of petrol in the world available, but the supply in this country depends upon a sufficiency of what are called tankers or oilers—ships specially constructed for the carrying of petrol in bulk. At the outbreak of war there were barely sufficient of these ships for our then consumption, but since the War our consumption has greatly increased, and at the same time the supply of tankers has diminished. It has diminished for several reasons. First of all, because of submarine accidents—those were insignificant in themselves, but annoying; secondly, the diversion of certain neutral American oil ships to trading in what they regarded as safer seas—such as trading with the continent of South America; and, thirdly, there was the commandeering of commercial tankers by the Admiralty.
  8.0 P.M.
  What happened was that the number of oil-burning battleships and other ships had greatly increased and had been greatly accelerated, but the oilers to serve them were slower in delivery. Both Admiralty and commercial tankers were being built to meet the needs of these new ships, but they could not be built quick
  130
  enough for the purpose. The fact is that all the labour in the shipyards for a long time was necessarily taken for warships. The residue of labour that was left was required for commercial and trading ships of all kinds, and could not be devoted merely to the production of oilers or tankers. From the very first day I went to the Board of Trade—only about nine weeks ago—I pushed on with the completion, the very urgent completion, of tankers that were nearly ready to take the sea and make their first voyage. But I am sorry to say that on the first day I got them on the water ready to sail for their petrol they were commandeered by the Admiralty. Well, I did not complain. Yes, I did. After a good deal of discussion I recovered some of them, but only a fraction. I recovered only one out of three. The whole of these difficulties really depend upon the unforeseen and unforeseeable rapidity of the delivery of oil-driven battleships, which, from another point of view, is, of course, a great satisfaction to the country. Tankers are wanted by the Admiralty for the delivery and storage of heavy and other oils. There is no dispute as to this necessity. There can be from our point of view no dispute as to the surrender of absolute necessities to the Admiralty. At the same time, the Army requirements have grown enormously, and are constantly increasing—I mean for petrol. What the recent push in Picardy meant in the way of petrol would stagger this House, but for quite obvious reasons I cannot give the figures. It is an interesting fact, perhaps not known to a great many people, that at Verdun, after the first week of its defence, nearly the whole of that battle has been fought upon petrol transport, because all the lines of communication were destroyed by artillery or bombs behind the French lines. We contributed largely to the petrol for Verdun. We contributed gladly also. The French and the Italian supplies had to be taken to those countries either in our ships or at our expense, or our loss, because the petrol might otherwise come here if it was not required in France or in Italy. We do not complain, but we have all of us got to go short. I should like some of those who do complain to try France or Italy for a few weeks' tour, or still more, if they could get there, Germany or Austria, and see if they were better off.

  131
  They would find that in the Allied countries they would be much worse off than we are here. I have done what I could. I have scoured the whole world for oilers. Talk of tiger hunting, it is not in it with tanker hunting. It is a very exhilarating and exciting sport, but, unfortunately, the head of game is very few. There is hardly a tanker in the world to-day of which I do not know the position, the owner, the tonnage, the capacity, and the charterer. They are as much sought after as first-folio "Shakespeares" or Great Auk eggs. They are almost as scarce and quite as expensive. Of the tankers which are within our jurisdiction we have requisitioned or commandeered all. Others there are that belong to powerful neutral countries which are accustomed to combine and control their oil on a big scale, and have fought shy of our seas, which they regard as risky; but I ought to say this, to remove a common misconception, that I can find no trace or evidence of cornering of petrol or oil. They have a remunerative and hungry market in this country. There has been, so far as I can discover, no holding up except for the want of vehicle for safe transport. You cannot convey petrol by sea safely or in large quantities in drums, or barrels, or tins. They are apt to leak, to vaporise, and then to explode. You must have tankers which are specially constructed, with proper ventilation. I am told even a benzine ship is unsuitable to carry petrol because petrol has an exceptionally low flash. I hope the Admiralty will soon, perhaps very soon, be in a position to launch and supply more tank steamers for their heavy oils, and so release petrol tankers which are now being used for that purpose.
  Mr. LOUGHmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I said just now that in the early part of the War almost all construction, except of essential battleships, submarines, and torpedo-boat destroyers, was suspended in all yards. Of course that is not so now and has not been so for many months, and the construction of tankers, both for the Admiralty and for the public, has been resumed. There are many on the stocks which are being worked at now and accelerated, and I hope they will now be available.
  Sir F. BANBURY: When will they be delivered?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot give the date at the moment. The House, in what I am saying, must not think that I am offering any apology or defence or excuse, because I do not think any is necessary. The Petrol Committee is the ogre of today, but it will not be very long before we shall all come to the conclusion, not that we have been treated unfairly, as the right hon. Baronet says, but that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Petrol Committee for the promptitude with which they have acted in a national crisis; and I am quite certain that the public some day will convey a proper meed of gratitude to Mr. Oliver Bury, the chairman of that Committee, the ex-general manager of the Great Northern Railway, a man of great business capacity, who has devoted his whole time and energy and knowledge to the operations of that Committee. In my opinion it has acted at the proper time and in the right way. The result has been unpleasant to us all, but this is exactly one of those perhaps somewhat rare occasions on which we might pause for a moment and remind ourselves that we are at war. Other suggestions have been made for dealing with the petrol difficulty. One was that we should stop all Sunday motoring. I was rather inclined to that myself, but there were others whose opinions I highly value who did not take the same view, and I know from discussing the matter that there are many arguments both ways; but I should like to warn the House that it may yet come. I think everyone will agree that it is a sad sight in the middle of such a War as this to stand on the road leading from London to Maidenhead or to Brighton on a Sunday and count the cars which are going there. I had a count of those cars made two Sundays ago. It happened to be a very wet day.
  Sir C. HENRY: Have you had a count made of motor cars going to race meetings?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, but not an accurate one. I have seen them. In parenthesis, I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he has seen the statement which was published a week or two ago that at my instance the Jockey Club has decided to license no more of these race meetings after those which had been licensed at the time when I went to the Board of Trade, ending 10th August. I have taken all the action I can to deal with the matter. I was saying that on this wet Sunday outside Maidenhead and Brighton, where I

  133
  had the cars counted, there were 600. I think I ought to add, because there is a good deal of misconception on the matter, that they were all civilian. There was not one naval or military car on that day at either Brighton or Maidenhead.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I admit all that, and that is what I want to stop, but that is not being stopped by the method in which the Petrol Committee is acting. It is being encouraged.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is not entitled to interpose another speech.
  Mr. HARCOURT: A great deal of extravagance in Service cars has been alleged, and it may have been so in the past, but I believe it is better now. Waste and extravagance at the front have also been a good deal advertised in the papers. If it is true, we should regret it; but we should grudge it much less than the other extravagance and waste at home, which are criminal. I hope it is not as bad as is believed. Largely, at my instance, an Army Council instruction was sent out on 22nd June. I will read only the material parts of it:
  "No lady or other unauthorised person will be permitted to travel without the authority of the General Officer Commanding in any car for which free issues of petrol are allowed on any pretence whatever, either in the company of an officer, or soldier, or otherwise. Strict disciplinary action will be taken against the driver of the vehicle or any officer or non-commissioned officer for any disregard of this instruction. Owing to the urgent importance of economising petrol, no motor car will be used where railway facilities exist for any journey exceeding forty miles, without the previous sanction of the General Officer Commanding. The Assistant Provost-Marshal and the military police have authority and are required to stop any War Department vehicle carrying ladies or civilians. Any instance where it appears that a primâ facie case of unauthorised travelling exists should at once be reported to higher authority."
  I think that is a satisfactory circular, and it has had satisfactory results, but I should like to add that the man who washes his car in petrol, or who empties his aeroplane tank on the ground is a traitor to the best interests of the Army and his country, and I hope he has ceased, or is ceasing to exist. If we can get the public and the Army to realise that petrol is really as valuable and as necessary as high explosive, or as bread and meat, I think we shall do a great deal to cure some of our difficulties. If the public will exercise ordinary care and reasonable economy, everybody might be happy in a short time, and I do not really regret this pinch if it brings the public to their senses in the matter of extravagance in petrol.
  134
  The House has had quite enough of causes and results: they will want to know something about our methods of dealing with the situation. They have been drastic, but essential. The object of the Petrol Committee has not been to build up any reserve or to withhold any of the available supplies. They have made an estimate of what is in store and what is in sight, and their object is to ladle it out to the very last pint in proper quantities to the best national advantage. I am not permitted to state the present requirements of the Army or the Navy, but they are immeasurably and unforseeably greater than they were last year, or at the beginning of this year. Everyone will agree that those requirements must be met first, and therefore it is only the balance, after naval and military requirements are met, that is available for commercial and civilian life. All of us have to go short for a time, and I hope that time may be measured by months and perhaps by a few months, but I make no pledge. The problem was to see that the amount available was equitably distributed. What I wanted was distribution by quantity and not by price. If you left this matter to a scramble on price, it would only be the rich who would be satisfied, and commercial vehicles, omnibuses, taxi-cabs and people of moderate means would all have to do without it. I have taken the other course, which I believe to be both just and economical. I know what is in store and what is in sight. We ask people their requirements, and then we distribute the petrol pro rata between classes according to the urgency and utility of their service. The right hon. Baronet suggests that there has been some exaggeration and untruthfulness. I am glad to say it has not been as great as the cynic might have expected. The right hon. Baronet gave a figure. I did not quite know how he arrived at it, but it was correct. The total civilian consumption last year was 111,000,000 gallons. The civilian requirements, as stated now on the returns they have made, are 153,000,000 gallons. That is an increase of 40 per cent. over the civilian consumption last year. That might be regarded as rather an optimistic inaccuracy. There is no doubt that some people when asked about their requirements—but only a few—looked upon it in their statements rather as the schoolboy when he was asked to define a lie, and defined it as a very present help in time of trouble. But on

  135
  the whole I am bound to say that honesty has predominated, even where it did not seem to be the best policy. There has been an enormous increase in the demand for commercial cars, and they have been largely increased in number and consumption since the beginning of last year. Since the War began, of course, they have lost their horses and they have lost many of their men, and the use of commercial cars and their consumption of petrol have very greatly increased. Private cars, on the other hand, have decreased in number, partly from the absence of their owners at the front, partly owing to the cost of petrol, partly from the necessity of domestic economy, partly from the voluntary surrender of pleasure, and partly, I hope, from the growing feeling that today joy-rides are shame rides. We were bound to deal with the situation promptly and, as the right hon. Baronet thinks, especially in his own case, drastically. The Petrol Committee received 324,000 demands for licences. That does not mean demands for 324,000 cars, because the London General Omnibus Company were able to send in one card for the whole of their fleet. To give some illustration of the work that is falling upon the Petrol Committee, I may mention that their post yesterday morning was over 20,000 letters. I hope that we shall be able to give further consideration to classes and to individual cases when time and petrol permit. At the start we were bound to take what was the available reservoir and the supply in sight for twelve months and apportion it according to the national necessities. Some 153,000,000 gallons were demanded in the returns for the whole of the civilian population. Only 70,000,000 gallons are available, or less than half. We have already licensed 75,000,000 gallons, so that the House will see that we have already outrun the constable, and we have no more available. This is for everything except the Army and Navy. The House will see that less than half the demands can be met. I will state the proportion in which this available surplus supply will be allocated. The owners of commercial cars will get 60 per cent, of their demand. Industrial processes will also receive 60 per cent, of their demand. Taxi-cabs, omnibuses, and public vehicles will get 50 per cent, of their demand. Doctors and veterinary surgeons will get the full amount up to a
  136
  maximum of fifty gallons per month. Private cars will get 25 per cent, of their demand, with a maximum of thirty gallons per month, and motor cycles will get two gallons per month. Perhaps I may tell the House what that means in petrol, and how it is distributed amongst the various classes. The petrol available for distribution in a month is 6,300,000 gallons, and this is how it is distributed: Commercial cars get 2,100,000 gallons, industrial processes 812,500 gallons, taxi-cabs, omnibuses, and public vehicles 2,087,500 gallons, doctors and veterinary surgeons 418,750 gallons, private cars 700,000 gallons, and motor cycles 181,250 gallons, making up exactly the supply for the month of 6,300,000 gallons. That is all that is available. If hon. Members say that A ought to have more petrol, then B has got to have less.
  Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I would ask the hon. Baronet then to tell me who is B. The demands of the Army and Navy must be met. Then comes the conveyance of the wounded, then doctors and veterinary surgeons, and if any increase in petrol becomes possible at all, their fifty gallons maximum should be the first to have further consideration where a special need can be shown. Of course the carriage of munitions in this country is essential, and it must and will be provided for, even if it entails a total stoppage of private cars, and further limitation in regard to cabs and omnibuses. Two million eight hundred thousand gallons per month were asked for for private cars, and, as I stated just now, we have only 700,000 gallons available for 110,000 private cars. Therefore, they can only get one-quarter of their demands. It means that on an average they will get rather less than seven gallons per month for each private car. The House must remember that repeated notices have been issued warning the public that petrol stocks were low, and economy was necessary. Let me refer for one moment to the right hon. Gentleman's point as to the assumed dishonesty of the people making the return. I believe that proof of the general honesty of the returns is to be found in the fact that the bulk of private owners, 85 per cent. of them, only asked for from eight to twenty-four gallons per month. Those who asked for eight gallons will get 75 per

  137
  cent. of what they asked for. Those who asked for sixteen gallons will get 50 per cent., those who asked for twenty-four gallons will get 33 per cent., and those who asked for over thirty-two gallons will get only 25 per cent. No one, whatever he has asked for, will get more than thirty gallons per month. On the whole, people have been fairly honest. Everyone has asked for more than he has got, and he wants more, naturally. The situation as I found it called for prompt and energetic action. It was impossible to make detailed inquiries, as the right hon. Baronet suggested should be done, in 324,000 cases of owners who represent a far larger number of cars. Drastic restrictions were necessary for our military and national needs. When those national and military needs have been adequately met and some further surplus seems available, we shall be delighted to distribute more petrol to the most deserving classes. I hope I have been able to convince the House that more we cannot do now.
  Mr. A. STRAUSS: After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I feel that it is my duty to call the attention of the House to the disastrous effect caused by the restrictions of the Petrol Committee on the driving of taxi-cabs. Of course, the requirements of the Army and Navy are of the first importance, and every other consideration must be set aside to meet those requirements, but that does not justify the unnecessary wrong done to a deserving class simply through want of organisation. That there is a lack of organisation on the part of the Petrol Committee I shall have no difficulty in showing. As soon as the licence census was called for, the Union of Taxi Drivers were anxious to help the Government in economising the use of petrol. With that object in view they communicated with the Petrol Committee, and urged all their members to apply for the very minimum quantity which they might possibly require, suggesting ninety gallons per month. Regardless of the assistance which the union gave the Petrol Committee, that Committee allotted only 50 per cent. of the acquisition to all the taxi-drivers, thus penalising the honest ones and rewarding the dishonest ones. As an illustration of the result I will give a few figures. Gardner for one cab was allotted 140 gallons, Davis 70 gallons, Butler 18 gallons, and so on down to a man called Cove, who
  138
  was only allotted 10 gallons a month. These figures show that I am justified in saying that the Petrol Committee was guilty of want of organisation, if I may use no stronger term.
  In consequence of this allotment a meeting of taxi-drivers and owners was held on the 23rd July at which a resolution was passed condemning strongly the unequal distribution of the petrol and demanding that the distribution should be such as to give at least a fair livelihood to all who were interested. After this meeting I understand that negotiations took place between the officials of the union and the Petrol Committee, and the Petrol Committee consented to give two gallons a day to every driver who has a licence, and knowing that their own organisation was very faulty they asked the union to collect the old licences which had been given and to give them up by the 10th of August in order that they might get the new licences instead. Two gallons a day means starvation for the journeyman driver and absolute ruin to the owner driver. Take the journeyman driver first. If you take into consideration all the tips which he gets and also all the incidental expenses which he has for petrol and for what he has to give for standing and so on, with three gallons he is lucky if he gets from 25s. to 30s. per week. But two gallons a day would only give him something like 15s. or 16s. a week, for half a gallon a day must always be calculated for empty mileage. The House must not forget that journeymen drivers are not like other trades or artisans who can put up the price of their labour. They are only allowed to charge 8d. a mile fare and they cannot ask for a higher percentage, say, 25 per cent., from the owner, because that was settled by a board of arbitration which was appointed by the Board of Trade in July, 1913.
  But if it is starvation for the journeyman driver it is absolute ruin to the owner driver, a class which deserve our special sympathy, for they are all men who by their temperate habits and by their thrift were able to invest in their cabs on the hire system, which costs them about £3 a week, and if these men only get two gallons a day not only will they not be able to earn a living at all, but they will be obliged to sacrifice all their savings for which they have worked all their lives. It must not be forgotten that these owner drivers are mostly old men, and therefore it is all the greater hardship on them to lose their little belongings. With this

  139
  two gallons a day, which has been allotted by the Petrol Committee, a very large number of taxis will not be able to go on the road at all, and the men will only be able to work three days a week. The consequence, of course, will be a great deal of inconvenience to the public, but I suppose that in these times we must not mention anything about inconvenience. Everybody is inconvenienced. But what ought to be taken into consideration is that about 50 per cent.—indeed, I am credibly informed that about 75 per cent.—of the fares nowadays are men in khaki. The taxis are used for Army and Navy men who go from one station to another with their luggage. If they cannot get the taxis of course this will be prevented.
  The drivers are convinced that if proper restrictions were made to other classes something might be done to meet the situation. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, they might of course cause greater inconvenience to the owners of industrial cars. They might even impose greater pecuniary loss. But that would not have the effect which this restriction has on the taxi-cab driver. It would not mean starvation and ruin. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech gave us several instances in which restrictions might take place, partly in commercial and other businesses, which are not so important as taxi-drivers. Therefore the drivers are not far wrong in their supposition. They certainly do not owe the debt of gratitude to the Petrol Committee which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The drivers are willing and anxious to help the Government, and they suggest that since Scotland Yard possesses a list of all the drivers who have licences, the Petrol Committee should work conjointly with the police authorities. Every driver is obliged by police regulations to return his licence at once if he does not drive a cab for any reason whatever. If the police authorities were acting in conjunction with the Petrol Committee every attempt at fraud would be avoided. But the right hon. Gentleman told us that he had scoured the whole world for petrol. I know a case, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it too, in which petrol could be got. The Crown Oil Company, Ontario, a month ago offered to supply 4,000,000 gallons per month to the Admiralty and to the War Office.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Have they got the tankers?
  Mr. STRAUSS: Yes.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Will the hon. Member tell me whether they are supposed to be afloat and ready?
  Mr. STRAUSS: All I know is they say that they have got the petrol for immediate use. I have seen a letter—
  Mr. HARCOURT: As the hon. Member has made a statement may I say that I have gone into this case most carefully with the gentleman who has written the letter. The information he has given me is that his tankers are still on stocks. They are not completed and not likely to be completed until the end of September, and would not arrive until October. He has not been able to give me the names of the ships even, or to convince me that he has any hold over them at all.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I am very pleased to have that information from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he has now made arrangements to get this 4,000,000 gallons a month.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I must have the tankers for it.
  Mr. STRAUSS: The right hon. Gentleman has seen the correspondence and has made the matter clear, but I hope that in any case he will see whether something can be done for the taxi-cab drivers. The Control Board is not using the best methods of distribution, and I think that some more practical and sympathetic system in the distribution of petrol than we have at present should be adopted, so that taxi-drivers may get their three gallons a day instead of the two gallons a day, and with that quantity could meet their requirements for the present.
  Mr. WILES: The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very fair statement of the exact position as to petrol as it stands in this country, and I am sure we are all very glad to have that fair statement, because there was a feeling that there was something very mysterious about the management of the petrol, and also the feeling—though I am very glad that this, also, has been cleared up—that members of both the Army and the Navy were joy-riding occasionally on petrol which might be used for other purposes. I am very glad, further, that the right hon. Gentleman has told us, among many other things, that the

  141
  number of cars which were counted going to Maidenhead and Brighton amounted to 600.
  Mr. HARCOURT: These were wet Sundays.
  Mr. WILES: The right hon. Gentleman told us how he has allotted the petrol. I think he said the commercial cars have 60 per cent., which seems a very reasonable amount, and I do not think there can be any complaint about that. He told us what the manufacturers are getting, and it seems to be rather a small amount. Then there is the case of the doctors and surgeons. I cannot help thinking that he might have taken a little off the doctors and surgeons, who, we may suppose, are just as likely to exaggerate their requirements as are others, and I would point out, too, that they too have great opportunities for having pleasure rides. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] That is my view. I want, where we can, to squeeze a little off the quantity allotted here and there, though it is rather difficult, perhaps. Still the right hon. Gentleman may have something up his sleeve—something about the steamers or tankers that are being built. We hope also that his advice to the Army will do good, and that these tales about cars being emptied in the field before being put into the garage, and stories of that kind, will not be heard more of. The other day I heard of cars being emptied in that way, and that sort of thing ought certainly to be stopped. I desire to support the observations of the hon. Member opposite who brought forward the case of taxi-cab drivers. I believe those drivers have been reduced by various advisory committees and by various tribunals to the minimum, or to what is considered the lowest amount that can be arranged for that business in London and other large towns. The men who are concerned are mostly over military age, and, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, a considerable number of them own their own cars. They have not bought them, however, in the ordinary way. Some have one car and some two, and they have got to pay for them on the weekly or monthly hire system, and if they do not keep up their payments they may find that the whole amount which they have paid is likely to go in the same way as under the furniture hire-purchase system.
  These men have been careful and have saved money to buy their own cars, and I
  142
  am trying to see if we cannot get a little more petrol for them, in order that they may carry on their business properly. The hon. Member for Paddington stated quite correctly that 3 gallons a day is the minimum on which a man can make his taxi-cab pay. Two gallons a day is not enough for him, because on that quantity he cannot quite make his taxi-cab pay, with the expenses and hire-purchase money he has to pay. I am convinced that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to put these taxi-cab drivers out of work, leaving their cabs to be returned to the garage. I do think that, in his ingenious way, the right hon. Gentleman might conceive some plan of saving here and there in order to give the taxi-cab drivers another gallon a day, so that he would be able to make his cab pay. If the taxi-cab driver gets the extra gallon we shall be perfectly satisfied. I have made some suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman where he can reduce the amount of petrol allowed, and I think that in the case of those 600 who ride to Maidenhead and Brighton the supply could be reduced very largely. I cannot make out how the petrol has been allotted. I know that the Department has had a tremendous lot of work to do, and that they have had to deal with some 304,000 cases. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman has taken everybody's quantity used and divided it by two.
  Mr. HARCOURT: By four.
  Mr. WILES: I am speaking only of taxi drivers' cases, which have been divided by two, and not in many cases by four. I think my right hon. Friend might find some way which would enable him to get the extra gallon, which would put on their legs again those taxi-cab drivers who have managed to purchase their own cars, by saving and striving, in order to become owner drivers.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: We have had a very interesting statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the allocating of available petrol, but I would rather direct the attention of the House to the reasons why we are in this difficulty, and to that want of prevision and co-operation in the Government Departments, which have brought us into this position, so that we may see, after what has happened, whether we cannot devise a better way in future, and avoid great inconvenience and loss to the country. If we take the

  143
  Department of the Admiralty, we find that not very long before the War oil fuel was being used. It was found to be a very great success; and when new ships were designed—and I understand even some ships were subsequently altered—they were designed to burn oil fuel instead of coal. It might then have occurred to the Admiralty that they ought to take care to build oil tank steamers in order to have a supply in time of war. That does not seem to have been done. After the War began, when we placed orders for fourteen war ships, I understand that the great bulk of them were oil burners, and still even at that time no great attention appears to have been paid to providing on account of the nation tank steamers to bring fuel for those war ships. Reliance seems to have been placed on the tank steamers which belong to private owners. That was a very dangerous reliance, because practically all of the tank steamers of private owners were used in bringing to this and other countries the necessary oil for illuminating purposes, fuel purposes, petrol, and so forth. Consequently this tonnage could only be taken by the Navy at the risk of causing very serious interruption to commerce and injury to the community.
  My first point therefore is that the Admiralty do not appear to have exercised reasonable prevision in providing tank tonnage. It is quite true that since the matter became so urgent the Admiralty have taken a different course, and have, if I am correctly informed, laid down now quite a considerable number of tank steamers for their own needs, and have also converted a number of cargo steamers for the same purpose. Unfortunately, tank steamers taken by the Admiralty were taken at first to an unnecessary extent. There was a considerable number of tank steamers which might have been filling up reservoirs and reserves, and which were used in a wasteful manner. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City referred to one instance, and there have been others. There was, for example, the excessive use of tank steamers as storage. It has been suggested to the Admiralty that they might make more use of storage ashore. Unfortunately private owners were unable to supplement the supply of tonnage by placing further orders. It is well known that in the shipyards work was suspended except for Admiralty account. Conse-
  144
  quently, while the Admiralty took a number of the ships and the submarines caused certain losses, there was no increase of supply from the builders. That has been altered now, but that was the state of things for a considerable time after the outbreak of war. Apparently, as far as I can judge, there has been no co-operation, until recently, at any rate, between the different Departments of the Government as to the general needs of oil and petrol of the country. Each Department of the Government appears to have been working in a watertight compartment. Take the Army. Apparently as long as there was petrol for the Army the needs of commerce and of the other Departments were hardly considered by the War Office. The Army was for them the main tiling, and as long as it got all the petrol it required the War Office really did not concern itself with what was required at the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, or any other Departments concerned.
  I know, for example, that at the War Office, as long ago as last April, suggestions were made that they should endeavour to save tank tonnage and also economise by bringing petrol that they needed in France direct from America to France, instead of bringing it to England as they have been doing up to now. What happens? A tank steamer is filled with petrol and brought across the Atlantic to England. The petrol is pumped ashore into tanks, and afterwards from these tanks put into tins, which are put into cases. There is a lot of labour employed in making the tins and cases, and in shipping the cases aboard the steamer, and possibly bringing them by rail before they reach the steamer. They are then taken across to France and to the front. After the petrol has been used the cases and tins have to be returned to England, so far as they are not destroyed, and there is, of course, a certain percentage of wastage, but a considerable proportion are sent back again, and take up room in train and steamer, and again cause labour in this country discharging them. It surely seems evident, in this time of War, that we ought to try to economise labour, especially when we can do so with economy in cost. If this petrol were shipped from America in cases direct to France, as has been suggested, you could ship it in a cargo steamer, and not require a tank steamer. What is the answer to that suggestion? The right hon.

  145
  Gentleman tells us that it would be a dangerous proceeding, because of the vapours from the petrol which would cause risk of explosion. Some steamers are fitted with ventilating pipes to take away the vapour. There is no inherent difficulty in doing this, and, as a matter of fact, petrol is shipped to-day in the way I have described to other countries in Europe.
  Supposing it were the case that there is an extra risk; is not this one of the occasions on which we ought to take a risk of the sort while, of course, at the same time taking every possible precaution. We would thus save the valuable space in the tank steamers and money by doing so. The cases and tins we make cost 12s. 4d., and in America 2s. 6d. It is true that the latter are different cases, and thin tins. The tins are not the same as our 2-gallon tins, they are 4-gallon tins in America, with two to the case, and ours are 2-gallon tins with four to the case. The tins from America could be used for carrying water, or other things, and the wood of the cases for the trenches, as they are not good enough to be brought back. You would save very considerably in transport, and I am informed by those who know that this suggested course would save 28s. per ton on the petrol sent to the Army in France, while at the same time saving the tank steamers for use in the commercial interests of this country. At the time the suggestion was made it was immediately practicable, but now it is extremely doubtful whether it could be carried out promptly owing to the great demand for tins in America, but certainly they could be got in the course of a month to six weeks if the Board of Trade, or rather the War Office, would give their serious consideration to the matter and hot put it by as they did when it was suggested four months ago. That is one direction in which some alleviation might be found. The Board of Trade have had very little influence on naval or military waste, and it is very likely the Board of Trade had itself no estimate of the quantity of petrol used in this country for commercial purposes as opposed to private use. I suppose until the census was taken the Board of Trade had no clear perception of the needs of commerce in this country as regards petrol. However, now they have got an idea of the great quantity necessary. What do the figures reveal? They reveal that the com-
  146
  mercial use is far greater than any use of petrol for joy riding or anything of that sort. Taking 315 gallons of petrol to the ton, I have converted the figures into tons. In 1915 the total imports of petrol into this country were, in round figures, 500,000 tons, a little less than half coming from America and a little more than half coming from the Far East. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the figures of the private consumption. The private consumers ask for 100,000 tons. But let us remember that there are many people who have applied as private consumers who are really using petrol for business purposes. Many men living in the country use their cars for going to and from their business. Contractors and men who are surveying building and other operations go round to look after the work m their cars. There is no doubt that these people apply as private consumers. Therefore from the 100,000 tons for private consumers it would be fair to take at least 30 per cent. as being really for necessary commercial purposes.
  What is the commercial use? Rather more than double that of the private consumer—that is, rather more than 200,000 tons. There you have 300,000 tons between private consumption and commercial purposes. The difference between that and the total imports of 500,000 tons last year went for Government purposes. I understand that the Government requirements are now greater. Here is the point I want to make. If the Government could by any means provide people who have petrol to bring with one large steamer of 15,000 tons, or two steamers of 7,500 tons, or, if I am in danger of putting the figure too low, say three steamers—these steamers would bring over 100,000 tons a year—the whole difficulty would be met. I do not say that there would be plenty, but there would be ease in every direction. Trade and commerce would not be injured as they will be by the present shortage of supply. How can you get these steamers? Some of us, rightly or wrongly, have an idea that if the Admiralty would really set their minds to this matter and avoid using steamers for storage purposes to the extent that they do—Dover is one place, Halifax another, and there are other places I need not mention where they have steamers lying up as stores—they could squeeze two or three out of the very large number of steamers that they have—it would not be right for me to give the

  147
  number of the tank steamers they have, but it runs well over a hundred—and that would relieve the whole situation.
  9.0 P.M.
  The alternative to that is to acquire other steamers for the purpose. I know that the acting President of the Board of Trade said, quite truly, that he has looked round for steamers and found it almost impossible to get them in suitable position. There are a large number building—far too many in my opinion for the needs of the world. There were recently forty-nine tank steamers building in this country, and fifty-two or fifty-four in the United States. That is apart from the steamers launched since the War began, and apart from the steamers ordered but not yet laid down. Consequently, you have beween 100 and 150 tank steamers ordered or building. That is an enormous number. Taking an average capacity of 7,000 tons, and five voyages a year, these tank steamers will carry 4,500,000 tons of oil. Consequently, we may look forward to a surplus of tank tonnage as soon as the War is over. Some of these steamers are now built, and so far as those building in this country are concerned no doubt the Admiralty will requisition every one of them as soon as they are ready. But the steamers that are being built in the United States and in Norway are available in addition if the Government see their way to acquire some of them. No doubt the price is exceedingly high. At present it is exorbitant, because if they are neutral steamers not liable to requisition they can get such enormous freights that a neutral owner will not sell unless he gets a very long price. There is a steamer now ready—a boat of about 6,000 tons. The price at which that steamer was offered to some friends of mine four or five months ago was a little less than half the price at which it is offered to-day. If the Government had foreseen four or five months ago what was going to happen, they could have got that steamer for half what it would cost them to-day. There is another steamer available in the United States in the month of October. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows of this one. She is available for charter for ten years at 12s. 6d. a ton. The present rate is over 50s. a ton, but this boat would take 12s. 6d. for ten years. That is, of course, a long time. The Government rate in the Blue Book is 9s. 6d., so that the House
  148
  can estimate what the loss would be. But that loss is not stupendous compared with the loss suffered by the country through the want of petrol.
  Prices are very high at the present time. Supposing the Government were to buy two steamers for the sole purpose of easing the petrol situation, and supposing they were to lose £500,000 over the deal. That is to say, suppose they lost that on the depreciated value which will exist after the War. They will require the steamers all the same. Therefore they probably will not resell them, and realise their loss. Still, there is a loss on paper. Supposing the loss is £500,000. That is a far less loss than the country is suffering by the present policy. The loss must be running into millions. We have heard a great deal about taxi's and the loss to taxi-drivers. That is a mere trifle compared with the loss the country is suffering. One would think that the taxi's were the important point; but taxi's are not really the point. Take the case of farmers. I have a farmer in my Constituency who lives about eleven miles from the market and six miles from the station. When war broke out his horses were taken by the Government. He had to get to market and to the station, so he bought a cheap car. He now finds that the allowance of petrol is such that he cannot run his car. Consequently, he is suffering not only serious inconvenience, but great loss in his business. I have a letter also from a grocer in my Constituency, who says that he has not a horse now, but has a car in which to deliver his goods. In consequence of the shortage of petrol he cannot deliver his goods in the country districts, and the people are suffering great loss and inconvenience through not being able to get their supplies. He writes that he cannot get a horse without great difficulty, and that if he could get one he could not get hay for it, because the Government have bought all the hay. Consequently there is very great and undoubted inconvenience and loss. I have here a letter from a gentleman who, from patriotic and public spirited motives, helped to start a co-operative dairy system in Dorsetshire. He writes:
  "We now deal with upwards of 6,000 gallons of milk per day. We have, at considerable cost, bought two 3-ton motor lorries this spring, and now take up milk from the farmers over a radius of ten or twelve miles, because their horses and men have gone for Army purposes. The Petrol Control Committee have given us an allowance of sixty gallons per month, or two

  149
  gallons a day for two three-ton motor lorries. We applied to them for 600 gallons a month, which we use. If their decision is held to we must shut down, as it is, of course, impossible for us to go on."
  The writer goes on to say:
  "You will see what a disaster this will be to the farmers in this district. How we are to carry out our contracts in London I cannot imagine. Milk must go to London for the hospitals and other consumers, and to expect us to work on two gallons a day and to carry 6,000 gallons of milk is impossible."
  I only want to point out to the House that these are much more important matters than the question of whether or not we get taxi's. After all, a taxi-driver is not going to be very much hit, because there are thousands of jobs waiting for him. The taxi-driver can get a job; and it ought not to be too difficult for us to get about. Here in London there are undergrounds, and there are other means of conveyance, but those people in the country are seriously injured. Their business cannot be run without something to move the goods which have to be moved. I have perhaps said enough to show that the Government have shown no foresight in regard to this matter. There does not seem until lately to have been any cooperation between the Board of Trade, the Admiralty and the War Office. Within the last three months they seem to have appreciated what was coming. But they did not buy steamers when they might have done so, and it is only within the last two or three months that they have wakened up to what was already obvious to everybody, that there was going to be a great scarcity of this very necessary article. As an example of official ineptitude I think it would be very hard to beat the example of the treatment of the petrol question by our Government.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The right hon. Gentleman in his interesting speech gave us a great deal of information, and, I think, cleared up a good many misconceptions. The substance of his speech I take to be this: That the supply of the available petrol for commercial, industrial, and private motor cars is about half the amount which is demanded. In some points we are all, I think, in agreement. I think none of us can complain if the Army and Navy have the first claim on the country for petrol. None of us can complain, though we suffer, whether in our business or necessities, and though there be serious discomfort and loss—even serious loss. The first thing is that the Navy and the Army must not suffer. There is another thing which I think the right hon. Gentleman did well to mention—that is, that at
  150
  a time like the present waste of petrol is a little short of criminal. I was glad to hear from him that steps are being taken in the case of the Army to avoid unnecessary waste of any sort or kind. We have seen officers of the Army going long distances by motor cars when trains were available; we have heard of messages being sent by motor cars when much less expensive modes of communication were possible. I am glad to think that the Army has taken the matter into consideration, and is going, at any rate, to reduce that form of waste. There is another matter upon which the right hon. Gentleman touched. I hope he will give it a little further consideration than he has yet been able to give it, and that is the matter of pleasure or joy-rides. I suppose a great many people in the country like pleasure rides and think that joy-rides are a necessity of life. Whatever they may be in normal times, joy-rides cannot be held to be necessities of life during war time and during this stupendous crisis with which we are confronted. I hope those concerned will take their courage in both hands and stop joy-rides, at any rate on Sundays, for every class of the community. If there is equality all round I do not think anyone need complain. So much for the points of agreement. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the Petrol Committee had allotted their available supplies in the most equitable way possible I confess I could not quite go with him. Let me take the case of the private motor car. How is the petrol allotted to the private motor-car owner? By some rule-of-thumb, according to the amount which he demands, and by no other consideration. I gather that the mode adopted is this: You see what the man asks for and then give him a certain proportion of what he asks, that proportion diminishing according as the amount that he asks increases, and you leave entirely out of account the two most vital points, namely, whether the man has asked for more than he is entitled to, or needs, and, secondly, the purposes for which he is going to use it. See what abuses arise from that system! That there are some dishonest men who made fraudulent returns I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny. There is the mere fact that the demand is more than last year. I think he gave the figures. Last year it was 111,000,000 gallons. The amount demanded this year, when the returns were sent in, was

  151
  150,000,000 gallons. That conveys to my mind that, at any rate, there was a great deal of dishonesty in these returns.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I explained that the great increase was in regard to commercial motors.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I must not forget that. But I doubt that the 40 per cent, increase can be explained away by the increased commercial traffic. I doubt it very much. We must remember we are comparing war time with war time. We are not comparing pre-war time with war time. No doubt since war time the amount of petrol used in lieu of horses used for commercial purposes has been very much increased, but allowing everything you like for the increase in commercial requirements, I think that part of that 40,000,000 gallons increase must be due to dishonest requirements. There has been no investigation whatsoever into the honesty of the returns. I should have thought that if a man had a private motor car and demanded 100 gallons per month, or something of that sort, primâ facie there was a strong case that he was making a fraudulent return. So far as I know there has been no inquiry into such a case. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if it could be done some of these cases of exorbitant demand should be inquired into, and if it is found that the return is a fraudulent return the man who has made it should be cut off from every drop of petrol in future. It may possibly give a lesson to all concerned that honesty is sometimes the right policy. So much for the amount demanded as to which no inquiry is made.
  Secondly, let me come for one moment, very shortly, to the purposes for which the petrol is demanded. I think I am right in saying—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that in allotting the proportion to the total amount demanded the Petrol Committee have taken no account whatever of the purposes for which it was demanded, so far as private cars are concerned. They did not consider, for instance, whether a man was going to use it for purely pleasure purposes joy-rides, or whether he was going to use it for purely business purposes, to go to the station, whether he needed it for coming down to this House, or for purposes which I will call purposes of necessity. Let me give one or two illustrations
  152
  of what I mean. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say a word or two about the doctors, because in my own locality a doctor with a very large area over which he practises asked for fifty gallons per month, which was the least he could do with to see his patients. He was allotted twelve. That, I think, must have been a mistake.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, and it will be corrected.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Let me take another illustration which will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman from personal and what I may call ancestral reasons. Take the case of the Archbishop of York. I think the great-grandfather of the right hon. Gentleman—there being no motors in those days, fortunately—used to drive into York, a distance of 3 miles, in a coach and four with two outriders. I wonder what he would have done if there had been motor cars. The present Archbishop of York does not drive in a coach and four, but he drives in a motor, and, as everyone knows, he has an enormous area to cover in his diocese, and as on about four or five days every week he is visiting some remote parish, district, or town in his diocese, the amount of petrol he uses is considerable. He made an application for an amount considerably less than his normal requirements. He applied for 60 gallons a month. It was really less than would enable him to discharge the duties of his diocese in the way he has done in the past. Apparently no regard is paid by the Petrol Committee to the archbishop's duties, and the fact that every gallon he demanded would be spent in the discharge of his duties. They allotted him twelve gallons a month—about enough to enable him to go to the station and neglect the rest of his duties.
  Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question, which affects not only myself, personally, but a very large number of farmers and others in the country? What is the rule with regard to petrol used for pumping by petrol engines in agricultural work? Is the user of such an engine given the amount which he has been in the habit of using, or is he given some less proportion? In my own ease, I require a small amount of petrol for the purpose of pumping water. I do not suppose I could live in the house without pumping water. I asked for a very small amount, and I was

  153
  rewarded by getting a half. Then, with regard to the farmer, is he to get the full amount, or not? Perhaps my right hon. Friend, or someone else on the Treasury Bench, will be able to tell us later on. I see the Under-Secretary there, and he might be able to tell us, because where it is a matter of absolute necessity for carrying on the business of a farmer, or to enable you to live in your house, there ought to be some more consideration than where it is only a matter of ordinary comfort. I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that some relief is coming in future, owing to the advent of some of these tankers, and I hope the state of things to which he has looked forward will come about, and that "At no distant date"—to quote his own words—"I hope there will be further consideration for classes and more consideration for individual cases," though I am bound to say he added some sinister qualification—"when time and petrol permit." I hope the Petrol Committee will find more time to discharge their duties so as to make a more equitable distribution, and I hope we shall be able to get tankers and a better supply of petrol, and so meet the commercial needs of the country.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I can, of course, only reply to one or two questions with the permission of the House. I find myself torn between the sorrows of archbishops and taxi-drivers, and the hon. and learned Member who spoke last suggested that it was either my duty or that of the Petrol Committee to assess when a sermon is a duty or a joy. He asked me whether pumping and agricultural machinery was to receive its full amount. Nobody receives its full amount—that is impossible. Agricultural machinery is treated like commercial cars for commercial requirements, and receives 60 per cent., which is the most anyone receives except a doctor. The hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) spoke of two gallons a month having been given for agricultural lorries. That, of course, is an accidental error which will be put right at once, and they will get 60 per cent. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Strauss), who spoke about taxi-drivers, believed that taxi-drivers could not possibly make a living with only two gallons a day. Well, within the last two days I have spoken quite accidentally to taxi-drivers who have driven me to various points, and asked them
  154
  whether they could make a living on two gallons a day, and they have said, "Yes, as we shall have two gallons of paraffin mixed with it; on that we shall do very well."
  There was another point raised by two hon. Centlemen as to the special hardship on taxi-drivers who are in process of purchasing their cabs on the hire instalment system. In ordinary times, if a taxi-driver, having paid a certain number of these instalments, ceases further instalments the company which has made the bargain with him is able to confiscate the cab and any instalments paid up to that date. Happily, during the War, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act comes in, and they are unable to do that without taking the matter into Court., I am quite certain that where a driver has been very strictly limited in the amount of petrol received and is able to show the Court that he is not able to continue paying the whole of the instalment, the Court will treat him with justice and equity. But there was one class of drivers I was anxious about, and those were the drivers who have begun their instalments on the hire purchase system since the declaration of war, because they are not brought under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. They are not numerous, but quite sufficiently numerous to deserve consideration. I therefore collected together all the managers of the companies which sold cars on the instalment system, and I have from them a personal promise that those men who do not come under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, because they commenced their instalments since the beginning of the War, will be treated exactly like the other men, and get the same consideration.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman reason to believe this promise will be carried out?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, I have not the least doubt.
  Sir J. SPEAR: The right hon. Gentleman dealt so fully with the matter that there is very little for me to say, except that I thoroughly endorse the appeal that has been made that, as soon as possible, more petrol should be supplied both for trade and for agricultural machinery. I have been requested by doctors and veterinary surgeons in my neighbourhood to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for

  155
  a more liberal allowance, as it is absolutely impossible for them to carry on their profession with the amount of petrol that has been allocated, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee recognise that if the doctor has not the means of getting about amongst his patients, it means increase of pain and even loss of life to human beings, and that if the veterinary surgeon is prevented by lack of petrol from getting over the district to treat sick cattle, then, also, there is a pain and very serious financial loss. The right hon. Gentleman showed that he appreciated this, and in his speech stated that he had gone a considerable direction towards1 meeting the demands of those two professional classes. But, notwithstanding that, I would like to quote a letter which I received yesterday from a veterinary surgeon in practice in Cornwall. He states that he applied for 480 gallons of petrol, and received only a grant of 300 gallons, whereas from the 31st December up to that date he had used 518 gallons. He contends that it is impossible for him to get over his district unless the allowance is increased. He is the Board of Agriculture inspector under the Contagious Diseases Act for nearly half the county of Cornwall; he is a county council inspector for a large district; he acts also for the War Office Remount Department, and holds other public offices. To aggravate the difficulty he is so situated that four of the adjoining veterinary surgeons have joined the Army, and his assistant has also joined, and he finds it impossible to carry out these important duties unless the Petrol Committee can make a more liberal grant than 300 gallons. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he appreciates the importance of these professions being supplied, and that he will endeavour to still further meet their requirements both as regards professions, trade, and agricultural machinery. I hope he will use all the available petrol for these purposes and not for the promotion of the joy rides of which we heard when he spoke of no less than 600 motor cars being seen on one Sunday on the roads to our coast towns. We all feel that in these matters we have to make a sacrifice because of the conditions of the War. Surely we ought to use the petrol we have in perfecting human life and animal life, and also in business rather
  156
  than in unnecessary pleasure, which is quite unjustifiable on the present occasion. We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has done the best he can under the circumstances. I hope he will persevere with the suggestions he has made and get more petrol at the earliest possible moment for the professions I have mentioned, for trade and agricultural machinery, for they ought to be dealt with, as liberally as possible.
  Mr. MORTON: I hope that the result of this Debate to-night will be that the right hon. Gentleman and the Petrol Committee will consent to reconsider some of the cases brought before them, especially now that we are told that there is not a short supply in the world, and it is only a question of getting it here. I want to say a few words in regard to the public health department of the City of London and the use of petrol. The City Corporation have found it necessary, especially during the last two years, owing to the short supply of men, to buy machines for cleansing purposes which use a good deal of petrol, in order to keep the City in the clean state in which it has always been kept. They use 2,500 gallons of petrol a month, and they applied for that amount. They only asked for what would be used. The Petrol Committee said they could have 1,500 gallons a month. Now it is very necessary that we should keep the City in a clean state for sanitary reasons, and for the sake of public health. I congratulate the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) upon the fact that he represents a district which is the best kept in the whole world, and we want to keep up that reputation in the City.
  As a matter of fact, about 1,000,000 people come to the City every weekday. Of course, on Sundays they do not come so much. About 400,000 of these people work in offices. I know we have been told that there is no population in the City, but the population is 1,000,000 in and out during every weekday. We cannot keep those people in a healthy state unless we can have the City properly swept and cleansed, and it has been found necessary that wood-paving and asphalte-paving should be washed down every night, and we can only do this by having petrol machines to take round our tanks. I trust that somebody will tell the First Commissioner of Works what has happened, and that he will, in the interests of public health in the City of London,

  157
  which is the best cleansed city in the world, consider the question of our demand, and at least compromise matters with them. I hope the right hon. Baronet who represents the City of London will assist me in getting more petrol so that the City can be kept in a clean state. After what the First Commissioner of Works has said, I do not see any difficulty about it. It is only necessary to get more ships which will probably not be very difficult, and then we shall have petrol enough to keep the ordinary business and the health of the nation at the highest possible point.
  Mr. LOUGH: The First Commissioner of Works, before he left the House, I understood, stated that he would reply to the whole Debate later on. Our difficulty is that he does not hear exactly the complaints which are made. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will make some reply to the specific questions which have been raised.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The right hon. Gentleman who has been acting for the President of the Board of Trade has answered a number of questions by leave of the House, but we cannot allow those points to be gone into over again.
  Mr. LOUGH: I was referring to points which have not been answered in the Debate. I only want to say that we think these restrictions have been very severe, and we are not satisfied with the answer which we have got on the present occasion. There is no harm in pressing for some further reply. We only got a speech which was prepared before the Debate occurred. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) who generally makes a very specific case and is often too easily satisfied—
  Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. LOUGH: He is always satisfied when he gets what he wants—is quite satisfied with the answer that he has got. Everybody else is more or less dissatisfied. A matter of very great importance has been raised. No proof has been given, and in the nature of things no proof could be given, that any necessity exists for the drastic restrictions that have been imposed. That point ought to be met, and I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman) if a Committee of this House could not be appointed to consider the question of the petrol restric-
  158
  tions. This is a matter of the very greatest, importance and the House ought not to part with the control of it. Another of these private Committees has been appointed and the Government ask us to accept any drastic action that any private Committee of this kind chooses to propose. We ought not to part with the control of a matter of this kind. It touches the livelihood of hundreds of thousands—I might even say millions of people—and the convenience of the whole nation. Some means ought to be taken to prove that these very drastic restrictions are absolutely necessary.
  None of us complain of the fact that the requirements of the Army and Navy come first. We were told that they were very great, and they have got to be met, but we are not satisfied on the point. We have had one or two speeches by business men in the House who are familiar with the details of this matter. I spoke to another hon. Member, perhaps the best authority in this or any other country, on this question, and I said, "I suppose you are going to take part in the Debate?" He replied, "Oh, no! It is no use any-business man talking. My advice was offered earlier in the War, and it has never been taken." We have that feeling. The advice of business men, which might help to solve the difficulty, was not sufficiently taken in this matter before the restrictions were imposed. The case of some tankers, which it was alleged were available, was mentioned, and my right hon. Friend at once, with that artfulness which I constantly see displayed on that bench, said, "If you can give me any particulars I will inquire into these tankers." We were completely at his mercy. I would not be foolish enough to mention a business case if I knew one, because the Treasury would fly at me again. Business matters cannot be dealt with in open debate in this House, but they could be elucidated before a Committee of this House, and there ought to be a better qualified and more impartial tribunal than this Committee if the House is to accept these restrictions.
  The whole nation now is absolutely dependent upon motor traction, and yet we hear that a perfectly automatic rule has been applied. We hear that one-fourth of the quantity required by the private car owner is given to him. My right hon. Friend who opened the Debate appears to have fared pretty well. He got 40 per cent, of the quantity for which he asked. It does not appear to have been much use

  159
  to him, but he only asked for what he wanted, a very small number of gallons, and he only got 40 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman stated that, on the average, the private car owner got 25 per cent, of the quantity he asked for, and he went on to say that, speaking generally, the applications appeared to be perfectly honest. If they were perfectly honest there should have been a better response than to give them only a fourth of the quantity they asked for. This matter applies so widely now, and so many important interests will be injured, that some Committee ought to be appointed or some step taken by the Government to assure us that it is absolutely necessary to impose such severe restrictions. There was only one fact given by my right hon. Friend. He said that 600 cars were counted on the road between Maidenhead and Brighton in one day. That would be twenty-five cars an hour, or one car every two minutes. I do not think there is anything in that. When he began to think that he had not made an imposing case, he said, "Oh, it was a wet day. There would have been a great many more if it had been a fine day." I believe the people of the country are "behaving in a very patriotic way and that motor cars are being used as moderately as possible and greatly for the benefit of the wounded and those who are home from the War. I imagine that there are extremely rare cases now of people who are having joy-rides and washing petrol after the strong appeals made lay the Government.
  I have not a word to say on behalf of anybody who wastes petrol anywhere or who makes any use of it that could be avoided, but we are touching something most vital to the life and health of the people. Take the case of the City of London mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton). There ought not to be a drastic rule, and they ought not to be told that they are only going to get 60 per cent. when the quantity they apply for is absolutely necessary. The Government ought to exhaust the business resources of the country in seeing whether the supply can be extended before such very drastic restrictions are imposed. I do not think the business men have been brought into it at all. I should like to ask whether the Admiralty consult the War Office about the supply they require. Is there any authority over both of them who can unify
  160
  the whole of the supply of the two Departments? I understand that there is not. I understand that there is not even any consultation between the Transport Department of the Navy and the Admiral Commander-in-Chief. He is simply told, "I want so many tankers," and he must get them. I do not like to quote the example of Germany, because we have got just as good ideas and we can work things out quite as well as any German, but we hear that the buying of all such things in Germany was put into the hands of one man who was over the Army, the Navy, and every other Department, who could unify the demand, and who could decide the best steps to be taken to exhaust the business abilities of the nation before treating the matter in a drastic manner.
  At an early stage in the War the building of tankers was stopped. It was then discovered that this was a great mistake, and tankers are now being hurried on. We asked when they would be ready, and my right hon. Friend could not tell us. I believe that some of them are now ready. That question ought to be answered, and, if it cannot be answered, then a Committee ought to be set up. The agriculturist, the business man, as well as the alleged private car owner, and all the industrial resources of the country will be tremendously hampered and great restriction will be put upon them if some intelligent action is not taken by this House. I would like to say a word with regard to the private car. Most private cars are business cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Yes, I venture to say they are mostly business cars, and that they are mostly being used in a business way at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I think so, the great majority of them. We have these large numbers quoted, and you invent a a word, which comes, I think, from some newspaper—"joy-ride"—and then you think everybody is joy-riding all the time. I do not believe any large or considerable section worth mentioning of the people of this country are joy-riding at the present time. On the contrary, they are all influenced by patriotic motives, trying to help the Government in every way they can, and I believe that instead of giving any real assistance to the great struggle in which the nation is now engaged we shall throw difficulties in the way of the Government if something is not done.

  161
  I do not think any complaint can be made that we have had too long a Debate, because the Prime Minister said we should be into it within an hour of the beginning of the discussion, while it did not begin until twenty-five minutes to eight. On this first day of the restrictions, I assure everyone in the House, there will be great interest taken outside in what is done in this matter, and it will not be long before there is evidence of public dissatisfaction. I would make two suggestions. Firstly, may I ask the Government to consider whether a Committee of this House cannot be appointed to which the actions of the Petrol Committee could be referred, and which Would have an opportunity of examining them and suggesting means of increasing the supply, and at least of giving this House an assurance that the heavy restrictions are absolutely necessary? Secondly, I do think it must be admitted, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy us on this point to-night, that the Committee have been acting in too automatic a manner. It has cut down everything, and there ought to be a sort of little Court of the Committee which would listen to hard cases, and which would go into the truth and necessity of these difficulties, and would say where an absolute restriction should not be required. I should be very glad if some reassurance could be given to the House on these matters and some reply made generally to the questions that have been raised.
  Mr. DILLON: I venture to raise another subject, and before doing so I desire to say that I think my intervention at Question Time to-day has been more than justified by what has taken place. I was told by the Prime Minister that the Debate on the Gallipoli Bill was going to last about an hour, and that, therefore, we should have the whole night for the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. As a matter of fact, the Gallipoli Bill lasted about three hours and a half, and took half of the night, and I am therefore glad that the Prime Minister practically pledged himself that the settled practice of the House would not again be departed from, and that the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill should always be put down as first Order.
  The point to which I want to call attention is an exceedingly important one, and ought, in my opinion, to have been
  162
  raised in the House a long time ago. It is the operation of the military censorship over the newspaper Press in Ireland. It is really an abominable scandal. The military authorities in Ireland have taken up a position which, I venture to say, is wholly unknown in this country. Although the censorship in this country has been fairly strict, in Ireland it is not only much more strict, but it is wholly different to the censorship exercised in this country. As I understand the censorship it is confined in this country, or should be confined, to the censorship of the publication of news which may be detrimental to the interests of the Empire, or the Army, or the War, or of the publication of articles or expressions of opinion of a treasonable character. Here I have in my hand a document, as one sample, of what is now m force in Ireland, which was served on the office of the "Freeman's Journal" on the 14th May last by a soldier in uniform with his bayonet fixed. That is another departure. I understand the censorship in this country is always exercised with decent civility, and that at most a policeman calls at the office, or, rather, I think, the general custom is that some communication is made to the editor of the newspaper. But this document which I am about to submit to the House was delivered by a soldier with his bayonet fixed, as being a kind of intimation that at the next visit he would drive the bayonet into the editor:
  "Headquarter, Irish Command,
  Parkgate, Dublin.
  Sir,—I am directed by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief to inform you that his attention has been drawn to several articles which have appeared recently in your paper, the purpose of which appears to be to criticise and bring into contempt the administration of martial law in this country, and to foster sympathy with those who have taken up arms, or plotted to do so, against His Majesty's troops."
  These articles to which the communication refers are articles urging the stopping of the executions, and urging clemency to the rebels who have been taken in arms.
  "I am to inform you that the publication of such sentiments—"
  observe, this is a wholly new departure—
  "cannot be tolerated, and that the appearance of any further articles of this nature in any newspaper under your control will render you liable to immediate action being taken under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief is well aware that the suppression of the rising inevitably entails the regrettable arrest and detention of a certain number of persons who neither encouraged nor took part in the rebellion, or in preparation for the same."

  163
  That is one of the crimes the newspaper was charged with—drawing attention to the fact that a large number of innocent people had been arrested.
  "These cases are being investigated with all possible dispatch, and though some time must elapse before all such innocent persons can be liberated, Press comments dwelling upon and emphasising in flamboyant and incendiary language—"
  the military officer there proceeds to literary criticism. He criticism the language—
  "any such case of hardship and injustice can but have a prejudicial effect on the peace of the country which it is the object of the General Officer Commanding-in* Chief to restore as speedily as possible."
  Therefore, by his own admission, the comment of the newspaper on cases of hardship and injustice is calculated to interfere with the General Officer Commanding in maintaining the peace of the country. The exertions of the General Officer Commanding in maintaining the peace of the country have been unhappy, and I think it is one of the most monstrous things in the exercise of authority that I have ever known that a gentleman, a military officer, is to be at liberty to send a uniformed soldier with drawn bayonet to a newspaper office, and to inform the editor that if he dares to comment on admitted cases of hardship and injustice—that is his own language—the newspaper will be shut up and he will be subjected to severe penalties.
  That is one of the cases to which I draw attention, one specimen of the system that exists in Ireland, and that system is still in full force. But there is another point much later on. About four or five weeks ago a communication was received at the office of this same newspaper from a gentleman, a Noble Lord, Lord Decies, now the Military Censor in Ireland, forbidding the publication of a letter of a certain Catholic bishop. I have nothing to say about the letter. This bishop is a very great enemy of ours, and I must say a very scurrilous enemy of ours, and I do not make any comment on the letter of which the publication was forbidden. But will it be believed that the communication forbidding the publication of this letter was written on the official notepaper and headed by the stamp of the Kildare Street Club? Anybody who knows Ireland will understand the outrage, the cynical stupidity, of the Irish Censor who resorts to the Kildare Street Club, and from that sacred Ark of the Covenant of Toryism, of the most bitter and benighted Toryism in Ireland, proceeds to censor Nationalist
  164
  newspapers, and to forbid the publication of a letter from a Catholic priest. I do not know whether I could give any illustration to bring home to the minds of hon. Members of this House what would be an analogous proceeding in this country than to ask what would be said in this country if a gentleman sitting in the Carlton Club and using the notepaper of the Carlton Club addressed a communication to the "Daily News" or to the "Daily Chronicle" forbidding them to publish the letters of an English bishop, or, say, the Rev. Mr. Hughes or Dr. Clifford, or some great lights of English Nonconformity? That really would be the only case analogous to the proceeding of this military officer in Dublin. That is an intolerable state of things. I want a declaration from the representative of the War Office in the House to-night whether he means the new régime which was started in Ireland last night to continue this military censorship or whether he is prepared to give an undertaking that the censorship in Ireland shall be conducted on the same principles and with the same decency and restraint with which it has been exercised in this country. That is the first question I warn; to put.
  10.0 P.M.
  The next question I desire to raise is this: There is in force in Ireland at this moment a Proclamation issued by Sir John Maxwell, who, I may say, in spite of the repeated statement of the Prime Minister, is as far as I can ascertain the unchecked and unlimited ruler of Ireland at the present moment. I do not know how far that will be the case after last night, but up to that moment and up to this time Sir John Maxwell is the only man who has had any authority in Ireland. He issued a Proclamation a long time back forbidding any public meeting to be held in any part of Ireland without the assent of the police—the very worst system which prevails in Germany and Russia and certain Continental countries, and which has often been made the subject of eloquent speeches in this country contrasting the freedom of England with the system that prevailed in Continental countries. I believe that even before the War, in Berlin, it was not possible to hold a public meeting without obtaining the consent of the police. That certainly is the case in Russia. Even under the old Coercion Act no such rule obtained. In the days of the Coercion Act of 1887, which was the worst Coercion Act, we were not bound to ask leave of the police to hold meetings. But

  165
  under this Proclamation, which is law, you cannot hold a meeting, not even in a room—not a public or open-air meeting—without the permission of the police. I am informed that in many parts of Ireland, where the police are sensible, they ignore the Proclamation altogether and allow meetings to be held. But that is not the law. In those parts of the country—this is my information, and the representative of the War Office will correct me if I am wrong—where the police are cantankerous or disposed to be troublesome they do enforce the law and have insisted upon people coming to them and petitioning, after the manner of the Huns and the Prussians, for permission to hold a meeting even in a room. I am not foolish enough to say that while the insurrection was going on, or for some weeks after the insurrection was put down, that these extreme measures were not necessary—at all events so far as large open-air meetings were concerned. But that has all passed away, and I do say that it is in the highest degree in the interests of the restoration of peace and confidence in Ireland that as rapidly as can be done consistently with public safety all these oppressive Regulations ought to be swept away. It is absurd and most mischievous to put this restriction on public meetings indiscriminately. To my own knowledge, quite recently in some parts of the country, at all events, meetings, for instance, of our own national organisation—quite small meetings—and meetings of other associations which have always been in conflict with the Sinn Fein movement and have been working hard to maintain the constitutional movement against the revolutionary movement in Ireland, have been obliged to go cap in hand to the police and ask permission to hold their meetings. That is an intolerable state of things. It has a most provocative effect upon those men who, throughout all the recent disturbances, have remained loyal to the Irish party, to the Government, and to the War. That ought to be swept away. Of course, the Government, after what has happened, have instructed, I have no doubt, the police to prevent Sinn Fein meetings and meetings of the Revolutionary party. That I can understand, because, after what has happened, those meetings are undoubtedly illegal, and the Government is perfectly entitled to prevent them, and even to prosecute the men who take part in them. What I object to is,
  166
  that there should be no common sense shown and no distinction made between meetings which are not only lawful but are opposed to the revolutionary party. The whole thing seems to be classified as if the country were all combined, and as if we were to accept the definition of Lord Salisbury and Lord Midleton that Ireland South of the Boyne is all revolutionary and that we are all pro-Germans. That is a very stupid position to take up. If you treat people in that way you may produce very horrible results. It is not true. The vast majority of the Irish people at this present moment, in spite of all we have suffered—God knows we have suffered enough!—are with you, and it is not really fair or rational, and it certainly is not statesmanlike, to treat them in that way, to lump them all together and treat them all as if they were in sympathy heart and soul with the Sinn Fein movement and pro-Germans. I therefore now ask the representative of the War Office to give us to-night an assurance, first, that the Press censorship will be taken out of the hands of the military, or, at all events, put on a basis exactly the same in point of view of principle and also in the decency of its exercise with the system that prevails in this country; and, secondly, that the Proclamation forbidding meetings without leave of the police should be immediately withdrawn.
  Mr. F. E. MEEHAN: I wish to call attention to a matter of great importance which recently occurred in my Constituency. Very soon after the rebellion in Dublin a detachment of the Sherwood Foresters was sent to my Constituency for the purpose of arresting members of the Sinn Fein organisation. No one can accuse me of being in any way partial towards the Sinn Fein policy, as I can boast of being the only Member of this House who ever fought a Sinn Fein election, and, I am very pleased to say, won it by five to one. Ever since then I have been in favour of a constitutional policy and a great supporter of my Leader. I have asked several questions in reference to the occurrence of the night of 13th or 14th May at Manorhamilton. A detachment of the Sherwood Foresters, in charge of Captain Jackson arrived there on the Saturday evening and took forcible possession of the Temperance Hall, which belonged to the temperance organisation. Without asking anyone's permission, they went to the caretaker and ordered him to hand over his key, and said

  167
  that if he did not he would be placed under arrest. He handed over the key and they took possession of the hall. Before they left it they did damage to the amount of at least £15. I am not in the least surprised at it being the action of the Sherwood Foresters, considering that they had just come from the fight in Dublin and that a number of their comrades had fought and suffered and died there, and I sympathise with them. It was not the wish of the great majority of the Irish that they should be persecuted, and, after all, it is very unfair that they should try to take revenge on innocent people. They damaged a splended oil painting by putting several stabs of a sword through it, and they damaged musical instruments belonging to the band and broke several presses. They refused to pay any compensation. When I asked a question, I was told, in the usual procrastinating style of the present Government, that inquiries would be made and the hon. Member would be informed later on. After putting a third question, I decided to raise the matter in the House. I ask the Financial Secretary: If, after all his inquiries into the matter, he has made any inquiries at all except from the military or the police; has he ever asked any of the temperance party to whom this hall belonged; or has any person ever approached the very Rev. Father Soden who had charge of this hall? I saw the damage myself, and can bear testimony to it. The hon. Gentleman stated that a number of non-commissioned officers of the Sherwood Foresters were prepared to state on sworn testimony that no damage was done whatsoever. I think if a public inquiry is granted I can produce several independent witnesses who are prepared to swear that this damage was done while the Sherwood Foresters were in sole possession of the hall, and I now make the demand that a public inquiry shall be held into the action of the soldiers on this occasion. Not satisfied with the damage they did in the hall, they made arrests, I believe, on information supplied by the police of the district. I cannot speak with any authority on this matter, but I do not know of any other person who could have given information regarding the parties who have been arrested. There was no disturbance whatsoever in the district Sinn Fein had been practically killed for upwards of seven years After my election it had never dared to raise its head in the
  168
  district. They arrested a young man of the name of Dolan, a most respectable merchant, just because he happened to be a brother of a member of this House who adopted the Sinn Fein policy. He had long previously given it up. I know that of my own personal knowledge. He was arrested about nine o'clock on a Sunday morning, and was not allowed to go to divine service. They proceeded to the village of Kiltyclogher, a village 9 miles away, and near the village they made an attempt to search a house belonging to a national teacher, a most respectable young man, who has never in any way been identified with the Sinn Fein policy, and while searching his premises they took from him property amounting to the value of £7, including a golden sovereign, some safety razors, and other articles of value. Then they went to Kiltyclogher and searched the post office, but did not succeed in finding any documents. Not satisfied with their raiding there, they ordered some people who were in the street to come over and be examined. Naturally a man does not want to go before the military to be examined. He declined at first, and the officer in charge said if he did hot obey orders he would let him see what he could do, and forthwith two soldiers took charge of him and jabbed him with their bayonets. That was cruel treatment for a law-abiding citizen. I make an appeal once more to the hon. Gentleman to have no more shuffling in his reply. I must admit that his replies have been most courteous and all that, but there is too much shuffling about it. There is very little to be gained by question and answer, especially when an Irish Member is concerned, but I appeal to him to grant an independent inquiry into the matter, in order to show where lies the blame, and not to be peddling for a paltry sum of £15, that everyone in the district knows represents the damage done by the military.
  Mr. MORRELL: I desire to take this opportunity of calling attention to a matter which has several times lately been raised. I mean the treatment of friendly aliens. This matter was first mentioned by the Home Secretary on 29th June, and in the course of that speech he said quite frankly;
  "We cannot impose compulsion upon those (friendly aliens) who are not British subjects, but these men are being invited to enlist, and a not inconsiderable number are enlisting."

  169
  Then he went on to say that in the case of those who did not enlist:
  "They will be expected either to offer their service to the British Army or to return to Russia to fulfil their military obligations there."
  I am not quoting the whole passage, but that is, I think, the main purport of what he said. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) said:
  "Will they be deported it they refuse to enlist?
  Mr. Samuel: I do not put it quite so uncouthly as that.
  Mr. Outhwaite: Are these men not political refugees?
  Mr. Samuel: I do not think they are, but the case of all political refugees will be more sympathetically considered, and the tribunal will have instructions to that effect."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1916, cols. 1084–1085, Vol. LXXXIII.]
  I want to say at once that I believe that statement of my right hon. Friend created a very painful impression among a large number of men who have held Liberal principles, men who believed that this War was a war of liberation and a war for small nationalities. I do not want to be personally offensive, but I may say that it created all the more pain coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite aware that since the subject has been raised by one of the hon. Members for Somerset (Mr. King), and my right hon. Friend in answer to-him made a considerable speech, I did not hear the speech, but it was a speech in which he, to some extent, modified the policy which he laid down on 29th June. So far as I can remember, he said that these friendly aliens will have an opportunity of going before a a local tribunal and of endeavouring to satisfy them that they are entitled to exemption, if they think they are, and failing that they will be deported. That is, I understand, the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech last week. As regards all these aliens, it seems to me—apart from the question of the Russian Jews, which I am going to deal with more specifically later—that this is an unfortunate way of endeavouring to increase the military efficiency of the country, if that is the right hon. Gentleman's object. I do not believe that when the House of Commons passed the Defence of the Realm Act, and gave tile Government enormous powers under that Act, for dealing with people who are aliens, that they intended to make it really an extension of Conscription. Up to a little while ago it was impossible for an alien of any sort to enlist in the British Army, and I feel very jealous of a Department which proceeds to make use of administrative powers of this sort in order to go beyond the expressed intention of Parliament. I
  170
  do not believe the right hon. Gentleman has the right to compel men to enlist m this way, as he is now doing, be they Belgians or Frenchmen, or Russians, or whatever they be. I believe it is a most unconstitutional proceeding on the part of the Home Office. I believe it is absolutely contrary to the privileges of this House, and I believe it is contrary to the traditions which the right hon. Gentleman came here to defend—that is to say, the traditions of free government as opposed to bureaucracy in this country. Therefore, I object in toto to the sort of policy that the right hon. Gentleman bas entered upon, namely, the policy of endeavouring to compel what we call friendly aliens to enlist in this country by the threat of deportation. As regards Belgians and Frenchmen and other of our Allies there is nothing like the same objection as there is so far as exiles from Russia are concerned. Belgians have some voice in the government of their country, and we presume that they want to take part in the War; I am sure most of them do, and so there is a great deal to be said for the view, if we have Conscription in this country that the Belgians should, as far as possible, fight for their country. The same remarks apply to Frenchmen in this country. But when you come to Russian Jews I want to ask what possible justification you have for proceeding to treat these men in the way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to treat them? Everyone who knows anything of the history of Russia or of Judaism knows that the treatment of Jews in Russia has been a disgrace to civilisation. No one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman, and he is not entitled, under any conditions, to destroy the right of asylum which has been one of the great prides of this country for 120 years. He has no right to send these men back to Russia to slavery, perhaps to exile, perhaps to death, to persecution certainly, or, failing that, to compel them, against their wish, to go into the British Army to fight for a cause in which they do not believe.
  You do not dare to treat Irishmen in that way. You do not dare to treat Indians in that way. As regards these Russian Jews, you say, "Unless you fight for the Russian Empire which you came over here to avoid because of your dislike of it, and unless you fight for the Allies of the Russian Government"—that is how they regard it at present—"you

  171
  are to be sent back to Russia, to be exposed to the tender mercies of the Russian Government, and perhaps to be sent to Siberia." That is altogether unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. It is unworthy of the Liberalism which he professes, and is unworthy of his own race, of which he ought to be proud. It was quite true that at the beginning of this War we were told that this was a War for the liberalising of Russia. We were told that all the advanced elements in Russia were in alliance with France and this country because they believed that it would mean the modification of Russian despotism. No one desired that more than I did myself. I had something to do with Russia in the past, because I took a prominent part in extricating from the jaws of the Russian Government, from a Russian prison, with my hon. Friend opposite who sits for an Irish Constituency, a British subject, Miss Malecka, and I came to understand what Russian methods were in these days, as regards people who were in disagreement with the Russian Government politically. I found out then that if a person was found to belong to a society which had for its object the alteration of the Russian Government, that is to say, what is called a students' society, or a society of that sort, under Article 102 of the Russian Constitution, if a person was merely on the list of members of that society, he could be sent off to Siberia for the rest of his life, and deprived of all civil liberty. This woman, Miss Malecka, who was a British subject, was condemned to exile in Siberia. We had the greatest difficulty in rescuing her, and her friend who was not a British subject, is in Siberia to this day. I regret to tell the House that after making most careful inquiries into this matter, I believe that the treatment of the Jews in Russia is in some ways even worse than it was before.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing the affairs of the Russian Empire. We are only discussing them in so far as there may be any fear on the part of those whom the Home Secretary may have to deport. The hon. Member must confine himself to that.
  Mr. MORRELL: I will endeavour to confine myself to that, but I submit that it is material to inquire how far the assertions that have been made that this War has entirely altered the treatment of the Jews are being borne out. I hope that I
  172
  am not out of order in asserting that that is not so, and that therefore the threat which was made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman to the Jews who failed to enlist in the British Army to have them repatriated to Russia is a very serious thing. I hope that I am not out of order in going so far as that. I certainly do not want to transgress the Rules of the House. The question is far too serious a one to wish to impart any unnecessary standard of criticism. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman desires to deal fairly with these people. If he pursues the policy which he laid down tonight, and which, so far as I can see, he did not defend last week when he spoke of dealing fairly with these men, towards his compatriots, men of his own race, he will be doing one of the worst things ever done by one man to another of his race. The treatment of the Jews by the Russian Government is not the sort of treatment we desire for these people who have been living under our protection in this country. I say that the right hon. Gentleman has no right for the present to send these men back to Russia. These men have sought refuge here. They come here, very wisely, because it has been our boast that we give asylum at all times to men who seek refuge in this country from a Government which they thought was unjust. I have nothing to say of Russian subjects. I only say, as regards the Jews, that we are bound to insist that their privilege of asylum shall be preserved. It has been the pride of this country that we have treated this race—I think one of the greatest races of the world—in a way no other country in modern times has dealt with them. We have seen a Jew Prime Minister of this country, we have one now at the head of the Home Department, we have a Jew Lord Chief Justice, and we have some of that race in this House, as I. am glad to know. It is quite true that all these people who have adopted our laws, have, in effect, become Englishmen. Some who have come from Russia recently to the East End have not yet learned the benefit of our laws, yet they are to be driven into the Army to fight in a war in which they have no concern. Is that the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, that these men shall be driven into the Army, though they have not yet naturalised themselves? These men, many of them, cannot speak our language. They have a horror of militarism; they have not yet learned

  173
  patriotism, as we hope in time they will do. The fact that this is so ought to make us all the more careful about treating them in the way now proposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the British Army is going to be benefited by compelling men of this sort, who have come here for asylum, who have no country to which they belong, to fight our battles? Does any one suppose we are going really to increase our military efficiency in this way. I think it is a bad day for the British Army if you are going to recruit it in this way. I cannot understand on what ground my right hon. Friend thinks it is necessary for him to attempt to force men into the British Army in that way. I say I regret that very much. I have claimed in the past close personal friendship with the right hon. Gentleman. I am under obligations to him. I followed in his footsteps in South Oxfordshire. I do not say one word in any way personally against him. I admire the Jewish race, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has a right to be proud of his race. Therefore I do suggest to him, and I ask him to pause before pursuing a policy which, if be carries it out, will, I think, bring infamy on his name.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I think it is as well that I should rise at once to reply to the speech of my hon. Friend who has ended with so dire a threat, and I shall proceed afterwards to make a few observations in answer to the remarks, on an entirely different subject, of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). Let me point out, in the first place, what is the situation with which I have to deal with respect to the Russians, most of them belonging to the Jewish race and religion, who are in the East End of London, in Manchester, Leeds, and in some other towns. This House has enacted, rightly or wrongly, compulsory military service.
  Mr. MORRELL: Not for aliens.
  Mr. SAMUEL: It has required that all British subjects living in this country, with certain exemptions and exceptions, should take their share in the heavy sacrifice which this War entails, and in bearing the heavy burdens that fall upon our population. Those Acts are now in full operation. Day after day young men are required to leave their homes and go into the Army, businesses are closed, and other trades and industries are hampered and crippled. In the East End of London the
  174
  English population sees its young men taken away, some of them against their will, many of them applying for exemptions which have to be refused, shops are closed, families are separated, and in the same district there are to be seen thousands, approaching tens of thousands, of able-bodied young men, a large proportion of whom have lived in this country all their lives and who have carried on their trade there and prospered there, and who belong to a belligerent country in alliance with Britain, and who are bearing no share whatever of those burdens and sacrifices. It is not surprising that there was growing up a feeling of bitterness and antagonism in the East End of London and in those other towns which it was impossible for the Government to ignore, and least of all was it possible for a Home Secretary, who himself belongs, and who is proud to belong, to the Jewish race, to ignore, with all the perils which might follow from such a situation.
  I view the matter, however, with complete impartiality, seeking to do merely my duty as a member of a British Government in the presence of a problem not easy of solution. On one thing I was quite clear, and that is that I could not adopt the policy, which apparently my hon. Friend recommends, namely, to do nothing. Suppose I had done nothing, suppose I had allowed this feeling, of which I had plenty of evidence from police information and from other sources reaching me from many quarters, to grow unchecked, suppose I paid no attention to this problem and ignored its very existence, and merely said, "This is a difficult matter because, after all, these are aliens, and there are objections to sending them back to their own country, and suppose the very possible eventuality that, after a time, perhaps stimulated by a violent Press agitation, there might be riots and disturbances in the East End, and that those families who had seen their young men taken away adopted violent measures in protest when they saw their trade being captured by others living in their midst, and when they saw neighbouring families in the same street making none of those sacrifices, what would have been said of me then? The Government would undoubtedly have been blamed for not foreseeing the possibilities, and, indeed, the probabilities, of the situation—for acting too late, for not having

  175
  had the courage to tackle a difficult and troublesome problem. What other alternative is there? I do not know any country which has legislated in order to apply a measure of direct Conscription of aliens living within its own borders. All measures of Conscription apply only to the nationals of the country by which the legislation is passed. My hon. Friend approves that. He realises that the Military Service Act could not be applied in this case. What third course is there? My hon. Friend adopts the easy role of critic. He has not, nor have those who think with him, made any practical, definite, or possible suggestion of any kind.
  Mr. MORRELL: I said that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to compel friendly aliens to serve in the British Army he ought to come to this House to get powers to do so.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know what our Russian Ally would say if we had endeavoured to apply compulsory military service to her subjects who might be going back to Russia. I do not know; I have not approached the Russian Government on the matter. I know that they have publicly expressed their willingness to allow their subjects living in the territories of the Allies to enter the Armies of the Allies, and we are acting in accordance with that declaration. It would not be possible, in nay view, as at present advised, to legislate, to apply the Military Service Act simpliciter to this case. It would not be possible to leave the whole problem alone. The only course open was to invite these men, subject to certain exemptions, to serve in the British Army, and to say, "If you do not serve in the British Army, we must consider your return to your own country." True, as the hon. Member said—and I rejoiced to hear him say it—England for centuries now, certainly for generations, has treated the Jewish population within her borders with absolute fairness and generosity. That fact is fully realised by the Jewish community as a whole. But if full rights have been given to the Jews, they recognise fully also that they have duties in return, and so far from doing anything injurious to the Jewish name, I think I should have been most blameworthy if I, personally, had neglected to take action to bring home to the members of the Jewish people living in
  176
  this country the fact that where they enjoy rights they should also share the burdens. My hon. Friend asked what justification have I for treating these; men as I propose. What justification have they for shifting the burden that all should bear in common? Hon. Members say that they have a justification because they are asked to fight in the Army of England and England is in alliance with Russia. Is no Frenchman to take part in this War because France is an ally of Russia? Is no Belgian or Italian or Japanese to take part in the War because Russia is engaged in it? What a doctrine to express in the British House of Commons at this very moment when most glorious deeds are being performed by the Russian Army which is rendering immeasurable service to the cause in which the Grand Alliance is engaged in common? There is no possibility of excuse on the ground that these men are not to engage in the British Army because Britain is tainted forsooth by alliance with Russia. When I quoted my hon. Friend's words and spoke of faintest, I referred, of course, to the hon. Member's doctrines. He says that some, or many, of these men may be political refugees. Quite true: it may be so! But I can see no reason why a political refugee from Russia should not serve in the Army of Free England1 Why should he not enlist and serve side by side with any member of the British race? The hon. Member assumes that I am engaged in a campaign to deport political refugees to Russia. Nothing of the kind! No man will be deported if he is willing to serve in our Army. [Laughter.] Why should he not serve? Furthermore, we have made arrangements that all of them who fulfil the statutory requirements—which I have no power to alter—in regard to length of residence for naturalisation; if they serve in the British Army, if they are persons of average character—not bad character—if they fufil the statutory requirements as to residence—after they have served in the Army for a period of two or three months they shall be naturalised without any fee whatever. I recognise to the full that those who are willing to fight on the battlefields of a country ought to receive the rights of citizenship of that country. That offer has been publicly made, and will be brought home to those men in a prominent and effective fashion. The course it is proposed to adopt is; They will, in the first instance, be asked to submit themselves,

  177
  like the others, to medical examination. If they are rejected as unsuitable for the Army, the tribunal—and one will be specially set up with several representatives sympathetic to their point of view, and certainly two or three representatives of the Jewish faith, as well as others experienced in the work of the local tribunals—they will be able to obtain exemption from military service on precisely the same terms as any British subject. If they plead that they are engaged in work of necessity for the country, or their case is one of domestic hardship, or anything of the kind, they may, by the tribunals, be exempted the same as any British citizen. If exemption is refused, then they will be invited to enter the British Army. Even then, if they decline to serve I confess I should be chary of sending back to Russia any person who can clearly prove that he is a political refugee.
  On the other hand, I do not want to give an open invitation toevery one of these persons—for in all races and classes there are a certain proportion who do not like military service—to declare themselves political refugees simply to secure exemption. That is just leaving the problem in the East End of London and elsewhere just the same at the end as at the beginning. The case of the genuine political refugee will be most carefully considered, but the hon. Gentleman must see that it is essential that you should not give currency to the idea that any Russian may exempt himself from the whole proposal simply by signing a paper to the effect that he is a political refugee.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Supposing a man has reached the stage of being deported, will he or will he not have the alternative, if he thinks he is a political refugee, instead of having to go back to Russia, of leaving England for America?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know that I can assure that they will be taken into America.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Will they have the alternative of trying?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I will consider that—as to whether that course should be taken if they are genuine political refugees, and have some good reason for refusing to serve in the Army. I am the last man in the world to seek to deprive this country of what I regard as one of its greatest glories, the fact that it has always been the sacred asylum of political refugees
  178
  flying from countries where they are liable to oppression. I do not know if it is necessary for me to say I propose to make a fuller statement on this question later, and perhaps I need not trouble the House now, but will take some other opportunity of making public the details. I may say that hitherto no steps at all have been taken under this scheme. There seems to have been some misapprehension on that subject. There is a person whose name has figured in the Law Courts and this House, namely, Sarno, a man of most disreputable character, who, in order to avoid deportation, declared himself a political refugee, although he left Russia when sixteen years old. This man's case has no connection whatsoever with regard to the proposals I made for military service—
  Mr. KING: Did not Sarno definitely offer to enter the British Army?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, he definitely declined. My hon. Friend has been misinformed. I am afraid my hon. Friend is too credulous with some persons who approach him, and, in the benevolence of his disposition, he is rather too apt to believe that these people who come to him with grievances are always quite accurate in their statements.
  Let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) on an entirely separate matter. I confess that when I heard the hon. Member was to speak in the Debate this evening I viewed the prospect with some little alarm. I thought he was in the mood of one who goes about seeking whom he may devour. At the beginning of the sitting to-day he fell with fury upon an entirely innocent measure of my own which I introduced, on which I had consulted the Chairman of the Irish party, and secured his approval, a Bill the draft of which I had sent to one of the Whips of the Nationalist party and which received his cordial endorsement. I do not think the hon. Member for Mayo was quite fair to me to-day in denouncing that little Bill—[Mr. DIILON: I never heard of it.]—dealing with Irish time, on the ground that it was introduced without consultation of Members of the Irish party. I have no personal interest in the measure whatsoever, but introduced it solely because I was assured all sections in Ireland desired it. That by the way. Tonight, however, my hon. Friend has spoken in terms of strong censure, but also

  179
  with, if I may respectively say so, complete moderation of tone. Let us, however, remember in connection with the matters to which he has referred, and his complaints of some of the actions of General Maxwell in the administration of martial law in Ireland, that, after all, there was a rebellion in Ireland, that the rebellion was of a serious character, that it took possession of the capital of Ireland, or portions of it, for a considerable number of days, that there were disturbances over a certain number of other parts of the country, and that after the rebellion and the immediate manifestations of rebellion were suppressed, there was still for a long time, and indeed there is now a certain effervescence of feeling, if I may term it so, which is not to be ignored. General Maxwell had an exceedingly difficult task. He performed the hard task set to him with success, and I think that if the House reviews the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo, now some three months after the rebellion took place, and estimates the complaints that he has addressed on General Maxwell's administration, it will have every reason to be satisfied that they are not of a more serious character.
  The hon. Member spoke of the action of the military in sending a soldier with a fixed bayonet to convey the prohibition to the "Freeman's Journals" on 14th May. The 14th May was very soon after the rebellion, which only began on the 24th April, when the condition of Dublin was still one of some disturbance. I have not seen the answers to which the hon. Member refers. I did not know he was about to raise this special point to-night, and consequently I can say nothing as to the character of those articles, but I am assured by the military authorities in Ireland that they have exercised the censorship in a spirit which they regard as one of the fairest, and that only where articles are of a gravely injurious character have they desired to take action with respect to them.
  I would point out to the hon. Member that even in this country it unfortunately becomes the duty from time to time of the Home Secretary to undertake proceedings in respect to a certain class of articles in the Press, which I am afraid are very unwelcome to the publishers of certain journals. The hon. Gentleman complained that one of these prohibitions was served on notepaper addressed from the
  180
  Kildare Street Club. I do not know whether any explanation can be given of the incident by the officer concerned. I have not been able to make any inquiry as to the facts on the other side, but even accepting the fact that no answer can be offered to the hon. Member's accusation, the fact remains that this is, after all, not a grave incident; it was a failure of tact certainly, and a measure to which objection could very properly be taken, but, after all, it is not a matter attended with very grave consequences in the administration of martial law after a serious rebellion.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether it is the law and custom in this country for the War Office on its own initiative to send soldiers round to newspaper offices to tell them not to publish certain articles?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, but the circumstances are different. With respect to meetings it is the case that those who desire to hold meetings should apply for permission beforehand.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: What is the objection to a letter being addressed from the Kildare Street Club?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I know nothing of the incident, but I understand that it is regarded as a somewhat partisan institution, and that this was an official letter sent dealing with the question of the censorship, and perhaps it should not have been addressed from a club of that character. With respect to meetings, permission has to be obtained beforehand, but that permission has been very rarely refused. I do not think my hon. Friend has complained that that permission has been arbitrarily or unreasonably refused with regard to meetings. The cases of refusal have been extremely rare and the justification for this measure is, I think, that it was not possible after the rebellion to permit an open propaganda to go on which might be of a suspicious character. I think my hon. Friend fully recognises that. It is not easy to draw a line beforehand or to lay down in black-and-white a definition of organisations that should be permitted to hold meetings and organisations that should not It is not difficult, of course, for any body inclined to sedition to pass off its meetings as very harmless gatherings of one kind or another under cover of sports, or indeed under the cover of propaganda of an entirely innocent character and which

  181
  may yet carry on activities of the most objectionable order. Therefore, it was necessary to require all persons to submit their proposals for holding meetings in order that they might be examined, and in order that the doubtful and dangerous cases might be separated from those that were obviously innocuous and reasonable. Suppose measures of a restrictive character had not been taken, suppose a seditious propaganda had been carried on in Ireland without effective interference by the Government, and suppose that after a few months fresh disturbances had broken out in various parts of Ireland, the Government and the military authorities in Ireland would have been severely blamed by this House and by public opinion. It was better in the grave situation in which Ireland was for a time, if there were error, to err on the side of security rather than on the side of too great laxity. Now, however, that matters have quietened down, although there are some disquieting symptoms, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, it may be hoped that the new Chief Secretary, when he is appointed, after a fresh review of the situation, may find it possible to mitigate and perhaps even to withdraw some of the measures to which my hon. Friend alluded. If that, indeed, be practicable, no one will rejoice more than the Members of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: I wish to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary the difficulty that exists in holding any meetings in the constituency which I represent. Through all the troublesome times that has passed no arrests have taken place in the county of Fermanagh in connection with the Sinn Fein rising, and it ought therefore to be exempt from martial law. Not long since I was approached by a gentleman who represented a football club. I went to the County Inspector of Police and asked him for liberty for these men to hold a football match. He requested me to write to Sir John Maxwell. I did so, and he replied very courteously and said that I was to apply to some other authority. I went again and saw the County Inspector of Police, and, after a great deal of hesitation, he gave permission to hold the football match. If I go home and wish to consult my Constituents on the topics of the day or on what is passing in this House, have I to go to Sir John Maxwell, cap in hand, for liberty to hold a
  182
  meeting in a county where no disturbances whatever took place, which has supplied a very large number of men for military service, and which has lost many lives in this War? I think the Home Secretary ought to have martial law abolished so far as that county is concerned.
  I come to another question. I think it would be worth the consideration of the Home Secretary to publish the names of the 550 men still detained in English prisons for their connection with the Sinn Fein rising. I have no sympathy whatever with them, but there is many an innocent man who, perhaps, is lying in these prisons and has no opportunity of being brought before a public court to be tried or to give evidence on his own behalf. I can state cases where many innocent men have been imprisoned. I wish to bring to the notice of the House the fact that I left this House on the Thursday before Easter Sunday. I was invited to spend Easter Sunday in Dublin. On the 26th I left the place where I was staying, a little outside the City, and I went in to get a pass to go to Westland Row to see how a friend of mine was off for provisions. I was told to go to Ballsbridge to get a pass. I went to Ballsbridge, and there were three people waiting before me before the door of the office. I stopped for twenty-five minutes and sent in my card. A captain of the Irish Rifles passed me after twenty-five minutes, and I said: "There must be a great deal of red-tape In this office when it requires over half an hour to give a pass to three or four people." He said to me: "Consider yourself under arrest." My hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) has said, one man went with a fixed bayonet to the "Freeman" office, but a sergeant with eight men with fixed bayonets surrounded me. It was my great misfortune that I was not at Portobello Bridge. I was kept there for four hours, from 3 o'clock to 7. This captain of the Irish Rifles never asked me my name. He never put a question to me, but handed me over to the soldiers, when he had said: "Consider yourself under arrest," who marched me down into a cell or place, where they detained me for four hours, and then brought me back. I know nothing about what his religion was, and I do not care. He then asked me my name. I said: "If you had asked me my name you would not have in the first instance arrested me." His name was Captain Hutchison. He then began to apologise because he found I was a Member of

  183
  this House. I said: "Don't apologise to me. I will ask you to apologise on the floor of the House of Commons." I never had an opportunity till to-night to bring this gentleman's conduct before this House. I do not want any revenge on him. There was a sergeant who was commanding these eight men with fixed bayonets who stood surrounding me for four hours, and the only thing I said when I was leaving was: "If you would do a service to this sergeant recommend him for a commission, and when he gets the commission he will have a cooler head than you." I do not want to deprive this gentleman of further promotion.
  I do not know what would have happened had I not been a Member of the House of Commons, and had I not in my pocket a letter from General Friend who I sent into the office. He never told them in the office that he had arrested me or that I was there for four hours. I do not want the man to be prosecuted or persecuted, but I do say that it is abominable that such a man should be in command of men. It was on the same day that Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington and two other unfortunate men were put to death. I might have been in Portobello Barracks myself!
  I come now to the case of two men belonging to my Constituency who have been arrested and in regard to whom I put a question on Monday last. These men were tried in April in Enniskillen as being men who had evaded the Military Service Act. They had been working temporarily in this country. When they were brought before the petty sessions they were discharged. Within the last ten days they have been rearrested, and were first kept in the military barracks at Enniskillen. I went to the War Office last week and asked that they should not be taken from Enniskillen until their eases had been investigated, but they have been brought over to Warwick Prison or Barracks. One of them is blind in one eye. They are men who have been tried before a resident magistrate and discharged, but now they have been arrested again. I appeal to the representative of the War Office to see that justice is done to them, and that, if possible, they should be set at liberty at once.
  Mr. CATOR: I wish to put in a plea for the Cyclists' Battalions. I am anxious that the War Office should, if possible, give more consideration to the esprit de
  184
  corps of those battalions than they have been able to do up to the present time. A great many of these battalions had been formed for several years before the War broke out. One was raised in my own county of Norfolk, another in Huntingdon, drawn very largely from my own Constituency; there is another in Essex, and I have no doubt there are others. They have all done good work and have raised themselves to a high degree of efficiency. In certain cases they represent the old Volunteer movement, which goes back a great number of years They have had extremely tedious and monotonous work to do watching the coast, but, especially in the case of officers, they would feel compensated if there were a chance of their being sent to the front. It appears that it is found necessary to take drafts from these cyclists battalions for foreign service. I am not sure whether any have been sent out already, but in one case they expect to be sent out shortly. Men will be sent out in drafts, but the officers and non-commissioned officers are to be left in this country. They regard that as a very great slight. Of course, there are older men who are unfit to go out to France, but there is a great number of young officers and exceedingly efficient non-commissioned officers, many of them holding first-class certificates, men who though efficient in every way, are condemned to see their men leave them and go out to the front while they remain behind to train other drafts who may be sent to them. Who are the drafts who are sent to them when their men have gone to the front? I am given to understand that they are Home service men and men who are physically unfit. It surely ought to be possible to send the young officers and the non-commissioned officers, if they are fit, with their men out to the front. Secondly, the drafts should be filled up in the case of the cyclist corps by others than those who are unfit or for Home service only. Obviously cyclist work requires a man to be in a very high state of health and of good physique, and it seems extraordinary that the places of the cyclist régiment should be filled by men who are either unfit or fit for Home service only.
  Major WEDGWOOD: I wish to bring forward the question of the recruiting of black troops. I was unable to get any reply from the War Office the last time I spoke, and I have no doubt the question has engaged the attention of the War Office since then. I want the House to

  185
  realise that the shortage of men in this War will very likely become as serious in the months or even the years to come as the shortage of munitions was a year and a half ago. Every week that this question stands over, and the War Office or the Colonial Office does not pay serious attention to this question of the enlistment of fresh troops for the fighting forces, makes the completion of the War more difficult and makes it more difficult to carry it on in the way we ought to do. We have in East Africa certain fighting tribes. Are they going to be recruited for the British Army to take the place of white troops in India or in Egypt or at Aden? Are we going to raise black troops from conquered German East Africa? Are we going to approach the South African Union Government with a view to raising Zulus, Basutos, and Matabele and other fighting tribes in South Africa? Is the Colonial Office going to approach the Crown Colony Government of Nigeria and the Gold Coast with a view to raising Ashantis, Urubas, and Haussas? These are fighting tribes, and are the very best fighting material for the British Army. We have the biggest black Empire in the world, and so far we have done practically nothing to tap that source of supply. The French have tapped it and have used black troops not only to replace white troops on lines of communications, but even for the fighting line.
  After six or eight months' training I am quite certain these black troops would be quite equal, if not superior to a great many of the Indian troops that are employed in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and elsewhere. The Governments of most of these Crown Colonies do not, I believe, appreciate the need this country will have for troops next year. They do not see that they have got to play their part in this War just as the Mother Country is playing her part, and the sooner the Government and the War Office impress upon them the absolute need we shall have for every resource, not only of men but of finance and munitions from those countries, the better it will be for the conduct of the War. The attitude of benevolent neutrality which a great part of the British Empire adopt at the present time is not one which can go on indefinitely. We have got to use every material resource from the Crown Colonies, from India, and from the Union of South Africa, It is quite possible that there may be an idea that we can ultimately get conscription passed in Australia or Canada, or something of that
  186
  sort, whereby we can get extra white-man power, but even those resources, if they are brought forward will not yield a very large supply after the magnificent response that those great dominions have made hitherto. You cannot tap an inexhaustible supply of white troops, and you must come back to black troops sooner or later if this War goes on. When we are sweeping the highways and the hedges for everything in this country to go into the firing line I think it is about time we turned our attention to every source which is available, and which we ought to use. I got no answer from the War Office on the question the other day. I do hope that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will be able to tell us to-night whether the Government are doing anything in that line, or letting the matter slide until a more convenient occasion arises. It seems to me that it is the duty of this House to insist on everything possible being done to increase our resources.
  The other question is entirely unconnected with the enlistment of black troops, but it is of vital importance, I believe, to the successful conduct of the War, just as is the enlarging of our supply of men. If the democracy in this country begin to think that this War is bringing us down to the Prussian level; if they begin to think that every injustice is going to be tolerated now and that when the yoke is firmly on their necks it may remain there after the War—if these sorts of ideas are to spread among the democracy in this country we shall be injuring our position in carrying on the War more than I think most of us realise at the present time. Three or four years ago, there was a big coal strike in this country, and during the strike a fireman on the North-Western Railway went down to Aldershot to distribute what are known as the "Don't Shoot" leaflets. He was prosecuted, and he made a defence which was pure Tolstoyan doctrine. I will read his defence to the House so that hon. Members may see the sort of man that Frederick Crowsley was. In his defence he said:—
  "You are traitors to your creed. You say with your mouth, 'Lore one another,' but in your heart, you say, 'shoot, and shoot straight'! Why are you prosecuting me for distributing leaflets which preach what Tolstoy preached all his life in Russia undisturbed. You may-send me to prison. I shall not be the first or the last to go there unjustly. You will have to send many more before you can hope to suppress the truth, and you will stand condemned for ever before the eyes of truth and freedom-loving people. I know ana1 believe every word in the leaflets to be true. Why are you so blind to the truth"?

  187
  Obviously anyone who listens to that sort of defence knows perfectly well the type of man that makes it. He is one of those who are convinced believers in the creed of Tolstoy, known as the non-combatant class. While I have been away in East Africa the Conscription Act has been passed, and apparently by some rather stupid muddle, by the ignorance of the officials concerned, proper provision does not seem to have been made for men like that. Obviously, conscientious objectors cannot be allowed to go free. They have got to be dealt with. A short term of imprisonment or something of that sort would be quite justifiable. But they have not been dealt with in that way. This man has appeared before a tribunal. One would think that he would have been excused active service, because if ever there was a notorious non-resister this man was. His case has been debated in this House over and over again. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, which was reduced to four. Though it was notorious that this man was a passive resister, the tribunal does not treat him as such. He is sent into the army. You would naturally think that if he refuses to obey orders he would be court-martialled and given imprisonment. That is not what happened. He has written a letter, not to me, but to a friend of mine:—
  "I don't know if I shall get a chance to post this on my way to-morrow. I think I am going to Wands-worth. To-day I have had three hours standing with my face to the wall; punched round the square; horse flannels thrown at me and drawn across my face; knuckles rapped; walking-stick pushed up my nose. Still this is nothing compared with the rack and thumbscrew, and the stake. All this does not affect me, but a kind action in the end fetched tears. As I was being taken back to the cells I asked for a drop of water. The man said, 'you won't get no bloody water.' Another fellow went and got it and brought it to me. There is still a lot of kindness in the world."
  I understand that that sort of thing is not uncommon. I can only say that that sort of thing is intolerable in this country. It is not my business to see that the treatment of passive resisters is a little bit more decent. It is the business of the Government and the War Office. I happen to know this man for six years. It is a case for court-martial and nothing else. The men who are doing that sort of thing are degrading the Army. When you think of the men at the front going over the parapet with the light of heaven in their eyes, do you think that they would treat a man like that, a Christian man who has conscientious scruples so strong that he
  188
  would, if necessary, stay in prison for the rest of his life, rather than abandon them—do you think that these men who are always face to face with death would do that sort of thing? The sort of people who do that are the scum of the old Army, the men sent back from the trenches because they were shell-shy; dug-outs, who have never seen a man killed in their life. These are the people who are dragging us in the mud, who, filled with the nature of the brute bosche themselves, want to drag down the British nation to the same, level. But they will not do it so long as the House of Commons is here. So long as these cases go on and the War Office do not correct them, and do not punish the men who do these things, yon will have trouble in the country, you will have opposition. You will have unpopularity for the Army and all the difficulties that we so particularly want to avoid at the present time. How are you to have the union sacrce if things like that go on? I ask the Secretary for War, when will he have an inquiry into this and have these men court-mar-tialled? I will eat my words if a single one of these men has ever been wounded. You know the type. We do not want them in the British Army, and the sooner they are cleared out the better.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I meant to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to two points of some importance. We have heard from the Home Secretary his view of the administration of martial law in Ireland, and, one would infer from the way he spoke, that Sir John Maxwell, as Military Governor of Ireland, was very popular with the people, and that his administration of martial law was entirely in accordance with the wishes of the people, and universally satisfactory in every part of Ireland. I wish to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to the fact that there was published in Dublin by at least two or three publishing firms, Protestant Unionists—one of the firms was Ely's, Limited, another "Irish Life," and the third, Wilson, Hartnell and Company—certain booklets which showed the streets of Dublin as they were before the rebellion took place, and the results after the departure of the military, when whole buildings had been knocked down. These publications were made under martial law, and since the rebellion occurred, so that they must have had the authority of the Press Censor, otherwise they could not

  189
  have been published. Other publishing firms published portraits of the leading rebels who took part in the rebellion, and who were afterwards shot under sentence of court-martial. Some were tried by court-martial, others were not. What I want to point out is this extraordinary thing: These booklets and portraits were allowed to be exhibited in the shop windows of Dublin, and they were also allowed to be sold at the railway stations in Dublin. They are allowed to be sold in London, too. I have myself seen them shown for sale at Euston and Paddington this very week. A month ago I found where I was living, that under some alleged military order the established authorities and police would not allow the booklets to be exposed for sale in the shop windows.
  What I want to know is this: If these publications and portraits were illegal, and should not be exhibited for sale in shop windows, then they should have been prohibited altogether by the authorities? It was absolutely futile for the Home Secretary to say what he did to us on these benches as to the administration of martial law in Ireland under Sir John Maxwell. It would appear that for the purposes of martial law, Ireland has been divided into districts, with the result that martial law is not applied equally in every part of Ireland. The very week in which the constabulary authorities went round I had an interview with the County Inspector and the District Inspector, who informed me that the military order did not prevent the exhibition for sale of these booklets and portraits in the shop windows, but I know, of my own knowledge, cases where the police went round and compelled the removal of these books and portraits from the shop windows. On the morning of the same day on which the books had to be removed I saw copies exhibited in the windows of every stationer's shop in the city of Dublin. I want to know whether Sir John Maxwell has the administration of martial law over the whole of Ireland, and whether Ireland, for the purpose of martial law, is divided into provinces. I have some reason to believe that the Province of Munster is under martial law through some gentlemen in Queenstown. I would also like to point out that during this last week there was an exhibition of the books and portraits in Tralee, county Kerry. I had a letter from Major Price, commanding in Dublin, who said that no Order had been issued
  190
  under the Irish command in Dublin, prohibiting the exposure of these books for sale in shop windows.
  Yesterday I put a question to the Home Secretary as to the arrest of young Irishmen in London. I was under the impression because there were police present that the Home Secretary was responsible. On 16th July (Sunday), there were Irish sports at Lea Bridge, and, as is usual in Ireland, a number of Irish boys and girls resident in London went to those sports. The day turned out wet, and a football match was not finished. That night thirty or forty of those young men, accompanied by twenty-three or thirty young Irish girls, went to Hackney to a public hall in which United Irish League meetings are held, and held a dance and social performance. What was their surprise when military accompanied by members of the Metropolitan police came in and placed eight young men under arrest. I asked a supplementary question to-day whether young men of military age should carry their registration forms on their person, or at their residence. If the information I receive is correct, the regulation and custom is that a man is not bound to carry it on the person, but to keep it at his residence. Each one of the young men had the registration form at his place of residence and one had it in his possession. Each one gave his name, address and all the information required. A man going to a dance surely is not expected to carry his registration form in his pocket. Because those young men had not got the forms with them they were taken possession of to a military barracks, and detained for some hours. In reply to my question the Home Secretary said:—
  "The police report that they have no knowledge of any young Irishmen having attended sports as stated in the question; but it is the case that, on information that a number of men of military age were congregated at a recreation hall in Hackney, the Provost-Marshal of the London district, in company with the Metropolitan Police, entered the hall and required the men present to show their registration papers. Some sis, who had no papers, were taken to the police station until their identity could be verified. No charge was preferred against them, and as soon as their addresses were verified they were allowed to go."
  Are we living in an unchristianised and uncivilised country or are we not. Here we have a body of young men, well known, resident in London, every one of whom had his registration card at his home; and who gave their names and addresses. It has not stopped there. These innocent men were liberated after detention of some hours by the military and constabulary

  191
  authorities, some of whom have now followed the addresses of those men into city offices and public departments where they are working, and no later than yesterday morning two or three were hauled up before the supervisors. They would not get time to consult their friends, and had to answer in black and white what they were doing on 16th instant. I call that not only prosecution but persecution of the worst form. If the Under-Secretary for War is going to bring over to London those practices of military law which are being carried out in Ireland he is preparing a hot bed for himself and the Coalition Government.
  Mr. DORIS: I should like to call the attention of the House to the administration of the Military Service Acts in relation to migratory labourers who come from the West of Ireland. As most hon. Members are aware they come in thousands every year from my part of the country, spend a few months in this country and then return home. This year they have come as usual, though not perhaps in such large numbers, and a number of them have been arrested under the Military Service Acts, have been convicted and fined and forced into the Army. I hold that that is illegal; it is against the provisions of the Military Service Act itself. As the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago, the Act applies to ordinary residents in Great Britain. There are exceptions even to that. The very first exception mentioned in the Schedule is:—
  "Men resident in Great Britain for the purpose only of their education or for some other special purpose—"
  Surely coming over here to assist the farmers for a couple of months in the year is a "special purpose," and men who do that should not be liable to military service or compelled against their will to join the Army. I will give two or three cases which have come before my notice. The first is that of Michael Nolan, from my Constituency. He came to England in April last as an agricultural labourer, and was shortly afterwards seized by the military at Molesworth, prosecuted, convicted, and forced into the Army. He is the son of a widow, and has two brothers already in the Army as volunteers. He was the only son left to support that poor widow. His father was killed when he was four years old, and perhaps in consequence of that he was illiterate. Since he has been sixteen years of age he has come over to
  192
  this country to earn a little money to take back for the support of his widowed mother. I submit that that is really a violation of the provisions of the Act, and whoever is to blame there should be some remedy. I have communicated with all the authorities, but I have not been able to find it. In this case the registration paper was left at his lodging, and as the man was illiterate it was filled up by an English lady there and no mention was made of his home address. So that when the paper was returned to the authorities they went and searched for the man, and took him for a defaulter. Another case is that of Thomas McHale, in the same district—an almost similar case, except that he has only one brother voluntarily in the Army. He is the support of his old father and mother. He came over and was arrested on a farm in Cheshire. He was never ordinarily resident in England. He spent only a few months here every year. I have another case—that of John Battle—almost similar, but I will not trouble the House with ten or twelve other cases from my Constituency.
  The question is of some importance altogether apart from the hardship upon these men and their dependants. Hundreds of men, hearing of these cases and seeing the reports in the English papers, have refused to come over this year, much to their own loss, of coarse, and to the inconvenience of the English farmers who are glad to get Irish labourers, and I am glad to say treat them very well. They are on the very best terms. I wrote to the authorities on the subject. I put questions in this House, but got no satisfaction. I received a letter from Lord Derby this morning, in which he says:—
  "I am afraid that nothing further can be done in this case. The civil courls alone are able to decide whether or not a man is ordinarily ft resident in Great Britain within the meaning of the Military Service Act. The civil court decided that McHale was a resident in this country, and it was on the finding of the civil court that the War Office acted."
  But it was the War Office that took action in the first instance! No one acquainted with the facts can deny a single statement I have made. I submit that not only is these three cases, but in others which I shall submit to the authorities within the next week or two, careful consideration should be given, and that, notwithstanding the adverse decision of these Tribunals, who seem to think that every man who comes before them, whether or not he is exempt by Act of Parliament, should go into the Army. No matter what

  193
  the decision of the Tribunals may be the War Office should exercise some discretion and see that their own Act of Parliament is carried out.
  I have just another matter to call your attention to. I was very proud of the fact that my county of Mayo had nothing whatever to do with this foolish Sinn Fein insurrection. But I was amazed to find one fine day that in the little town I come from no less than about thirty young men had been arrested in connection with the rebellion. The authorities must know very well that the people of that town and the young men who were arrested had no knowledge whatever of this rebellion, no connection with it, and no sympathy with it. The arrested men had been what are called Irish Volunteers. Like the Ulster Volunteers they took it into their heads to have route marches with rusty old guns. They walked up the hill and down, and nothing more was done. A few days afterwards the police had about thirty of them arrested, and sent over to different parts of England. That has done a lot of mischief in the district, because everybody knows that no matter how unwise these men may have been as Irish Volunteers, they had no knowledge whatever of the rebellion. It came just as much as a surprise to them as it did to Mr. Speaker, or any Member of this House. A number of them have since been released. I could go before the Advisory Committee, and with a knowledge of my own town that is not surpassed by anyone connected with the town, swear that in my opinion none of these men had any knowledge of, or connection with, the rebellion. What really happened was that years ago the police had some trouble in connection with cattle-driving and similar cases, and they awaited their opportunity to get even with the men suspected. The Defence of the Realm Act gave them that opportunity, and they said: "Now we will run them in; let them get out when they can!" That is a very unfair way to administer an Act of Parliament. It has done a great deal of mischief in the district, which was very quiet throughout all the trouble; had no sympathy whatever with the Germans, and has helped the British Army to a considerable extent in this War. It is a great pity that such things should happen. I hope very soon to hear of the release of these twelve men.
  Mr. MEAGHER: I certainly feel very grateful for the opportunity given to me to address this House. The, few instances I shall bring before hon. members will, I think, convince them that no city or town in Ireland was so free from crime as the County and City of Kilkenny. I certainly agree with my hon. friend that no Sinn Feinism, or anything of the kind, was ever known in the City of Kilkenny. There was some difference between the police and the people a long time ago. Nothing, however, happened till one fine May morning the tranquility of the City of Kilkenny was disturbed by the arrest of a lot of innocent men, and the placing of them in prison. It was the most insane act of injustice ever perpetrated on a peaceful city. I am one of those who most emphatically condemn the cruel murder of Capt. Fryatt, but I have brought before this House two or three instances which I think the House will agree with me in believing were far more cruel than the cruel murder of Capt. Fryatt. The morning after arrest these very respectable men from Kilkenny were marched to the railway for the purpose of bringing them to England. One respectable gentleman, a Mr. Keily, was taken out of a sick bed when he was given over by the doctors, and put in prison. The morning after he was marched to the railway station, surrounded by men with fixed bayonets. During the march the local doctors implored the military doctor to examine the man to see if he was fit for the journey. Between the goal and the railway station the man fell down dead, leaving a widow and young family. I ask whether that was justice and fair play. Can anyone regard that as being fair, reasonable or honourable? I am very sorry the Home Secretary is not in his place to-night. I think I could refresh his memory with a number of other instances. There is the case of a young man named Patrick Bealan, a most respectable, law-abiding person. I knew his father for a number of years in my Constituency, and I never knew a more law-abiding man. His son went to Dublin and was at 177, North King Street, and at the time of the rebellion was working with another in the kitchen of the house which he was managing. Without any cause or reason the military rushed into this house and asked whether any shots had been fired from that house. He replied, "No, we have never left the kitchen all the time." The military took the two men down to the cellar and shot them like dogs, and buried

  195
  them there. They did not even get a Christian burial. They were crushed into a hole. Talk of the murder of Captain Fryatt! This was the most disgraceful murder on the face of the earth. I ask the House whether this is not a case for a public inquiry. At the coroner's inquest a woman next door swore on her oath that a soldier came in and told her that this young man was innocent. He had never left the kitchen, but by the orders of the officer, the soldier said, "We had no option but to shoot him, and, unfortunately we had not instruments sufficient to bury him properly, and so made a hole and crushed the legs and head together." I ask whether there ought not to be a public inquiry? What was the result? That unfortunate man's father, an old age pensioner, died on hearing of the death of his poor son. Was that not a more cruel murder than what you speak of as the fearful murder of Captain Fryatt? Look at these two cruel murders by the military! See what we have been called upon to suffer and then ask whether you think the spirit of Irishmen can stand this kind of torture or not. I ask the Financial Secretary to pay special attention to this matter and to press upon the Government the necessity of having a public inquiry and to ensure that the families of these men will be sufficiently compensated for this cruel murder which is a disgrace to civilisation. As an Irishman I am shocked at the tyranny of the British Crown and the British Government with regard to the treatment meted out to the Irish people during Easter week and I protest against it.
  Mr. KEATING: I wish to make a few observations in support of the incidents to which my hon. Friend who has just sat down has referred. The case he has mentioned has moved the hearts of people all over Ireland in the deepest manner, and I wish to impress upon the House the necessity of meeting the demand for a public inquiry. The Home Secretary, when he was replying to the hon. Member for East Mayo, justified himself and the action of the Government by reminding the House that after all there was a rebellion in Ireland and it followed naturally that everything the military did after the rebellion was to be justified simply because they did it. There have been many rebellions in history, but I do not know of any rebellion in modern his-
  196
  tory that was followed by such cruel punishment as has been meted out to Irishmen in this case. With regard to this particular case, although I do not say the military authorities were responsible, the members of the Army who committed this crime are a disgrace to the Army. The soldiers simply marched into the house and took these young men, who had not been out in the streets, and no shots had been fired from the house. The soldiers walked in, took these men from the kitchen down into the cellar and shot them like dogs. I know the English people fairly well, and I think in the main they love justice and fair play, and I submit this case to the House with full confidence that there is not an hon. Member here or a man in the country who would for a moment support action of that kind. I confidently appeal to the House to support the claim of my hon. Friend that there should be a public inquiry into this case. The Prime Minister yesterday said that the Sheehy-Skeffington case stood alone, and that he was endeavouring to have a public inquiry into the case in order to ascertain the truth, and to see that justice was done. The Sheehy Skeffington case was not one bit more brutal than this case, and you cannot satisfy the people of Kilkenny or the people of Ireland by ignoring this passionate demand for a full inquiry. This young fellow was a decent, respectable man, absolutely harmless, industrious, and honest. He was the sole support of his poor old father, and this bread-winner of the family was suddenly taken away under these cruel and horrible circumstances. No satisfaction of any kind has been given either to the family or to the people who knew and respected him. It is a case which calls for a full inquiry, and the family should be compensated.
  I should like to take this opportunity of putting my views upon one or two other matters, and I trust that they may serve-as some indication of the feeling of the-average man in the Irish Nationalist party. The Home Secretary some time-ago explained the present treatment of Ireland on the ground that there had been a rebellion. I do not know whether I have-got my facts quite clear, but I am credibly informed that when the Jameson raid took place General Maxwell was not unknown. Were the leaders of that raid executed? No, the leaders of that rebellion did not suffer the penalty of death.

  197
  12.0 M.
  There was a rebellion in Ireland before, in '48. Were the leaders of that rebellion executed? No. The British statesmen of those days had more sense of justice, or at all events more common sense, than the present Coalition Government has, because the leaders of the '48 rebellion were simply deported to Australia, and remained there some time, and they were eventually released. Some of them became Prime Ministers in Australia afterwards. There was a rebellion in Canada. Lord Durham, when he took the matter in hand, advised that the leaders of the rebellion in Canada should simply be deported from the country, and that that was sufficient punishment. The British statesmen of those days did not quite agree with Lord Durham, and recalled him for having given that advice. But having recalled him, and sent another man in his place, the other man who was sent by the Cabinet to replace Lord Durham carried out Lord Durham's policy, and not one man was shot as the result of that rebellion in Canada after it was crushed. I will not go into the recent rebellion in South Africa because it has been referred to already.
  I venture to draw the attention of the House and of my fellow citizens in England to these circumstances, and to ask them whether there is one of them that wonders that the knowledge of this in the minds of Irishmen—that they are being unfairly treated, I say insulted, by the theory that because there has been a rebellion you are entitled to take fourteen or fifteen men and shoot them, three or four a day in a fortnight—has created horrible distrust in the minds of the Irish people, and of the Irish race throughout the world? Of course, we feel that this circumstance deserves to be resented and resisted in the utmost possible way. Here you have martial law to follow all these things, administered by this gentleman who has been associated with a rebellion himself, unless I am misinformed—and, if I am, I will withdraw gladly, because I do not wish to make an unfounded accusation. Martial law is for the protection of the people, the Prime Minister said the other day. You have these abortive and miserable negotiations which fell through, and you say that in order to protect the Irish people, and for their good, as it were, you give them the benefit of another Chief Secretary, bolstered up by 40,000 soldiers, in order that they may enjoy the benefits
  198
  of your conception of what among the Irish people ought to be government. I warn you, I know the Irish people well. You are sowing something now by the continuation of martial law, and you have sown something by the execution of these leaders in defiance of the ordinary practice of civilised Governments, which will reap a very bitter crop one of these days,, which you will very bitterly reget, unless measures be taken in the near future to try to undo the mischief you have done. I have no desire, I have had no desire, to do anything in this country but to try and establish an entente cordiale between the Irish people and the English people. I have done my very best, and will continue to do that, but I denounce the folly and stupidity characterised by the Coalition Government and their representative in Ireland, and I do so in their own interest as much as in the interest of the Irish people.
  I hope that the opinions that hon. Members expressed from these Benches will not be passed over lightly by the House or the Government or the country. The true way to win peace and prosperity in Ireland is to give effect as soon as possible to the democratic principle of allowing the people to be governed by themselves and the leaders whom they trust. I find in conversation and in reading newspapers that some people who talk without regret of the failure of these negotiations have the audacity to say that the Irish Party are relieved, that the negotiations have fallen through because we are afraid to face our own people, and to take the responsibility for an Irish Parliament. It is the old mistake the British people are always making in connection with Irish affairs. I know that my fellow-members of the Party share my view that we are not afraid of either Unionists or Sinn Feiners in our constituencies, that we have the confidence of our people and that when we get Home Rule we shall be able to give effect to their feelings, desires and character, rather than to the false and mistaken although,. I believe, well-meant advice inspired by the want of knowledge of people en this side of the water. We are not at all afraid of the responsibility of governing our own people.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that any question arises upon this Bill in connection with the matters to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring. All the earlier part of his speech was quite in order, I do not

  199
  think there is anything in connection with the negotiations which would be relevant to this Bill.
  Mr. KEATING: I was under the impression that we could talk about anything upon this Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The matters must be strictly limited to the Notes contained in the Bill.
  Mr. KEATING: I apologise for the mistake I have made. I have said all I wanted to say, except to appeal, with all the sincerity at my command, to the Coalition Government to realise the enormous dangers which will ensue from the continuation of martial law one moment longer than they consider it to be necessary, and especially to bear in mind what has been said by the two hon. Members from Kilkenny with regard to the death of Mr. Kiely in the horrible circumstances which have been described. That has aroused a feeling which must be satisfied. The men who were responsible for it must be discovered and punished, for they are a disgrace to the Army, and the relatives of this unfortunate man must be compensated.
  Mr. HAZLETON: We on these benches have listened with the regret and disappointment which have now become usual to a reply made by the Home Secretary to the speech of my hon. Friend Mr. Dillon. With regard to the regulation forbidding meetings without the permission of the police, he made no case whatever. My hon. Friend pointed out that here was a vexatious and intolerable restriction, which is in no way necessary now, upon the freedom of public opinion in Ireland. The Home Secretary said that, owing to the state of unrest that had continued in Ireland since the rebellion, this restriction was absolutely necessary. He reminded me of a passage in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, when he said it was necessary to continue martial law, and in a breath or two later assured the House that not even during the rebellion itself, much less in the three months which have elapsed since, has martial law ever once been used, and that it was all done under the Defence of the Realm Act. The best answer to the Home Secretary is the assertion, which cannot be disproved, of my hon. Friend that, although this is supposed to be a strict injunction of General Max-
  200
  well's under martial law or the Defence of the Realm Act, there are hundreds of places up and down the country where it is not enforced by the police at all. One of the great mischiefs of the course the Government has now embarked upon in Ireland is that it is almost impossible to get an equal administration of the law. In one parish where there may be an officious policeman no one, no matter what his purpose may be, will be allowed to hold a meeting without the police first granting permission, and in a neighbouring district the policemen will not bother their heads at all, and no one will dream of going to the police to get permission. Even in a matter of this kind it would be possible for the Government, and for the Irish executive, if there is one or is going to be one, to exercise a little ordinary intelligence, because whilst this restriction is as a matter of practice worked properly in any district in Ireland, there would be no real difficulty at all in withdrawing this restriction, which is only irritating and aggravating people, and in the case of any meeting where the police had the smallest reason to believe there was a seditious purpose or any breach of the Defence of the Realm Act likely to be committed, they could step in and prohibit such meeting being held. That would be an obvious and an easy course for the Government to pursue, but merely because it is the right course they seem determined not to pursue it. I wish to make this charge against the Government that with all their troops in Ireland, with all their powers under martial law, and with all their powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and under the Crimes Act, which is now partly in operation, their policy in Ireland, even now, is not the equal administration or enforcement of the law, but only the enforcement of such law in Ireland as at suits the executive to put into operation. I would ask the Home Secretary or any Member of the Government dealing with Ireland, if they reply, to say whether they deny that fact. There was issued in Ireland only the other day a new Proclamation under the Defence of the Realm Act, which prohibited all over the country the marching and drilling in public of unauthorised armed bodies. Why was that Proclamation issued? I believe under the law that the existence of the Ulster Volunteers and the National Volunteers is illegal, but this great Government which is determined to maintain law and order in

  201
  Ireland, and to exercise all these powers under martial law, the Defence of the Realm Act and the Crimes Act, does not venture to assert the law in this particular and to put down either of those bodies, though it is plain and obvious to us that if they only had the National Volunteers to deal with and not the Ulster Volunteers, supported by the Tory party and the Tory power in this country, they would not hesitate for twenty-four hours to put them down, as they put down the Sinn Fein Volunteers in the recent rising. They do not even declare them illegal in the Proclamation. This very strong, powerful man, General Maxwell, to whom such a great tribute was paid by the Prime Minister yesterday, has not the courage or strength of character to carry out the law, and has not the smallest intention of carrying out the law in that respect, neither has this Coalition Government, which sent him, and which is sending a Unionist Chief Secretary to govern Ireland.
  There are only one or two other matters I wish to refer to, one of which has been dealt with very fully by the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Doris). Last week I raised two questions on the Vote of Credit, one of which related to an Army contract in connection with the establishment of an officers' training corps at the Curragh, where 600 officers are now being trained for the Army. This contract was given in Dublin, and we find to our surprise that it is being carried out in London. I went very fully into the matter then, and as I understand the Financial Secretary to the War Office is going to deal with it, I will not do more than refer to it now. The second question I asked on the second reading of this Bill, and the Home Secretary informed me he was unable to answer as it was a War Office mat ter—namely, the date of the publication of Sir J. Maxwell's despatch. I pointed out what an extraordinary coincidence it was that whereas this despatch was dated 25th May—I presume it was sent to the War Office in London on the day on which it was dated—it lay there until the very day when the Coalition Government made up its mind to break the settlement in connection with Ireland. On that very day, owing to the action of somebody behind the scenes, it was decided to publish the despatch of Sir J. Maxwell. I asked who was responsible, whether it was an official of the War Office or a
  202
  Member of the Cabinet, because the significance of its publication upon that date was this, that Sir John Maxwell in the course of his despatch made grave and serious charges against those who took part in the rising in Easter week, many of which were without foundation at all. He said in his despatch that the police had to be withdrawn as they were an unarmed force, because wherever they were found they were shot down, and they would have been shot down by the rebels. The facts were that although there were over 1,000 policemen on duty in Dublin on that day only two policemen were shot by the rebels, and while we all deplore and regret the shooting even of two unarmed policemen, in the circumstances it was not right for a man in the position of General Maxwell to make a sweeping charge to try to prejudice feeling in this country against these unfortunate men. My hon. Friend says that one of these policemen was actually shot by the military—I presume in error—but we are entitled to an answer to these questions, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will deal also with that question.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) referred to the question of aliens in this country being forced into military service. He said you did not do that in the case of Ireland. My hon. Friend, the Member for West Mayo, pointed out that whenever you got the opportunity you did it in the case of Ireland, and you did it in a rather mean and unfair way, for a great government and a great empire like this. It is quite true that conscription is not in force in Ireland, that you did not venture to propose it for Ireland. But, unfortunately, we have had a great many cases, as my hon. Friend pointed out, of people coming over for casual labour to this country from Ireland, many of them ignorant, illiterate people, who are not acquainted with the technicalities of the law, or the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, and who are forced and unfairly forced into the Army. My hon. Friend said that he had a letter only to-day from the Under-Secretary for War, the Earl of Derby. So had I—only this very day. Although it deals with quite a different case of a man from my own Constituency in the West of Ireland, the facts of which I will give to the hon. Gentleman, the wording of the letter is practically identical with that of the letter read by my hon.

  203
  Friend, showing that the Under-Secretary for War is evidently taking up a stereotyped attitude in all these cases.
  The case I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Member is the case of a man named Miles Cosgrove from my division of North Galway, and this man, who was at home in Ireland for well over a year before he was last in England, came over on the 22nd February to Glasgow, and he worked in a chemical works called Brotherton's, at Townhead, in Glasgow, till the 26th May. He was told by the foreman of the works there that if did not register he would be taken to prison and made to join the Army. Here was a poor man who, in these circumstances, did not know what to do, and, of course, he went at once and registered. But when I put the facts before the Under-Secretary for War last week I had this letter from him:—
  "I return the enclosure to your letter of the 21st of this month. Cosgrove was correctly informed that he was obliged to register under the National Registration Act 1915. Whether or no, a man is ordinarily resident in Great Britain within the meaning of the Military Service Act is a question which can only be decided by a Civil court. It does not appear that Cosgrove, when called up raised the point that he was exempted from the Military Service Act on the ground that he was not ordinarily resident in Great Britain; but that he was resident here for a special purpose.
  "I am afraid, therefore, that I can do nothing in the matter."
  Does it not appear to be an extraordinary thing that an ignorant man, coming over from Ireland to work for a period in Glasgow, should be told by the War Office, in an official communication of this kind, that if he had any complaint against the authorities for his treatment in being forced wrongly into the Army his only remedy is to go to a Civil court. I say that that is not the right attitude for the War Office to take up in cases of this kind, and say they ought to go into these cases themselves, and that if they find on investigation that on the merits these men were unfairly or wrongly taken into the Army, on their own responsibility and without going to the Civil courts at all the War Office ought to release these men when they want to be released.
  There were a few other matters which I wanted to bring forward before the attention of the House on this Debate, but as the hour is so late I will only deal with one of them. The other night several cases of glaring extravagance and waste were brought forward from those benches in connection with Army matters, and no answers were returned. But the War Office, even in Ireland, is not always
  204
  extravagant, and they can be parsimonious and mean enough when they like. There is the case, for instance, of the civilian clerks in the Army Pay Department in Dublin that I would just like for one moment to bring to the attention of the Financial Secretary. In October, 1914, it was agreed that the pay of these civilian clerks was to be 35s. a week. They have received no increase in pay or any war bonus since. They applied last May for an increase of 7s. per week and that was peremptorily refused. Later they applied for a war bonus and the extraordinary answer was returned on the part of the War Office to their application that it would not be given them because they were too highly paid in 1914. I say that that was an extraordinary attitude for the War Office or their officials to take up in view of the general increase in the cost of living, in view of the fact that almost every branch of service has had an advance given to it for the period of the War, and that only the other day you decided to give it to the police force in Dublin. I say then that these men have a just and fair claim upon the consideration of the War Office, and I hope that because they are merely civilians that claim will not be overlooked. These are the only matters that I have at present to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to, and I hope that with regard to the first two he will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance, and that with regard to the third case I have brought to his notice he will look into it.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am sure the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House will realise that I stand in need of some measure of indulgence, because for the last twelve months I have been deeply absorbed in questions of Army finance while the administrative questions which they have raised have been dealt with by my hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Tennant). In the absence of any notice that they were going to raise the questions to which they have drawn attention it has been quite impossible for me to equip myself with the knowledge which would be desirable in dealing with these matters. The hon. Gentleman for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) was good enough to send me notice that he was going to raise the three points to which he first drew attention, and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with those first. The first case was one

  205
  that he described as an Army contract for the manufacture of uniforms for an officers' training corps. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me information with regard to it, and I think there is a misunderstanding as to the nature of the contract. It is not a War Office contract at all. Members of officers' training corps, equally with officers in the Army, are given a money contribution and find their own outfit. The arrangement has been made in this case, I gather, with a Dublin firm for the supply of uniforms to the whole of the members of the officers' training corps, and I think that must have been dons by the officer in command. I do not know whether it was done with or without the concurrence of the members of the officers' training corps. It is a matter in which the War Office does not make a contract for itself; it leaves the uniforms to be provided under arrangements made by the commanding officer of the training corps or provided by the cadets themselves. All the War Office does in the case is to make a money contribution towards the cost of the uniforms. With regard to the point that although the order has been placed with an Irish firm, the work is actually being carried out in London. I am afraid that is a matter which the hon. Gentleman and the Dublin Members will probably take up themselves.
  Mr. HAZLETON: With whom?
  Mr. FORSTER: Well, I should imagine with the firm which has got the contract. I think the hon. Gentleman will see it is not a matter in which the War Office could interfere, as the arrangement is a private one between the firm and the commanding officer.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair that where the Treasury make a contribution, as in this case, that a commanding officer should have absolute right to place the contract where he likes without having tenders or any competition. Is it not then a mere family arrangement?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not in the least satisfied, without investigation at any rate, that the commanding officer did not call for tenders and invite them.
  Mr. FLAVIN: It is to be hoped he did.
  Mr. HAZLETON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with the commanding officer on this question and find out what did occur?
  Mr. FLAVIN: And if any Irish firms were asked to tender?
  Mr. FORSTER: I see no objection to doing that, but it must not be understood that I make a promise to bring pressure to bear upon the commanding officer. I see no objection, however, to ascertaining what did occur.
  Mr. FLAVIN: You want to know how your money was spent anyhow.
  Mr. FORSTER: When the hon. Gentleman asked me if I could explain the mystery of the date of the publication of Sir John Maxwell's despatch, and he drew attention to the fact that it was published on or about the date on which the Prime Minister announced the breakdown of negotiations in regard to Ireland. It is a matter of pure coincidence. Naturally the publication of dispatches has to be sanctioned by the Government, and the War Office sent out this dispatch for publication in the "Gazette" as soon as the Cabinet had passed it for publication. I have consulted my right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for War, with regard to it, and he says that so far as he is aware there was not the slightest question of an arrière penséeabout it at all; it is a pure coincidence. The hon. gentleman would not be justified in drawing from that fact the conclusion that there was any ulterior motive in the delay. Then he drew attention to some statements in Sir John Maxwell's dispatch with regard to the withdrawal of the Dublin Metropolitan Police because it was alleged they were unarmed and were being shot. The hon. gentleman said that, so far as he knew, only two policemen had been shot. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that three members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were killed, and that eight were wounded. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that these figures go a great deal further than he was prepared to admit, in justification of the statement in Sir John Maxwell's dispatch.
  Mr. BYRNE: Were any of these policemen shot by the military? Is the hon. gentleman aware the military fired on the principle police station in Dublin?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not aware that any of the policemen were shot by military.
  Mr. BYRNE: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would inquire into the statement, which is absolutely correct.
  Mr. FORSTER: I will see. Hon. Members must forgive me for passing over lightly the individual cases that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I frankly confess I am not in a position to deal with them seriatim. I have not knowledge of all the details, but I will look into them and take note of the views that hon. Gentlemen have expressed in regard to them. The hon. Members for West Mayo, Forth Kilkenny, South Kilkenny, and others have raised these individual questions to which I will draw attention in the War Office. There are one or two other matters as to which I would like to say a word before I sit down. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked a question as to whether it was essential that registration cards or registration papers should be carried on the person. I am afraid, as the hon. Gentleman did not give me notice, that he was going to raise the question, and as it is, I think, largely a matter of law, if not of regulation, that it is not one I can pronounce upon with authority.
  Mr. KING: Do you keep your card on your person or at your house?
  Mr. FORSTER: I keep mine at my house, but I am obviously over military age. I think in the case of every young man within military age that it would be a very desirable precaution that he should take or carry his registration card or papers upon him in order to avoid any unpleasantness or worse such as the hon. Gentleman referred to.
  Mr. FLAVIN: The point I made was that these young men gave their names and addresses, and stated they had their registration forms at home, yet the military and constabulary combined in taking concerted action, and for some reason, which I cannot make out, after receiving full information from these young men, they broke up their social dance, placed them under arrest, kept them under arrest three or four hours, and then discharged them, and having discharged them they have not since preferred any charge against them.
  Mr. FORSTER: I should imagine that instead of being placed under arrest they were detained.
  Mr. FLAVIN: They were not only placed under arrest but were taken to a police barrack accompanied by the military and the police.
  Mr. FORSTER: That would be done until inquiries were made. The Member for West Mayo and the Member for Galway raised the position of those who are known as migratory labourers—that is Irishmen who come over for the harvest and go back home on the completion of their work in this country. Everyone knows that these men are not subject to the Military Service Act, and I think precautions have been taken in Ireland by means of posters and otherwise to disseminate information, but attention has been drawn to one or two individual cases where men have been brought before the courts to ascertain whether or not they were ordinarily resident in this country. The case which the Member for North Gal way quoted seems to me one in which there must have been considerable doubt, because he quoted the case of a man who I understand had been resident more or less continuously in this country for some period. He then went back to Ireland for a year and after that returned to work in Glasgow, practically, as I understand, at a permanent engagement. I do not think a case of that kind would strike the ordinary lay observer, at any rate, as coming within the category to which this exception was intended to apply.
  Two other questions have been raised, one by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hunts (Mr. Cator) with regard to a cyclist corps. He drew attention to the fact that younger officers were not allowed to go abroad with their men, being required to stay in this country in order to train men who are in many cases not fit for general service. My hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I am not able at the moment to deal with that in a manner which he will regard as satisfactory. I cannot do that without making inquiries, but the inquiries will be made. I can only hope that the desire—which I think is a natural desire—of the younger officers to go and fight will be fulfilled. My hon. and gallant Friend die Member for Neweastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has raised the question of the enlistment of black troops. I heard his former speech on this subject some days ago, and I can assure him the matter is engaging the very active attention of the Army Council. Fresh steps have been taken within the last two or three days. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise the necessity of consulting those in responsible positions in the Colonies with regard to the enlistment of these coloured troops;

  209
  that is being done, and I hope before long we may be in possession of the views of those we have consulted.
  Major WEDGWOOD: If these views are adverse, will that be final?
  Mr. FORSTER: I should not like to prejudge the question by giving an answer to that question. What I should prefer to say is that the whole question will be considered in the light of the views of those who are responsible. I cannot say that it would be decided finally. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to what I think no one could refrain from describing as the brutal treatment of the conscientious objector whom he named. I can assure him that those who are responsible for the administration of the Army are just as keen, and just as anxious, and just as resolute, that ill-treatment of those who are brought under military discipline shall cease, if it has taken place. My hon. and gallant Friend I am sure, would court the fullest investigation into all the circumstances to which he has drawn attention, and he would not expect me, or anybody else, to pass a final judgment until the investigation has taken place.
  Major WEDGWOOD: Shall I be permitted to be present at the investigation?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not know; I cannot make a promise on that point. What I can say is this: On behalf of the Army Council, that it is entirely foreign to the spirit of both officers and men that these regrettable occurrences should take place. I do not think there are any other points to which I need now refer. I apologise to the House for the rather sketchy manner in which I have answered the point raised.
  Mr. BILLING: I apologise for intervening in an Irish Debate by introducing another subject of national importance. In fact, I feel I cannot allow what happened at Question Time to-day pass with out some form of protest. I have received in this House many insulting replies to questions I have asked—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a parliamentary word to be I used in respect of answers given by I Ministers or by a Member's colleagues in this House.
  Mr. BILLING: Then may I say insolent reply. Is that possible?
  HON. MEMBERS: You will be suspended if you say that.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is also an unparliamentary expression.
  Mr. BILLING: Then all I can say is that I have received replies to which it is impossible to give a Parliamentary term. To-day I have received a type of reply which, to use an Irish expression, is even worse than no reply at all. It was silence. As one who represents to some extent the Air Service in this House, it seemed right to me to ask whether, in view of the raids on several counties of this country, it was considered desirable to institute reprisals; and to that question no reply was forthcoming. I would like to tell the Prime Minister, if he were here, and as he is not here I would like to address myself to the Treasury Bench, which is unusually full, and say to them that it is a mistake to believe that because, for the past six months, there has been no agitation on behalf of the public for protection from Zeppelin raids, and no agitation to carry the air war into the enemy's country, that the public are in any way satisfied. I have held a number of meetings all over this country in the last six months and I have addressed some millions of people, and I can assure the Treasury Bench that the people of this country are not satisfied either with the air defences of this country or with the offensive against Zeppelin bases. I consider that we have—and, in fact, to my personal knowledge, we have—aeroplanes and men and bombs in this country to carry out reprisals. I would suggest to the Government that it is time that we took our gloves off in this matter as in some other matters in connection with the conduct of this War. Six months ago I offered the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Scotland to lead him by the hand and show him these bombs and these machines and these men, and now I repeat that offer to anyone on the Treasury Bench who will accompany me. I would like to ask how many Zeppelin bases have been bombed or attacked during the last six months? Surely the authorities must have known that the only reasons why we were not attacked was that it is not a Zeppelin's business to attack by day, and that these attacks would take place immediately these conditions were propitious. At the present time we may say that the Zeppelin season has commenced, and unless some steps are taken, steps for the more adequate defence, or at least unless the public are shown that it is our intention to act in this matter, I think that the agitation that we

  211
  had six months ago will be repeated. I would like to ask the Government to tell us how much damage it is necessary for Zeppelins to do before any definite action is taken. I wonder whether if a well-directed bomb were dropped in the centre of this House some action would be taken—whether it would do any great harm it is not for me to say, but I think it would have this effect and it would wake the Government up in this direction at least. In the last three days I have had many telegrams and letters from all over the country with reference to the raid on Saturday night. I know that a mere Zeppelin raid is not a matter that, this House regards as a very serious thing, and I know that this House has very many serious questions to deal with. There are so many broken pledges of the Prime Minister which had to be shifted, twisted or turned, and there are so many excuses which have to be given to all those whom he has deceived, that when it comes to the question of a mere Zeppelin raid, of course, in American parlance, it does not cut much ice; but it does cut a considerable amount of ice with those people who are interested in the Air Service of this country. I have pointed out before that, the fact that no military damage is done is not the whole story. You cannot have a raid by one or ten Zeppelins, dropping one or a thousand bombs, and say that no military damage is done. There is military damage done if thousands of special constables are kept up till three o'clock in the morning, as they were to my personal knowledge yesterday morning.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: They do not object.
  Mr. BILLING: But most of these men are carrying on work of national importance, and if they spend the whole night walking about with a whistle and a stick they cannot do their work next day with the same amount of energy with which they would otherwise do it. Not only that, but these raids hold up munition workers and trains and transport throughout the country, and that is a serious matter. The Zeppelin season has now commenced just before the House of Commons adjourns, which it will do, and leave the country to its fate until we meet again in October. But I think before we adjourn we ought to have some sort of undertaking from the Prime Minister that some form of offensive which is the real form of defence by the Air Service will take place. Another matter I would like to call atten-
  212
  tion to are the very foolish inspired communications which are issued by the Press Bureau to the public. Only yesterday I read of a case in one of those communications of a pilot who engaged a Zeppelin thirty miles from the East, coast. He aimed two trays of a Lewis gun into the Zeppelin, and in putting a third tray the gun burst and stunned him. I have used a Lewis gun myself many times, and I have never known anything likely to burst and stun the pilot without doing him pretty considerable harm. Then it is stated that the pilot was stunned and became unconscious—this was evidently a single-seated machine—and when he recovered consciousness the Zeppelin had disappeared. That is the sort of story which might be told in the nursery, but to anybody who understands aviation it is an insult to his intelligence to issue such a communication as that. The pilot's name was not mentioned, and presumably the pilot was the only one present and therefore the only one to give the story. We all know that to engage a Zeppelin with a machine gun unless it has explosive bullets is not much good, but to issue such a statement and to bring it out in the Press in big headlines is realy too fatuous for anything. It is typical of what the Government do all day long. They are using the floor of this House as a megaphone to shout statements to the public, which before very long are found to have no foundation in fact. I was lunching today with some of the finest air pilots, and they simply laughed at the report authorised to be issued by the Press Bureau. There is nothing wrong with the pilots. I think the House admits that and I think the country admits it. We have the men and they are quite prepared to go anywhere and do anything, and they have all the bombs and the machines as well.
  1.0 A.M.
  As far as these raids, which I have been referring to are concerned, I quite understand that the business of the Army Flying Corps is being carried out now a great deal better than has ever been the case before. They are doing their work, and they are occupied. I was referring on the raid question more to the Naval branch—the naval wing—of the Royal Flying Corps. At the present minute I think I can say that, with the exception of a few aeroplanes which they have in France, they are neither occupied nor justifying their existence or expense, and there is a very strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction

  213
  throughout the Air Service. At the Air Inquiry—to which I cannot refer as the report has not yet been issued—I asked that the Royal Naval Air Service should be inquired into. Whether the First Lord of the Admiralty did or did not threaten to resign if that was done I cannot say. Anyhow, it has not been inquired into, and unless some drastic reforms take place in the naval branch I shall have things to say on the Floor of the House of Commons, which I think will justify an inquiry.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the other part of the Air Service is now perfect?
  Mr. BILLING: Not perfect. I should say that the other part of the Air Service is now much more efficient than it has been at any other time during this War.
  Mr. LYNCH: At this juncture I wish to rise on a point of Order. My reason for interrupting the hon. Gentleman is that his speech is so important that it ought not to be heard at one o'clock in the morning. We are here through having been deceived, no doubt, quite inadvertently, by the Prime Minister himself.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the Home Secretary move the Adjournment?
  Mr. BILLING: I have not very much more to say. So far as the reports which I asked for earlier in the sitting are concerned I desire to put this to the House. I asked the Prime Minister that a certain report which had been made by the Minister of Munitions on a firm of engine-makers should be either laid upon the Table of the House or handed to the Air Committee. The reply I received was, "We know nothing of such a report." Are we to understand that a Government Department, having been given a certain amount of particulars and the date of a report, finds it absolutely impossible to trace that report from one Department to another? I will give all the assistance I can to the hon. Member for Rugby (Major Baird) in the matter. It was a report made by the Minister of Munitions on the firm of Austin, engine-makers in Birmingham. I have seen the report, and so I know that it exists. In fact, I have a copy of it, and if it is not produced I shall read it to the House.
  214
  That report states that the Royal Aircraft Factory engine is a mechanical impossibility and an engineering scandal, that it has caused more trouble, friction, and delay in their works than any other proposition the firm has ever had to deal with. The report states, or infers, that it is in the interests of the country that these engines should not be made. Yet they have been ordered in thousands.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Who made the report?
  Mr. BILLING: I do not think I can say who made the report, but if the Government say it is not in existence I will hand a copy to the hon. Gentleman representing the Air Committee on the Treasury Bench. But this report must be forthcoming. It should be handed to the Air Committee as something on which to base their decision as regards this particular type of engine which, when one has done and said all, is the crux of the whole question. It is the engine which caused me to make the speech I made in this House some months ago when I said—as I repeat—that it was tantamount to murder to send men up in machines engined with this type. Gradually but surely all the people who have identified themselves with air reforms in this country are beginning to appreciate that this engine is not only a mechanical impossibility, but a scandal, and I consider it is most essential that the Air Committee should have that report.
  Then we had the Committee that reported on the Royal Aircraft Factory. They go down there and make a report at some considerable length. What is the result? The Air Board is another organisation which the Government have brought into being to defend themselves on these air problems, and Lord Curzon has said that this report is tantamount to nonsense, and that they do not agree with the findings of the report. I should like to ask what is the good of appointing an expert committee to go down and report on a factory, and when they report and say the factory is this, that, and the other, the Air Board say, "We don't agree with you at all." In the meantime an Air Committee is reporting on something else, which, when you have done and said everything, is only half, and the lesser half, of the service. What will be the position if Lord Curzon takes up the same attitude to the Air Committee? No, I really think it is time that the Government and the

  215
  country took the air services of this country into serious account. It is reasonable, I submit, for some of us who fight, perhaps, a lone battle in this House with our particular beliefs and particular work to take exception to the evasive replies which we receive from the Treasury Bench. I cannot expect Members of this House who are interested in other matters to be interested in the air. But I do think I have a right, and do say that it is my duty, to deal with this problem. I was returned to this House on a very definite mandate, from a constituency which had suffered considerably, to try to get some reforms brought about in our air services, and of the methods I have adopted in this House and outside to obtain those reforms I am the better judge. Some reforms have been carried out, but there is a very great deal more to be done. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I simply want to say that I do protest against dealing with air raids as we are dealing with them and not retaliating in any way whatsoever, and I appeal to the Government for action in this matter, at least, if they have not the courage to take off the gloves in other matters. I am perfectly confident that the vast majority of the British people would be behind them if they would give orders that all the men and all the machines and all the bombs that are at present in this country doing nothing were to be employed in returning the raids and retaliating on the enemy for the raids they are making over this country. There is absolutely no reason why that should not be carried out, and if the Prime Minister would advise our enemy that for every raid that takes place over this country we would raid Germany on two occasions while we had a machine and a man left it would do more to stop Zeppelin raids than any amount of the high faluting talk which takes place in this House very frequently in my presence.
  Major BAIRD: The hon. Member referred quite naturally to the reappearance of the Zeppelin raiding season, and invited the Government to announce their determination to make reprisals. I cannot imagine a more unpractical way of dealing with the question than to say in this House what we intend to do with regard to the enemy. Surely nothing would please us better than if the Germans announced to us when it was their intention to raid this country. I must say that the hon. Gentle-
  216
  man's closing remarks in which he said that he advocated all the men, all the bombs, and all the machines now in this, country, which are doing nothing, being sent over to raid Germany show in an hon. Member who has had the experience he has had in the Air Service an extraordinary forgetfulness—
  Mr. BILLING: I was referring to suitable machines.
  Major BAIRD: That was a very important omission. The hon. Member said, as he has said in the country, that all machines in this country which have duties allotted to them by competent airmen should be taken off those duties and sent to raid Germany. In the first place a great many of them could not go to Germany. As the hon. Member knows, they were not built to go to Germany, and to send officers off on machines of that sort would indeed be murder, to use an expression which the hon. Member has employed in connection with the Air Service. It is very unfair to the Air Service to use expressions like that, particularly when they come from an hon. Member who has belonged to the Naval Air Service, and therefore speaks with some authority. That the hon. Member should make use of an expression of that kind is very unjust and very unwise, and is likely to create an impression in the country which would be most unfortunate. The hon. Member alluded to large stores of explosives. I should have thought he would have, noticed from the morning newspapers that we dropped a little matter of seven tons of explosives on the German lines yesterday from the air. That was reported in the communiqué of the Army, and the hon. Member really must allow the officers who are directing our operations as a whole to decide where we can use our forces most effectively. If you have a choice between dropping explosives on the fighting men, ammunition trains, depots, and artillery of the enemy in the field on the one hand, and on the peaceful towns where the women and children belonging to the soldiers are living on the other, I for one would plump for dropping those explosives on the soldiers every time.
  I venture to think when there is talk at large, about going to Germany directly a Zeppelin shows its nose over hers that we prefer a very much more honourable means of retaliating, not on the women

  217
  and children of Germany, but on the soldiers of Germany, which is what we do. I do not for a moment say that the time may not come when there may be unpleasant surprises in store for Germans in their own country, but it would be extremely unwise to say anything on that point, or to announce in this House what was our intention in that respect. The hon. Gentleman referred to the men, and the machines, and the explosives to which he was prepared to lead anybody by the hand. We know quite well that we have the machines, but I venture to remind him that they are allotted to specific work; that the necessary replacement of machines is immense in the conduct of operations such as we are engaged upon now, and really I do think the hon. Gentleman exaggerates if he imagines that there is a large stock of machines in this country that could be put to this use. Certainly they are not suitable. They have duties which they perform day and night, and I do not think I should have any difficulty in persuading him in private, as I have already had to do, that the machines are there and are rendering very good service.
  With regard to the employment of special constables on the occasion of Saturday night's raid, I don't know what that trouble was. We do have special constables, and when a man undertakes the duty of being a special constable he is liable for duty when Zeppelin raids take place as well as anybody else. I do not see where the trouble comes, in there. As regards the communiqué issued in connection with a combat between a Zeppelin and a naval aeroplane off the coast, I think the hon. Member failed to notice that the communiqué was issued by the Admiralty. If he had noticed that, doubtless he would have called the attention of the Admiralty to this matter.
  Mr. BILLING: Am I right in supposing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents the Air Service or the Air Services in this House—military, naval, or both?
  Major BAIRD: The functions of the Air Board were laid down quite clearly in its reference, and I need not weary the House with that, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to remind him of a subject which he is perfectly capable of understanding. Our reference was quite clear. We do issue a, certain number of communiqués for the Royal Flying Corps, but the Admiralty issue their own com-
  218
  muniqués. I do not think it is a matter of any importance, but it is the fact, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it discourteous on my part if I do not deal with that particular point.
  Mr. BILLING: There is still some confusion, then.
  Major BAIRD: As regards the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman to-day, he said I gave no definite reply. I can only say that he asked rather an elusive question, because if he had given in that question the information he gave in the House this evening a great deal of time would have been saved and the hon. Gentleman would have been saved the inconvenience of receiving an unsatisfactory reply. I said in this reply that if he would furnish us with more information we would cause search to be made and endeavour to satisfy him. He has complied with that request, and I will certainly carry out my part of the bargain. With regard to the answer of the Prime Minister it is no part of my functions to deal with that, but I do think the hon. gentleman should realise that he did not give notice. His question was not on the Notice Paper, and the Prime Minister was, therefore, not able to prepare an answer to deal with it. I think I have dealt with all the facts the hon. gentleman has raised, but if not I shall be very happy to do so.
  Mr. LYNCH: I feel almost constrained to apologise for rising at such a very late hour, but that is not my fault. We have heard to-night from these benches an indictment of the Government of such a character that the comment which springs most readily to my mind is that those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. After a number of the acts of the last few weeks or months I, at any rate, for one have arrived at this decision which I declare before the House with the utmost frankness, and which I will endeavour to declare before the country with the utmost energy, that that Government must go. Tested by their acts, they have been found wanting, and their whole course from the beginning of this War has been marked by the most rank hypocrisy. Tonight we heard the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Samuel), who generally is one of the most mild-mannered of men, and as I heard him speak I traced down that curious course of a Liberal politician serving under a Tory regime;

  219
  because, having to defend the most indefensible Acts of his Administration in Ireland, he spoke in the good old style to which of yore Tory statesman had accustomed us. He seemed to me to be taking a leaf from amongst English statesmen, from Strafford or Cromwell, as if in Ireland "thorough" was the motto.
  That has been tried before by men who were real strong men, and not the mere painted effigies which is the real character of the so-called strong men of the front bench. Men accounted strong before the war were accounted strong before they were tested, and at every test they have shown the greatest weakness of character and lack of all the qualities that we have a right to expect from the leaders of a great nation at a great crisis of its history.
  Before I sit down I mean to give to the best of my ability a certain constructive policy, and would remind the members, more especially the Government, that the attitude of justifying all the illegal acts committed by the military is being judged not alone by them, because nothing seems to ruffle their complacency, but is being judged by neutral countries, the goodwill of whom is of the highest importance to this nation. These questions are being scanned almost as closely in America as in England, and even though the Government is continually resorting to the weak weapon of weak men, trying to hide the truth by putting up a wealth of censorship, even these weak devices turn to their disadvantage, because the American people, feeling that they have no confidence in the representations made by this Government, are only the more willing to listen to exaggerated reports which find their way through the correspondents who may not be friendly to this nation. I think it is a matter of the greatest importance to the Government and that they should weigh well that consideration whenever they attempt to justify these acts of the military in Ireland, which must inevitably cause in the United States the most invidious comparison to be made between Ireland and Belgium. We have reached a point where I do not know if the advantage will remain with this country. No matter what shocking brutalities the Germans have committed in this war, the word has been passed round to the military—they have had that wisdom which has been denied to our Government—that they must make an attempt to conciliate the Belgian
  220
  people. Whereas, by every step in the Government's administration, and by the vexatious way in which that is carried into effect, by muddling, interfering, and rancorous actions, they are week by week irritating, and finally antagonising, great masses of the Irish people which six months ago were heart and soul with the Government in the conduct of the War. I ask my colleague, if in my language now I have exaggerated a single point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  What, then, is the positive policy which I would indicate? I would say this, instead of dealing with this Irish question in a narrow, legal, I would say pettifogging, manner, they should have allowed their imaginations to have free play. They should have risen to the height of truly great men, inspired by great motives and showing that generous spirit which captures the imagination of those with whom they had to deal, immediately after the rising had been suppressed, instead of indulging in these excessive executions, which, although they pleased them, shocked the civilised world, they should have seized the very first opportunity of declaring a general amnesty, and by that large measure of generosity which would have been accepted by the Irish people as a large measure of generosity, seizing their hearts, and striking their imagination, they would have won them once more to their side with a greater ardour than before.
  There are examples for that. I will not refer for the moment to the example of South Africa. There a great man dealt with a great situation. Great men are rare, and I have often been tempted in late weeks to come down to the House with a lantern like Diogenes of old, looking for a man. You found a man in South Africa—Louis Botha, my old Friend, who when face to face with a situation still more dangerous and threatening, by that great exercise of his large and generous nature won his opponents to his side. After having declared a general amnesty, I certainly would have abolished martial law—martial law with its strain of coercion, of sounds so hateful to Irish ears, so fateful in Irish history. Do you, after your hundred years' experience of the Irish people, believe they are a race who can be crushed under the heel, who can be treated like Babus in India, who, if you fail to win them, can be made to follow you, to be crushed down and obliterated? Oliver Cromwell tried that.

  221
  He said he would drive them to Hell or to Connaught. Are not Irishmen as powerful in Connaught to-day as in Cromwell's day? As to the other place of his pre-direction, you will never have Home Rule there because our enemies will always be in an overwhelming majority. But you are coming to coercion, and if you continue upon the false route which you have chosen you will have coercion rampant all over Ireland. That was tried within the recollection of many of you by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who has become wiser in his day after the experience he has had, and if he were consulted I do not think his voice would be given for coercion of the Irish people. They have reached a stage at which they forgive him and when they look with a certain tenderness upon his past misdeeds. If I were asked who were the creators of modern Ireland I would say Mr. Parnell and Mr. Balfour. Mr. Parnell put a new spirit into the country, and carried out a great constructive policy. The First Lord of the Admiralty, by endeavouring to coerce them, by endeavouring to flog them into obedience, welded them into a nation which stood up as one man to resist him. We are coming to coercion, and in the nomination of Mr. Duke we have a reductioad absurdum. Mr. Duke, I suppose, has been appointed on the lucus a non lucendo principle.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that the appointment of Mr. Duke has any relation to the contents of this Bill. There is nothing for his salary in this Bill. We are not discussing the future Government of Ireland to-day. That was yesterday or the day before.
  Mr. LYNCH: I will avoid that. I thank you for calling me to order. My point can be dealt with when Mr. Duke's salary comes up for consideration. That will give me a wider scope than I can have by speaking to this Motion, and in doing so I think I will acquire a considerable popularity not merely in Ireland but throughout the length and breadth of the country. But I would not further detain the House. There will be other opportunities because the blunders of this Government will be continually leading them into fresh difficulties and into the most disastrous circumstances. The Prime Minister will come down to this House to ask for some enormous Vote of Credit and the sole ground upon which he will ask for it or the sole palliative will be that he
  222
  will call to his aid that grand talent of his of the scene painter who is continually falsifying the perspectives and who, when he has a disastrous situation in the exterior, paints it in glowing colours to deceive this docile House. And that is called wisdom and judgment and statesmanship in this House. But when a man in a high position offers judgments from time to time which are invariably falsified by the actual fighting, when he still retains the power to convince—I say those are not qualities of a great leader or a great statesman; these are the qualities of a great comedian, and history will endorse that judgment. That is all I will say, as I desire to make way for other colleagues of mine who desire to speak. I hope they will all be in full cry after this Government. I will conclude with this image. If this Government sets up coercion it will lead to much bitterness in Ireland. It will lead to the restoration of the old rankers, but it will never by any chance lead to the subjugation of Ireland. We have nothing to fear. Irish nationalism will rise stronger than ever from this contact with the earth, and the new Chief Secretary after a few weeks of office will be a chastened and a sober man, and in his final efforts he will be like a distinguished Marius weeping over the ruins of the Coercion Act.
  Mr. P. WHITE: I regret more than I can express in words that the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary both sat down without responding in any way to the request that was made from these benches for an inquiry into the excesses of the military in Dublin. I regret it more especially at the present moment, when the Press of this country is trying to excite the civilised world into a feeling of resentment at the unfortunate fate which befel Captain Fryatt. These lofty souls with microscopic eyes can see the smallest speck of this campaign, but they can see no goodness outside of it. I regret that these methods have been allowed to pass without a word of notice, without a word of comment, without a single promise being made of an impartial inquiry into them. I regret it for the sake of the discipline of the Army; I regret it for the sake of the honour of this country and for its reputation as a highly-civilised people. But that is their own business and I leave them to it. My duty is a sad one. It is to add more names of men who have been shot in cold blood in Dublin to those already given

  223
  to the House. I lived for some twenty years of my life in the heart of the city of Dublin in a place called Henry Street, and the House where I lived with others is now in ruins. Opposite to me was North Street, and on each corner of that street were two respectable well-to-do citizens doing a flourishing trade. One of them was chairman of a board of guardians and district council. He had a house in the country as well. On the evening of one of those fateful days in Dublin he was ordered by the military to leave his house. He was complying with that order and was turning the key in his own door when he was shot in cold blood and fell a corpse upon the paving stones. On the other side of the street was another man in the same trade. They were both my dearest friends and neighbours. I had affection and respect for them because of their character, and because of their high principles. This man was shot through the neck. Fortunately he is alive and all right to-day. But a few doors lower down a man and his wife and daughter lived, doing business in a small way. The wife and daughter walked across the street into a neighbour's house to escape from the flames which were overtaking their home. They got inside the door. The husband was walking behind them and was shot dead by one of the military in cold blood, although he was trying to comply with the commands of the military. Another shopkeeper a few doors away from where these tragic acts took place—one of two brothers—was also shot in his own house. Yet when we come here and point out these hideous tragedies—which are so revolting to us and revolting to every man with a proper feeling and respect for humanity—Ministers on that bench remain silent. If these things occurred in Belgium or France what tones of anger would we hear from those benches But because they occur in Ireland, at their own door, they are silent; they will never satisfy the Irish nor vindicate their own men. Well, everything comes home to roost, and these things will some day come home to roost and Ministers will deeply regret their action at this present moment. In North Street people tried to escape for their lives. There was a machine gun at the head of that street. The white flag was raised to allow citizens to escape. They were shot down in heaps in the street.
  224
  They have arrested a number of peaceful law-abiding citizens, and they took them and hearded them in a yard intended for horses. Subsequently, they were taken to the barracks, where they were treated in such a way as did not befit human beings. Without sanitary accommodation and the appliances which go to make life tolerable, and they were treated with the greatest harshness and cruelty. I deeply regret that it is my duty to bring these facts before the Mouse and to press them again and again, and I can only regret that Ministers will not rise to their duty and treat requests from this side of the House with more respect. Ireland has sent 100,000 soldiers to fight your battles, and she deserves to be treated with respect. We are now under the military rule of Sir John Maxwell, and we are told by the responsible Minister in this House that Sir John Maxwell has control of the police. Let us consider what that control means in Ireland. Unfortunately the police in Ireland have been used for a long time as semi-military force. One of my most distinguished colleagues on these benches applied for a permit for a relative of his to visit her daughter in her approaching confinement. He was refused that permit by the military authorities. Then I applied by letter, and I was refused that permit. Subsequently, I went to the authorities in Dublin and stated the case. I told them that we vouched for the lady, and that she wanted the permit to go and visit her daughter on family business, and that she might never see her daughter again. We were not listened to, and why? The word of a village policeman w as taken at Dublin Castle, and more value was set on it than on the word of two Members of Parliament. The authorities in Dublin acted on the word of a policeman who had some little old grudge against this lady, and attached more weight to that than to all that we had said. The most that could be said about this lady and her family was that they sang some Irish songs in their own language. That was the only offence that could be urged, and simply because they used the language of their own country the passport was refused to the mother. Under such circumstances it is impossible that you should expect any representative men who have any regard for their own dignity to assist you in perpetuating such a rule; and you cannot expect us to come here except to denounce your rule so long as your rule is such in Ireland.

  225
  Another question I would like to ask the Secretary of State for War is why, when the Irish prisoners were interned at Wandsworth, they were kept in solitary confinement. Is there anybody who can answer that? These were untried prisoners, and they were kept in solitary confinement, and why were they told that if they spoke to each other they would be subjected to a long term of bread and water? Is that civilised government? The Home Secretary may say that this does not come within his purview, and that the War Office is responsible. Well, whoever is responsible, it is, at all events, very unfair and a very improper way to subject untried prisoners, most of whom have since been set free because there is nothing against them, for such terrible punishments. Another question I would ask the Home Secretary is this: Why does he refuse to allow the daily "Hansard" to be sent to the prisoners? Is there anything so vile in the statements and utterances made in this House that they are unfit to be read by the prisoners? Why is that refused them? Why is the knowledge of what is going on in this House and in the country, knowledge of the deeds of the Empire in the field, denied them?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Has it been denied them?
  Mr. WHITE: I applied for permission last week to send copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT to the prisoners, and I have not got a reply yet?
  Mr. SAMUEL: There has been no refusal.
  Mr. WHITE: I presume that the Home Secretary has given permission. Then, as to the rebellion, I must say that it was not a Sinn Fein rebellion. Sinn Fein means "Ourselves alone"; and it means what a great English statesman once said of this country, "Splendid isolation." It means ourselves alone, and perhaps the greatest propagandist of the Sinn Fein movement was the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday, when, he communicated to the Irish people that in future they must rely upon themselves alone and not trust in the promises of Liberal statesmen. That drives us back on ourselves alone, and in doing that I say the right hon. Gentleman was a great propagandist of the doctrines of Sinn Fein. This movement has no connection with armed forces
  226
  whatever. It is a libel on the movement to connect it with the rebellion. Therefore I would ask the Members of this House not to connect the recent rebellion with the Sinn Fein movement. Yesterday I heard in this House the words of the Prime Minister, and I heard different words with the same substance from the Home Secretary this evening. The Prime Minister said that restless and anarchical forces were at work in Ireland and the Home Secretary said the same substance, though in different words. He said that a grave situation existed in Ireland. That brings me back to the 'eighties, when in this House a Tory Minister used to rely for his indictment of Ireland upon police statistics to show that there was crime there, and the right hon. Gentleman and his leader in Ireland are now relying upon the same kind of evidence. They have already poisoned the wells of information in Ireland, and they are completing the business by sending a Unionist Chief Secretary to govern Ireland.
  Between the new Unionist Chief Secretary, the present Unionist Attorney-General, and a distinguished Civil servant, in the person of Sir Robert Chalmers, depend upon it the Government will get information from Ireland which will lead them, unconsciously perhaps, along a certain path until the time when they will be in conflict with the whole of the people in Ireland, and the whole Irish race; and I say the Irish people will not shrink from that contest if it is forced upon them. I regret more than I can possibly convey in words, that we Irishmen should have to go back and retraverse ground which we had hoped was finally left behind. I say, quite seriously, that the innate distrust; which Ministers have of Ireland will be their own undoing. What is the position? It is that Ministers rely, as always they have relied, upon police statistics, upon official information; that they rely, in fact, upon anybody and anything but the elected representatives of the Irish people. They have made their bed; let them lie on it. They will find, like those who went before them, that it will not be an easy one, but a thorny one.
  With regard to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, I may tell the House that the hon. Gentleman met some Irish Members a week or ten days ago in regard to the question of wool. The duty fell upon his Department of purchasing wool for the Army. What happened? He gave us an undertaking that in this matter

  227
  of the purchase of wool Irish people would be treated in a way exactly similar to the way English people are treated, and that there were to be set up an Advisory Committee and local committees throughout the country. We, representing our colleagues on these benches and the Irish people, asked him to model the Irish procedure as nearly as he could do upon the English procedure. We waited upon the hon. Gentleman, and he promised to let us know his decision before Monday. This is Tuesday night, or, I ought to say, Wednesday morning, and we have not heard from the hon. Gentleman since. I do not wish to blame the hon. Gentleman himself, because we all know that he is busy; but I do think that when he gave a promise to Members of the House of Commons that he would do a certain thing he ought to try to fulfil that promise. Certain regulations laid down in the rules for the purchase of wool, I am informed, have been violated. We were told that purchasers of wool on behalf of the Government in any part of Ireland would have a choice of persons to whom to send it to be graded before it was forwarded to the Government, and we do not think it right that dealers should be compelled to send the wool to any one individual. It is essentially a matter of business, and, considering what we were told, we think that fair play is not being given to regular Irish wool-buyers. I wished to bring this matter before the House, but as the Financial Secretary to the War Office is no present on the Treasury Bench perhaps it would be better if I raised it again on another occasion.
  But there is another question to which I should like to direct attention. The War Office is also purchasing hay for Army horses. What is it doing? It is paying too much for hay in England, and too little for hay in Ireland. The Financial Secretary to the War Office stated in this House the other day that there was more moisture in Irish hay than there was in English hay, and that was the reason why Irish hay was worth less money than English. As a matter of fact, everybody knows that Irish hay is subjected to a longer process of drying than English hay. It is subjected to a scorching sun day after day until it is thoroughly dry, and when it is thoroughly dry—and not till then—it is removed from
  228
  the meadow land. I have often seen as much as two hundred tons of that hay put together in one place, and it has kept all right just because it was dry. Yet we are told by men, apparently gifted with common sense, that there is more moisture in Irish hay than in English hay, and therefore it is of less value. I cannot conceive how anyone could think of that and believe that it really is so, when, as a matter of fact, Irish meadow hay is brought in under the best possible conditions that could be obtained, and is of the best quality. Then there is the question of public meetings in Ireland at the present time. Is it not a humiliating thing that Members of this House, Members whose loyalty you have tested, men who have stood by you faithfully in the hour of peril, should be compelled to go to a local policeman and ask for his permission to address meetings of their Constituents? Would English Members of the House of Commons submit to such treatment as that? What would any English Member think if he went down to address his Constituents, and before he met his committee in a room he had to give notice three days in advance to the local police? Would you stand that? Do you think that Irish people have so lost their self-respect and their dignity that they do not resent it? We do resent it and we think that it is all due to Castle Government. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, came back from Ireland after the rebellion, he said that Castle Government had broken down and was a failure. We always knew that it was a failure, but now, instead of admitting that it is a failure, you are going to prop it up again. What you require is to bring a new broom which will sweep clean and sweep the Castle out from top to bottom, and put Irishmen in charge of Irish affairs. Until you try to improve your methods and place more confidence and trust in Irishmen whom you know, and give them a chance of governing their own country, you will always be in trouble, you will have an uneasy conscience, you will be trusting to espionage to keep you informed of what is going on, and in the end it will all result in complete failure. I beg of those Ministers who are present that they will listen to this warning and that they will apply themselves to the problem. The Home Secretary is not long in office as a Minister representing Ireland, but he has fallen into just the way his predecessor did. I feel I must congratulate him that he is not going:

  229
  to be long in the office, because, distinguished man as he is, and clever as he is, I believe that in the end it would be too much for him. He has shown to-night, and before to-night, that he is going to rely on the information he gets from that unclean thing, Dublin Castle, and that he is going to back up officialdom in Ireland whatever it says to him—even if it comes from that distinguished man who has spent so many years of his life in Ceylon, but knows nothing about Ireland. Anything that comes from that man Ministers will get up and stand by in this House. That reliance on officialdom is what has always hampered your efforts to deal with Ireland and made you uneasy about the future of the country. I beg of you to take your courage in both hands, to break with the past, and to sweep out the Castle, even if abuse must go along with it. If you put Irishmen in power you will never regret it; if you trust them you will not be disappointed. But arrest them, treat them with dishonour, load them with indignities and the Irish question will remain to trouble you as it has troubled your predecessors. There is only one way of governing Ireland, and that is by handing over the government to Irishmen themselves. I have nothing more to say.
  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. LUNDON: We who sit on these benches to-night cannot have heard the speech of the Home Secretary without coming to the conclusion that we in Ireland are in for a dose of coercion, and he treated the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with what I may call absolute contempt, because when my hon. Friend complained that the Chief Press Censor in Ireland Bent letters on the notepaper of the Kildare Street Club, the Home Secretary replied to him by asking what did it matter whether the message was on the Kildare Street Club notepaper or not. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman before to-night has heard of the Kildare Street Club, but if he does not know what it has done in Ireland I am going to tell him now. It stands for all that is bad and rotten in the political life of Ireland. It is within its walls that the downfall of our country, that the plot to overthrow our country for the last 100 years has been laid. Its members constitute the people who arogate to themselves the right to speak for Ireland in support of the Allies in this War, and if I am right, if what I am going to say now, what is common cant from one end of Ire-
  230
  land to the other, is correct, everything that is being done to-day by Sir John Maxwell in Ireland is being done because he is asked to do it by the members of the Kildare Street Club. We were told by the Prime Minister yesterday that martial law was to continue in Ireland, and that Sir John Maxwell and 40,000 troops would be kept there until such time as peace and contentment would return to our country. It was a nice message for him to deliver to our people, but bad as martial law is, I would ask the Home Secretary if it would not be possible that Sir John Maxwell himself should be withdrawn from Ireland and somebody more conversant with Irish ideas and Irish sentiments sent over to enforce martial law. You had, at any rate, ten days ago—I do not know whether he is in the country now nor not—an Irishman who, if he were sent to Ireland to take the place of Sir John Maxwell, would do a great deal to bring about that peace and contentment which we all long for. You had Sir Bryan Mahon, and if he were sent over to Ireland in place of Sir John Maxwell, the position of Ireland would not be what it is to-day. Sir John Maxwell may have been a great man when he was out in Egypt. I understand he occupied the position of Sirdar in that country. He tyrannised over the Egyptians, and he came with a flourish of trumpets to Ireland as if he was dealing with some one similar to the people of Egypt. He thought that by executing ten or twelve people he would put down Sinn Fein and all it stands for in Ireland. To-day, he sees the difference. The only thing that his mad, brutal, and reckless action in Ireland has done is to make our position more difficult, and to create 10,000 Sinn Feiners for every hundred there were before the rebellion. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to come to this House and say that everything Sir John Maxwell has done in Ireland has been done with the consent and approval of the Government, but I believe, and I say it here, that not alone is Sir John Maxwell acting as military dictator in Ireland, but he is not acting in a fair and impartial manner. I say that Sir John Maxwell is actuated by political and by jealous motives. He is actuated by these motives as the result of the influence of Army officers in Dublin whose antipathy to Ireland is absolutely known. Sir John Maxwell in his report on the Dublin outbreak mentioned the fact that dozens of policemen were shot down in the streets of Dublin, and that every defenceless citizen

  231
  who fell into the hands of the Sinn Feiners was either shot or would have been shot but for the protection of the military. Many infamous documents have come from Ireland to this country from the representatives of this country in Ireland to the Cabinet, but none more infamous, none more lying, none more deceiving has ever been sent from Dublin Castle than that penned and sent by Sir John Maxwell. I am sorry that Members of this House, and some of us, have been driven to say things that we would not have said, possibly, if the settlement which was being arranged a few days ago had been carried through.
  But the Cabinet have been treating us in the most callous fashion, and we have taken off our gloves now, and will not put them on again until they go out head, neck, and heels. We have sat silent on these benches, knowing of the atrocities committed up and down the country by the military all through the rebellion. We have incurred the displeasure of our friends in Ireland for not standing up in defence of those poor victims; but we did it only in the hope that a settlement would be arrived at, and that a union of the North and South would be brought about. The cup was placed to our lips, and was dashed from them, not by Lord Lansdowne or any Unionist Member of the Cabinet, but I am afraid it was dashed from our lips by a united Cabinet. I am one of those who for the last five years, in season and out of season, on platform and elsewhere, he fought Sinn Fein; and I am not ashamed of having to say that not a single one in my constituency was deported to this country for having taken part in the rebellion. But there is a limit to human endurance, and I will tell the Home Secretary from this Bench that he may introduce coercion in Ireland and send for his Dukes, his Earls, and his Maxwells, and men of their stamp, but he will never crush the indomitable spirit of the Irish people. A man may have professed Sinn Fein, I may be opposed to him, but when we are attacked by the common foe both of us will unite in order to defeat his object. Many of the men who took part in the recent insurrection have now come to see the absolute foolishness of what is known as the physical force policy in Ireland might possibly rally to the standard of the Irish Party, and help to defeat the machinations of this Govern-
  232
  ment, or any Government that is going to follow. We listened to-day to the Prime Minister saying, in reply to a question from these Benches, as to what was to be the course to be adopted in the next Session in regard to fifteen or twenty days of supply being given. He said: 'I cannot answer for what is going to happen in the next Session, because the House will possibly be under the leadership of some other person."
  I have hoped from the bottom of my heart that when we come here next Session it will not be under the leadership of the man who leads the House now, because, as far as I am concerned, I would prefer to have as Prime Minister of this country a man of the stamp of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), or a man of the stamp of Lord Halsbury, to a Gentleman of the type of Mr. Asquith. The present Prime Minister will say one thing to-day and another thing tomorrow. In conclusion, all I have to say is: send your dukes and your earls to Ireland; introduce all the Coercion Acts you like; you will never kill the spirit of the Irish people; it will live after you have gone, whether it be in a year or two years, or ten years, or fifty years, or in a century, the spirit of Ireland will remain, and an Irish Parliament will be set up in Dublin, despite the influences of any party or of any section, or of any man, no matter how powerful he may be, or what influence he may command.
  Mr. O'DOWD: I do cot intend at this early hour in the morning to take up very much of the time of the House. I recognise that this Debate has been, essentially, an Irish Debate, and that most of the speeches have dealt with the recent abortive insurrection in Dublin—I will not say Ireland, I say Dublin. I rise with no acrimonious spirit, but I do so with two objects in view: one is to protest against the continuance of martial law and coercion in Ireland, and the other is to appeal for the release of all the unfortunate suspects—I will not call them prisoners—who are at present confined in various gaols in England. At an earlier stage of the Debate my hon. Friend the Member for North Leitrim instanced a case in his native town, the capital of his constituency—a place called Manorhamilton—where, under this regime of martial law, a detachment of soldiers were sent down to terrorise the town without any cause, and to desecrate

  233
  St. Clare's sacred hall. Who was responsible for that? I do not say any individual was. As I said, I did not rise in any acrimonious spirit. I do not wish to throw the apple of discord into any settlement or projected settlement of Irish grievances. But it is no wonder that such a thing can arise, when Ireland is placed under the double-barrelled pistol of coercion and martial law. It is no wonder that these soldiers would be sent down to that peaceful district, seeing that martial law is in existence, and seeing that Sir John Maxwell has, as one of his chief advisers, Major Price. I may be in error, but if I am, I will be corrected in what I say. I wish to know from some responsible member of the Government: is this the same Major Price who is the Chief Adviser of Sir John Maxwell in these critical times in Ireland, who some seven years ago was a District Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary in a place called Newmarket, in the county of Cork? An election was on there at Newmarket, in county Cork, in which I took part myself. The two candidates lived in one town, and both had their own supporters. And on a Sunday evening they came into contact. District Inspector Price was in charge of fourteen or fifteen of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he could easily have dispersed this crowd, which was of very small dimensions indeed, for I was present myself and saw it. But he allowed the crowd to grow and grow. What was the next thing he did? He ordered the police to fire, with the result that one innocent man, who had nothing to do with the squabble at all, was shot dead, and several others were wounded. I may be in error in saying this is the same Major Price, but if he is the same Price who was the District Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the case which I have just narrated, I say, and say deliberately, that it is an absolute scandal to have him appointed Chief Adviser to Sir John Maxwell, and I would like to know who is responsible for the appointment of such an individual to such a position of responsibility?
  We are not unused to coercion in Ireland—not indeed, by any means. I know what coercion means myself. Thirty-five years ago, when a young man, advocating the principles of Michael Davitt and Charles Stewart Parnell, I was taken out of my bed at two o'clock in the middle of the night, rushed across the country, and planted in a gaol in the north of Ireland, 120 miles from where I lived.
  234
  We are not unused, I say, to coercion. Without being charged with any crime, and merely when we were suspected it was sufficient in those days for an ordinary policeman under the Coercion Act of 1881, to point his finger at any individual and to have him arrested, detained, and imprisoned as a suspect for eighteen months. Those were the terms of the Coercion Act of 1881, and I repeat what I said a short time ago, that I am not surprised that such an outrage was perpetrated in my hon. Friend's constituency, because it is a revival of the coercion that we thought we had done away with thirty years ago. What was the object of this outrage? The policemen were sent down to Manorhamilton, probably by Price. They were sent down under the system that I have described of martial law and coercion, to hunt round for suspects, as they did in 1881. We thought all that was done away with; that that state of affairs was a thing of the past, but we find now that it is not so, notwithstanding the fact that since the War broke out we, the Irish Members, myself among the number, acting according to our instincts, in the interests of Ireland and of the Empire, became recruiting sergeants for two years and travelled the towns and villages to get recruits. We thought we should get a better return at this time of day for what we did, than this system of coercion and martial law combined. We got enough of coercion in the past and our forefathers knew what martial law meant. I feel very strongly on this matter as an individual who has gone through every national movement during the last thirty-five years, and what we suffered from in 1881 is now an accepted law of the land. I do not care what any man may say, you have the farmers and peasants, the owners of groups of farms, you have the expropriated landlords, contented with their lot, and living on better terms than ever they lived in the past with their neighbours.
  The fact is that you have become more democratic. I speak from knowledge—we were imprisoned in 1881 for trying to bring about that change. That change has come about, and really we do not want to revive coercion. I heard a lot yesterday in the Debate, if I may be permitted to refer to it shortly and not in detail—I heard a lot in the speeches from the opposite side of the House, well-intentioned speeches I am sure, about the unrest prevailing in Ireland. That is a fallacy; that unrest is non-existent. I know as much about the West of Ireland as any other man, and I

  235
  say clearly that the people are contented. But the people will be disappointed at the action of the Government in robbing them of their hopes at the eleventh hour when they expected their fulfilment. I am one of those individuals who believes earnestly in the doctrine of true nationality as the union of all parties and creeds. That is the doctrine preached by Thomas Davis, one of the very great Protestant preachers. If everybody was of my way of thinking there would be no falling out over religion; everyone would go to any place of worship he chose, just as they did in Great Britain and in America. Unfortunately, our country is one of the few countries in the world where we are deprived of our freedom, mainly through confiscations and through the system of sowing the seeds of bigotry in Ulster under James I. I think the best policy would be—but I am not a statesman, and I do not lay down a policy—what I do say, however, is that if Irishmen would only unite among themselves, and quit their foolery, to use a common word, and follow the example of what I hope may be soon an accomplised fact of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, and shake hands, and if all the people would show a little more give and take among themselves and throw away their foolish suspicions, engendered in their hearts by landlordism for the last two or three hundred years, that would be a good thing for Ireland; and that is what should be done. We are all proud of Belfast. It is a thriving city, and a great city.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that matter is not referred to or included in the Bill which we are supposed to be discussing.
  Mr. O'DOWD: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry to have transgressed. I do not mean to refer to Belfast at any length. I merely mentioned it to say that for the sake of Belfast itself it would not do to shut Belfast out from her best customers in the south and west of Ireland. I only say this, and I do say it with all my heart, that if everyone were of my way of thinking in Ireland there would be no religious bigotry at all, and you would have one
  236
  Irishman as good as another. I will quote the words of Moore, if I remember them. Here they are:
  "Erin! thy silent tear never shall cease,
  Erin, thy languid smile ne'er shall increase
  Till like the rainbow's light
  Thy various tints unite,
  And form in Heaven's sight
  One arch of peace."
  Mr. BYRNE: I did not intend to say anything on the subject before the House to-night, and would not have done so but for the use of the words, by one of my hon. Friends behind me, of "English chivalry." Since I came to this House I have seen very little of that boasted English chivalry. I desire to refer to the prisoners in gaol, who have been kept there for the last three months without trial. You talk about the atrocities on Nurse Cavell and Captain Fryatt, and you try and make the best you can of them in your newspapers. Of course, I abhor those atrocities, but I say, how do they compare with the treatment that has been meted out to lady prisoners arrested during the rebellion in Ireland? The shooting of the two brothers Pearse is such a crime as will be remembered for the next hundred years as one of the blackest crimes over committed by the English Government against Ireland. The shooting of Pearse, junior, because he was a brother of Pearse, senior, is a thing which can never be excused. Two of our lady prisoners have been clamouring for a trial. They say they are not afraid to face a judge and jury, and they expect that they will get a fair trial by judge and jury; but they get no trial at all, and what becomes of your boasted English chivalry? I have been looking for it for the last three months, and I must say that you show very little of it to our Irish prisoners. The prisoners were sent to gaol, and how were they treated there? Thirty or forty of them v ere thrown into one room, 12 ft. by 14 ft. square. They had to eat, drink, and sleep in that room with a leaking dustbin left in the room as the only lavatory accommodation.
  I have seen it. I witnessed it in Dublin, and it would have continued in Dublin if the Prime Minister had not gone over there. When the right hon. Gentleman went over things changed. What do you propose to do now with our 570 Irish prisoners at Frongoch? There are 570 of them to be interned. For how long? There are 570 men who have been refused the assistance that you would give to the commonest criminal in the land. You refuse

  237
  to allow them a legal defence. You are forgetting the families of these 570 prisoners. Do you think you are making their families more loyal to England by detaining their husbands and sons at Frongoch—detaining them, too, without trial? Nobody knows what questions they were asked, what statement they were allowed to make; and, if what I hear is true, you are detaining them because they refused to give you information about other people. Some of them were asked questions—did they know So-and-so? When they said "No," the Advisory Committee thought "You do know, because we have it here"; and they are keeping them in prison. For how long? No order is made. Nobody knows for how long. I say that if you arrested a criminal on the charge of murder you would give him the best legal defence in the land. Why are our 570 Irish boys denied that right? Why do you desire to keep them? Why is there this great secrecy? Why do you deny them the right of civil trial? Some of our men were tried by a prejudiced court-martial. Some of them were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from six months to penal servitude for life. Some of them were denied legal assistance. Is it not only fair to expect that you would give our boys in Frongoch a fair trial by jury? If you deny the right to the boys of a trial by jury, why do you not give us an example of your much-boasted English chivalry? Why do you not give a fair trial to our lady prisoners at Lewes? They are not afraid of a trial. They have asked for a trial. They are prepared to go before a judge and a jury opposed to them in religion—opposed to them in everything which they stood for. One of these lady prisoners chanced to be employed by a trade union whose leader took part in the rebellion, and because of her employment this lady is denied the right of a trial, and the is denied the right of legal assistance. Can any of you English gentlemen answer me this? Is that your much-boasted English chivalry? We in Ireland have seen no examples of it—never! You talk about the Belgian atrocities. You are doing with our Irish prisoners to-day, and you are doing with Ireland to-day, exactly what Germany has done in Belgium. You refuse to compensate the dependants of the unfortunate innocent victims of the recent rebellion. Our friends in America, who have supplied Ireland with money for many a good cause before, have come
  238
  forward to do the work which the British Government should do—that is, to provide a means of livelihood for the unfortunate people. They land with money and with instructions from the American people as to how they should distribute the funds when they get to Dublin, and the Home Secretary's Department makes an order that the two well-known American citizens entrusted with this duty are not to be allowed to proceed to Ireland. These two gentlemen are well known. Do you mean to tell me that you fear them going to Ireland to distribute the money? Are you not more afraid that they would find out the secret ways which you have in dealing with that country and take back the news to America? Have any of the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench read in the American Press within the past three months the expressions of indignation from the Irish Americans on account of the way in which you treat our Irish prisoners? Will you allow—it is not asking much from you—the evidence upon which the prisoners were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment or executed to be printed and placed upon the Table of the House of Commons? You have allowed the rebellion Commission to give their side. I think it is only honest and only fair to ask that the evidence on the other side should also be placed upon the Table; and we could show you that to satisfy the lust for blood of your military despots in Ireland they have executed men who in ordinary times would not have been sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment. Did our Irish prisoners get a fair chance when they were brought before an Advisory Committee and some of them were discharged? They went back to Dublin and were brought before another Advisory Committee and were reinstated in their employment. Is it fair that, because a representative of the old aristocratic ascendancy part of- Ireland asks you a question about a certain man or men—do the Government think it is honest or just to pander to that representative in this House by dismissing these men from their employment? Is that your much boasted-of British justice or your English chivalry? Have we seen much if it in Ireland? One man, who I am proud to say is an Irishman, politically opposed to me in everything which I stand for, I admire—I mean the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir Edward Carson). He is one of the few Members of this House who

  239
  has showed determination. He is a man who went into the Cabinet among a lot of weaklings, and shook them like a terrier would shake a rat. And then to come back and go out of the Cabinet, and go back to his colleagues, with everything that he wanted in the palm of his hand—a man who has won all along the line, a man who, through determination, who, through threats of civil war, was allowed to carry on a gun-running escapade in the North. When the Howth gun-running took place for the Irish Volunteers to do exactly what the right, hon. Member for Dublin University had advised his people to do, on the day on which that Howth gun-running took place, where did they give the instructions to the military from? Was it not from the Tory political headquarters in Dublin, well-known as the Kildare Street Club?
  Mr. SPEAKER: All this has nothing whatever to do with the Bill which we are now discussing, and I would invite the hon. Gentleman to give his attention to the Bill rather more closely.
  Mr. BYRNE: I am sorry to have transgressed the rules, but I have heard the Kildare Street Club referred to and I thought it might perhaps be relevant.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Not in the least in connection with the matters to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring.
  Mr. BYRNE: I will not transgress further, and I will not delay the House much longer. I will ask the Members of the Cabinet to show Members on the Irish benches the meaning of those words "English Chivalry." They can do so by giving us some good example. So far, we have seen none. They have the opportunity of doing so by ordering the immediate release of at least the two lady prisoners who asked for a trial and were refused. You have three there, and two of them asked for a trial. If, also, the Cabinet were to allow the 550 Irish prisoners to take a trial in the Civil Court, and to be granted the facilities that the Government would grant any ordinary criminal. I do not think I am asking too much if that is to be the example of your so boasted English Chivalry.
  Mr. NUGENT: I understand we are asked now to vote a considerable amount
  240
  of money for the support of the Army, and before we proceed with that vote I should like to make a little enquiry as to what this money is going to be utilised for. Early in the Debate a question was asked by my hon. Friend, the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with reference to the holding of meetings. It is an exceedingly important affair, and I may give an illustration. I do think it should be considered as money is to be voted by this House to support a campaign which started in some of the rural districts of Ireland to prevent Friendly Societies from holding their meetings. Some of these Friendly Societies have to hold their regular weekly meetings for the purpose of paying sick benefit to their members. I have had not one but a number of occasions to write to Sir John Maxwell, and I wish to say here, and I express my thanks, that on any occasion on which I have come in contact with him he has treated me with the most perfect courtesy. I have not a word to say against him personally, but he is not able to control many of the policemen in the country who are throwing obstacles in the way, and are threatening these people. I believe all this was done at the inspiration of his officers—this gentleman who has been alluded to as Major Price. I hope someone is going to reply, however late the hour, because men's lives and liberties are at stake, and I do think that when Members representing the Government come here they have an obligation to answer these questions and to deal with them when Members take the trouble to come to the House to speak on behalf of their constituents.
  Another question I should like to raise is this: There was an enquiry. I mention this because the Military have to deal with it. We are going to keep a large standing Army in Ireland, and I do think we should know the reason why, because one and all will agree that it was understood that the money which had been voted was for the purpose of crushing military tyranny in Europe. It is given as the reason for everyone being engaged in this War, that it is to destroy the power of the Kaiser, and to try to prove that right is might. I think we have got to a state when we are going to imitate his example in this country, and that we have got to a point at which we are going to assert that might is right. The enquiry took place a short time ago with regard

  241
  to the death of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington, and it was proved that the person who ordered the shooting was insane, a lunatic. This was sought to be proved by his actions previous to the rising. I want to know what right have we to pass over this, and not to ascertain who was the Military Authority who entrusted the control of troops to a lunatic, and how many more lunatics there were in charge of the military forces in Ireland. I think there must be an enquiry, and that we must ascertain what men there are in the military service competent to take charge of these troops so far as Ireland is concerned. This gentleman holds his Commission still, and are we to understand that a man will be allowed to hold the position of Captain who, according to the report of the Commission of Inquiry, is a lunatic? I do not think anyone wants the Army which is to represent this Empire to be controlled by lunatics. That is one point I am particularly anxious to have ascertained. I would also like more inquiries made with regard to this gentleman, Captain Price, because I think an inquiry into his mental condition would do no harm. I have had an opportunity of meeting him on a number of occasions, and I may say that, instead of trying to ascertain the means necessary to quench the rebellion that took place in Ireland, his chief function at the interview I had with Sir John Maxwell was to condemn the Irish Parliamentary Party, and to suggest, in the presence of Sir John Maxwell, that they were responsible for the actual organisation of this rebellion.
  I would also like to know who it was wrote this report sent by Sir John Maxwell, because, according to the statement made, I think by the Home Secretary, there were eight policemen shot. I hope he will give us the names of those eight policemen, because some of us have grave doubts that there were any such number shot, and that they were shot—if they were shot—by the rebels It was not a case, as suggested, of a cold-blooded murder, because anyone who knows Dublin, and was in Dublin during this time, is aware of the fact that, during the first day, practically all the Metropolitan policemen were orderd off the streets before there had been any effort on behalf of the insurgents to shoot a policeman. There would have been no difficulty in their shooting a large number if they had wished to do so, and I hope the Home
  242
  Secretary will give us some information as to the names of these men. We have asked not once but repeatedly from these benches that there should be an inquiry into the whole of the shootings in Ireland. I say that should be done as much in the interests of the Army as in the interests of these people, because I do not join with, anyone who is going to bring a charge-of wholesale and reckless shooting against the Army as a whole. I know the Dublin Fusiliers were there and the Royal Irish Rifles too; I know there were many regiments there, and while there might well have been cases of individuals who were-reckless, I think, viewing them as a whole, the soldiers tried their level best to carry out their unpleasant duty—and it was an unpleasant duty. I have come across not one instance but several during that period of soldiers of the Dublin Fusiliers belonging to Dublin—men, in fact, belonging to the district where I live—who were present. I know several young men from that district, and I think, if the information which the Home Secretary receives is not entirely tainted and poisoned, he will find that there were many men of the Dublin Fusiliers who were ordered during that period to fire upon their own comrades and neighbours, and I have yet to learn that Sir John Maxwell, or anyone else, has any reason to complain that these men in the Dublin Fusiliers did not carry out their unpleasant duty, believing that they were acting in the best interests, not alone of their country and of the Empire, but of their own city. I would like these matters to be considered and to have some information upon them, because I think in the shootings in Dublin only a small number of the military took part. But the shootings of those who did take part have created not only dissatisfaction in the city, but have produced horror throughout the whole country. It is idle for Members representing the Government to suggest that some of these men were accidentally shot. We have it upon record that not only did they shoot men they had taken prisoners, but they actually fired upon the white flag, which, I believe, is a terrible crime, and against all military usage Let me give you an abstract from the affidavit sworn by one of these people. I do not think I am going outside the Debate in giving it, because we have voted money for the upkeep of the military, and we should like to know what control there is over the military, and what the necessity is for

  243
  having such a large body of them in Dublin? Here is a statement made by one of these unfortunate people:
  "We had lived in our house, No. 8, Moore Street, for nearly forty years, and were there on Easter Monday, from the beginning of the rebellion. One day in the middle of that week, it may have been Wednesday, when matters were becoming very serious, my father went up to Britain Street to ascertain if it would be possible for us all to leave the house, but he was stopped by the military, and told that if he dared to proceed another step he would be shot. The orders were to return immediately to his house and remain there. We then remained there till Friday evening, and the firing became so terrible in the street, also down Moore Lane and on the back of our house, we thought it would be advisable to leave the house, and we proceeded by way of the garden and stores out to No. 6, where we were able to effect an entrance through our workshops. We were here from about 6 p.m. on Friday evening till 5 a.m. on Saturday morning, 29th April. During those hours the fire, which originated at the General Post Office, had burned steadily on, and the barricade which was across Henry Street became ignited, thus setting on fire the houses on the opposite side of that street, and ultimately the adjoining block in Moore Street." (I ask Members who are anxious to slumber to realise that this is a case of life and death, and I hope that for a moment they will arouse themselves from their slumbers and consider the lives of the people.) "About 5 a.m. we discovered that the house, No. 4, was on fire, and it was quite obvious that we could not longer remain on that side of the street, as we were hemmed in between Moore Lane and the fire. So in conjunction with other residents of the street who had taken refuge in No. 5, we decided to cross to a house on the opposite side. We all went out together, a very orderly crowd, mostly composed of women and children and a few men, none of whom were armed or in any way connected with the rising. We had the protection of white flags, one being carried by Miss Morris, of 4, Moore Street. We were crossing the street, when we were fired on by the military at the barricade, and my father fell dead instantly, being shot in the throat, opposite the house we were going to for safety. The barricade was situated across the top of our street in Britain Street. That was about 5 a.m. on Saturday. We remained in that house for some hours, and then it took fire. Miss Morris walked up the street alone with a white flag to the military at the barricade, and told them that there was a defenceless crowd of men, women and children imprisoned in one of the burning houses, and asked them for God's sake to let them out and not to fire on them. Permission was refused absolutely. The girl knelt on the ground to the senior officer, and after very considerable delay he gave permission for the women and children to be marched up the street and across the barricade, and the men were to be taken prisoners, and confined in a separate house, she being retained there as a hostage. When we got into Britain Street my mother and I, together with the rest of the women and children, were locked into a tenement house directly facing Moore Street, and were left there from 8 o'clock that morning till late at night without any food. During that time we saw our property, 6 and 6½, Moore Street, reduced to a heap of burning ruins, and my father's corpse lying on the pavement opposite. That evening, after the surrender of the Volunteers, I got permission from the officer then in charge of the barricade to go down the street to get the corpse. I went down, accompanied by Miss Morris and the white flag, and when I was just kneeling down, trying to raise him, we were
  244
  again fired on"—(this is the third or fourth time that the white flag had been fired on)—"and very narrowly escaped being shot, as several bullets hit the ground around us. When I returned on the following Wednesday to the house we had lived in, No. 8, I found it completely looted, money, papers, clothes, jewellery, everything was gone, and the walls and roof completely ruined by the fire. As a consequence of the rebellion and the subsequent actions taken by the military authorities, my father's life has been taken, and we, who before were self-supporting citizens, are reduced to complete destitution, only saved from starvation by relief from the Vincent de Paul Society."
  3.0 P.M.
  That is signed by the daughter of the man. That is one instance; I can give a dozen. Here is another affidavit regarding a man who, while he was standing in his own little room and lighting his pipe, was fired at through the window and was shot dead. When his wife rushed over to him the bullets were coming through the window. Can anyone suggest that that sort of thing is to go unpunished? Do hon. Members opposite imagine that with this sort of thing in the minds and hearts of the people you are going to have peace and good will in Ireland? Everyone knows that Members on this side of the House have done their duty in connection with this War. May I go a little further and suggest that previous to this insurrection recruiting meetings were held in every portion of Dublin? I should like to know how recruiting meetings can be held in the City of Dublin to-day? Do the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench know that during the weeks and months previous to this insurrection in King Street and that district soldiers were worshipped and wounded soldiers regarded as much as heroes as are any wounded soldiers in London? That was because most of the people in that district had husbands or brothers or sons fighting, but the feeling is changed and has turned to resentment against soldiers. That is what we have got to face and what the military dictatorship has got to face during the next few months. In the interests of the dictates of humanity, in the interest of the Army, and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to insist that there should be a public inquiry. You may say that it would be against public policy to have an inquiry, because so many things happened that were a disgrace to the Army, but I think people ought to be courageous and face it. In the interest of the Army itself it is absolutely necessary that an inquiry should take place, because it is evident that quite a small number of men are responsible for all these misdeeds.

  245
  But I will say this, that those people who are in want by reason of the insurrection must be given compensation. You cannot bring back the lives of the men who were shot—and speaking for myself, I do not want any human punishment for the perpetrators of the outrages; the punishment of their consciences and of a just God will suffice. But we are entitled to ask whether the Government are going to permit these widows and orphans of the men who are shot down to go without compensation. The argument put forward is that there is no proof that the men were shot down by the military; but the Government will have no proof because they will not permit an inquiry to take place. The consequence is that no doubt there will be some exaggerations of the outrages. It appears that the Government are seeking by their Press censorship, to prevent news of these occurrences reaching America, but I may inform the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government to-night that it is no use trying to prevent this news reaching America, because it is there already, and to try to prevent it is like trying to stop the tide with a pitchfork. If the Government will not allow the information to be published, some of us must take means to let it reach America, and it will not be to the interest of the Government or the Allies if that has to be resorted to. I am one who has tried to do his best on behalf of the Allies in the War. I know every inch of the country. I think that one of the revelations which possibly would be a surprise to this House—in view of the statement made that the organisation I happen to be secretary of is supposed to be watching for an opportunity for worsting the British Empire—that it is an organisation of an international nature which has sent more men to fight than any other organisation—I refer to the Ancient Order of Foresters. Why 6hould there be a standing Army of 40,000 soldiers in Ireland? Could not these men toe more usefully employed fighting the Germans? Do you not want every available man for that purpose? Why, then, do you keep this large military force in Ireland, instead of giving the Irish people some indication that your desire is to get fair play and justice? So far as I can see, Members of this House are not sufficiently interested in this important matter. There are not forty Members present at this moment, and I do not think we should continue the Debate under those circum-
  246
  stances. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to draw your attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. KING: I am sorry to intervene if by doing so I prevent hon. Members from Ireland addressing the House on questions which interest them. We have listened for four and a half hours to a very sombre and sad Debate. I shall not do more than remark upon it that I have been recalling once again, as I have listened to the speeches, the words we heard describing Ireland at the beginning of the war—that Ireland was the one bright spot. What does the Government say about Ireland to-day? Surely we can all agree that Ireland is the darkest tragedy of this War! But I do not rise to speak upon the Irish question. I gave notice last week in the House that I would take this opportunity of referring to a question which has already been discussed. I gave notice to the Home Secretary and others of my intention to refer again to the question of the threatened deportation of aliens, and I believe that, late as the hour is, the House would like me to keep my word. After all, it is not much that a Member of Parliament can do in these days, but at any rate a private Member can try to keep his word. We listened about four and a half hours ago to a remarkable speech, full of eloquence and patriotism, from the Home Secretary; and may I at once thank him for the steadiness with which he has sat through and listened patiently to this Debate? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has to spend many hours attending Cabinet meetings and working at the Home Office and elsewhere, I am sure the whole House is indebted to him for the way he has attended here, and if I differ very strongly from him in the action he has taken and the threatened action he contemplates, yet I have found nothing but consideration, courtesy, and patience in my dealings with him. The Home Secretary has referred to a recent case which has been before the Court—to a man named Charles Sarno, a Russian subject, who a few days ago was threatened with deportation. Being a man of some means Sarno was able to brief counsel, and a writ of habeas corpus was applied for. When the hearing came on a rule was granted and the man was discharged for this strange

  247
  reason, that though the police were intending to deport this man, yet no order of deportation had been issued by the Home Secretary. Therefore the man was immediately released. That is a very remarkable thing, and I think it ought to be cleared up in the Office of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has again and again been telling us that he has not deported anyone.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No!
  Mr. KING: I mean any of these Russian subjects who were ready to join the Army, or who were to have an opportunity of going before a tribunal if they would not join the Army. I can quote the cases of two other men, both of whom have been threatened with deportation, although no order has been made for their deportation. They were threatened by the police. They were told by the police when they went to their houses that if they did not come to the station next day ready to depart for Russia, they would be apprehended. They had naturally supposed that there had been an order of deportation made against them. I have no doubt that many men have in that way been juggled with and, I will say, tricked by the police. I do not suppose for a moment that the Home Secretary has been a party to the game played by the police of tricking these men into supposing that they were to be deported. But the facts of the Sarno case—a man threatened with deportation when no order had been issued—suggest what I fear has been happening in many cases, namely, that men have been tricked by the police with a threat. The hon. Member for West Wilts (Mr. Geoffrey Howard) and the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Flavin) were kind enough to call Sarno my friend, although as a matter of fact I have had no dealings with him whatever. When the Home Secretary said that I had been too credulous with regard to this man it is well that I should tell the House that I have had nothing to do with him, although I have received one or two deputations of people interested in this subject. The man in question is said to be a rascal and a rogue. Let it be so. He may be. There are many rascals and rogues in the world. But this man was threatened with deportation, and the explanation of the Home Secretary is that it would give the police too much trouble to get all the evidence and lay it before the Court, and therefore with the powers he has it is much easier
  248
  and simpler to deport him straight away. If anyone could have a case brought against him in the way the case was brought against this man, I say that none of us is safe, and everyone of us had better be careful that he excites no suspicion whatever or he may have some terrible experience at the hands of the Home Secretary.
  Here is a more important point still. Sarno claimed that he was a political refugee. Whether he really was or was not is immaterial. I am inclined to think that he was not a genuine political refugee, because I know a number of eminent scientific men who are political refugees from Russia—they are my friends—and they informed me that they knew of no such man who was a political refugee. Anyhow, he claimed to be a political refugee, and no rebutting evidence was brought forward. The man expressed his willingness to join the British Army. The Home Secretary said that he refused to join the British Army. All I know is that the man actually put in an affidavit, which was read in Court, and in the course of it he declared on oath, "I am willing to join the British Army." A statement in an affidavit, which, as far as I know, was never controverted in the Court, must be accepted even by the Home Secretary, even though it is inconvenient for him to-accept it. In this case the Home Secretary has been misinformed. I do not blame him, because I know that he has far too much to do to look into all the details of the case. He has either jumped to the wrong conclusion, or he has been incorrectly informed by his informers. Sarno declared that he was a political refugee, and, in spite of that, the Home Secretary deports him. That is a distinct breach of the pledge which he gave.
  Mr. SAMUEL: A breach of what pledge?
  Mr. KING: The pledge that if a man claimed to be a political refugee and was not able to join the British Army, as you did not allow this man to do, he should go before a tribunal.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I never said anything about political refugees. Moreover, the hon. Member himself has said that this man was not a political refugee, and three judges each said he was not satisfied that he was a refugee. Further, in no case whatever was any pledge given with regard to military service, and this case

  249
  has nothing to do with military service. This man was a man of a criminal type of whom the country is very well rid.
  Mr. KING: That is all very well, but the Home Secretary is now changing his ground. He does not deny that this man was ready to join the British Army.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The British Army has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. KING: No; the Home Secretary cannot get out of a case like this by saying a man is a criminal. After all, he may be mistaken, and the law of the land is plain. We hold a man innocent until he is proved guilty. The right hon. Gentleman has all the law officers of the Crown and the law at his disposal, and instead of bringing this man to justice by the ordinary way of British justice, before a judge and jury, and instead of getting a conviction and applying to the judge, as he can do, for a deportation order at the conclusion of the sentence, he chooses to put in force his power of deportation. All I can say is that if this is to be used just as a convenience in order to save the time of the police, we shall not have much justice left at the end of the War. I know it is a difficult case, and it is very easy for the Home Secretary, who admittedly made one mistake over it—
  Mr. SAMUEL: What mistake?
  Mr. KING: Trying to deport him when you had not signed the Deportation Order. It is very easy to deny my facts, just as I deny his. I am going to give one or two other cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, I could go on at considerable length, but I will try to be considerate. The right hon. Gentleman said just now, when an appeal was made to him, that he should allow these Russian Jews to go to any neutral country that would have them, that there was no neutral country that he knew of which would have them. Had not I told him that they were able to go to America, and had not he documentary evidence offered to him that America was now receiving many Russian Jew refugees from France, and that there had been a constant exodus from France of Russian refugees, especially Jewish refugees, after the threatened anti-Semite agitation got up in France a little while ago, and also that the Government is asking them not to go to America, but to stay and con-
  250
  tinue their peaceful employment in Paris? The right hon. Gentleman may say he is not aware of these facts, but they are notorious. They have been printed in a report which has been sent to this country, through the Foreign Office, and for him to say that these Russian Jew Refugees are not able to go to any neutral country is absolutely against the facts, and against the facts which have been put before him, and which he ought to know. He really must be more careful of the way in which he makes statements in the House which may help him to keep up his campaign against his own compatriots and co-religionists, but which are contrary to the facts.
  I will give another case from which he will see that he is quite inaccurate. He has represented again and again in this House that he is acting with the support of general Jewish opinion in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] He is not at all. I maintain that when he threatens to deport Russian Jews to Russia, he is going against the feeling, the almost unanimous feeling, of Jews in this country. He is quite right when he says he wants them patriotically to offer to serve. That is quite right. Although I am against Conscription, I have always been strongly in favour of recruiting, and I do my utmost to make these men serve voluntarily in the Army. I will not say, however, "You serve, and if you do not, I am going to send you back to Russia in which you have been persecuted, and from which you fled in despair to this country as an asylum of refuge." Up to a point the Jewish community is so patriotic that they want these men to enlist voluntarily, but the Jewish community is completely against the right hon. Gentleman when he says that if they do not enlist in this country he will deport them to Russia. I have a letter here, and though I am afraid I have not the writer's permission to mention his name, I can read certain parts of the letter, from an official, not written in the name of the Committee but as a member of the Committee of the Committee of Refugee Jews—a very well-known and highly respected body. He says, in the course of his letter:—
  "I have read the report of the question which you addressed to the Home Secretary on Monday last—
  that is Monday of last week—
  "and the reply made to it. I desire to say that your information with regard to the Board's decision is quite correct, and that the Home Secretary's statement is not correct."

  251
  That is from a member of the Committee of Refugee Jews, and was in reference to a resolution which was passed there, and with regard to which he writes to me—that I am correct, and that the Home Secretary is not correct. I might follow the letter at great length, because it is extraordinarily well written, and extremely cogent. It continues:
  "We merely support the principle of enlistment, but certainly not the principle of deportation—"
  and he adds:
  "there is hardly a Jew in this country who does not resent to the very Uttermost the proposal to deport Jews back again to Russia."
  I will add only one more quotation from this letter:
  "There is heartfelt gratitude to yourself and other Englishmen who have made this cause their own"
  I think I must claim to say, after reading that letter which comes from a man whose name is well-known in the Jewish community, that in the line I have taken I represent the feeling of Jews in this country much better than the Home Secretary. Here is another case. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"). I promise that I will not, at any rate, call a count while I am speaking. At this late hour, any Members of the House who do not care to listen, to me any longer can go home. Here is another very important point on which I asked a question some days ago. I asked on the 25th of last month about Russians who had, previous to the War, applied for a naturalisation and been refused; and I asked whether there was a feeling of resentment among such men that they were now being offered the opportunity either of enlistment or of deportation to Russia.
  The Home Secretary, in his reply, stated on the 25th of last month he did not know of any such case. I have a letter here, written by a student in one of our universities—and, remember, we have a large number of Russian Jew students in our universities, especially at Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield, and in the medical schools of those and other universities there are also a large number of Jewish students—I have a letter that one of these wrote to me after this question had appeared on the Paper. He informed me that on the 18th of last month, just before my question was put, he wrote to the Home Secretary, informing him of the facts of his own case, that he had applied for naturalisation in 1911, been one of several students who did so, and, largely because he had no papers whatever to
  252
  show his nationality—he had come here as a child with refugee parents—his application was refused. This man, naturally, resents what has taken place. He wrote beforehand quite unknown to me but entirely confirming the point of view I take. Having applied before the War to become a British citizen, and having been refused more or less on a technical ground, he bitterly resents being now offered the opportunity of enlistment or deportation to Russia.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Member of this House to make an attack upon one of our Allies who are doing such noble service against the Germans at the present moment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot control the hon. Member in what he says if he keeps to the subject which is before the House.
  Mr. KING: I was not making any attack upon the gallant Russian Army. I have not said one word against the Russian Army. I respect their success too much to make any attack upon them. It is those who see attacks when no attacks are meant, who are themselves to blame. I am not going into all the mistakes of the Home Secretary. I have half a dozen cases here, but I am not going to show him up too much. I must, however, just give another instance of the sort of thing which shows how badly thought out and how miserably inadequate his policy is. I have a letter here from a gentleman, a Russian Jewish doctor, who has been serving as a military doctor in the Serbian Army, and was with that army until it evacuated Serbia. He has been through the whole War with the Serbians. He then comes to this country and offers his services to the War Office. He sent me a letter which he has received from the War Office. He is a Doctor of Medicine of the University of Berne, and I believe it is well recognised that the medical diplomas of the Swiss university are even higher in standard than those of either Germany, France, or this country. He is a highly qualified medical man, and spent something like a year and a half in warfare with our Allies. He sends me a copy of a letter which has been sent to him by the War Office. It tells him that he must go to the Jewish War Service Committee—that is a committee which sits in Lord Rothschild's office in the City—and there he will be able to get papers and particulars which will allow him to enlist in the ranks of the British

  253
  Army. Then he is further referred to the Army Order, and to the other statements which show that if he does not now enlist in the ranks of the British Army he will be liable to be deported to Russia. I say that a man like that, who has been serving as a doctor and an officer in the Serbian Army, to be treated like that is a perfect scandal. For such a man to have a letter like that naturally moves him to indignation, which he expresses in this letter to me.
  The fact is, the Home Secretary has endeavoured to grasp too quickly and very unskilfully a very difficult and complicated problem. He has rushed at it. He has been too occupied with other work. He has not taken good and sound advice in the steps which he has entered upon, and the result is this, that you have a feeling of irritation and annoyance among all the men against whom this policy is directed, and I am afraid it will be very difficult to get anything good out of them. Last week a meeting was held of patriotic men in the East End of London, and a gentleman named Mr. Powell, a well-known leader of the Jewish community, went down to address that meeting. This gentleman was supposed to be in favour of the Government policy, although, I am told, he, personally, is as much as almost every Jew against the policy of deportation. Yet, being known as a patriotic Jew in favour of enlistment, and having taken part in recruiting campaigns, he was regarded as in favour of the Home Secretary's policy, and a hue and cry was got up, and when he got to the meeting they were not able to have a meeting at all, the hall being packed with protesting Russian Jews, indignant, not at the idea of a patriotic or recruiting meeting being held, but at the threat which has been held out to them by one of their compatriots that they may be deported to Russia. That state of things produces annoyance, suspicion, and irritation. That is the state of feeling which the Home Secretary has aroused in the breasts of dozens of his co-religionists.
  If he would give the people who understand the question an opportunity of putting their case before him, or if he had appointed a small committee, either of Members of this House or of the Jewish community to advise him after having carefully inquired into the matter, he would have been saved from any difficulty, and there would have been a very different state of things. Instead of that, he has irritated these people, and made far more
  254
  difficult the whole of this problem. I might say a very great deal more upon this matter, but at this late hour I shall not do so. I will venture to say, however, when the Home Secretary announces his policy, the details will be given just at the end of the Session, when there will be no opportunity for discussing them or of elucidating these matters, or of pointing out the difficulties which the Home Office will encounter. The matter will be put into me hands of some officials, who will rush the matter through, and strive by brute force to beat down the opposition, which is very intelligible, and which is not going to be beaten down in that way. The matter may result, I am afraid, not in the success which I trust will be achieved. Let me say, further, that I hope, whatever he does, he will put, first of all, upon the tribunals which are to deal with this problem men who will be generally trusted. There are certain members of the old Jewish community who are not really closely in touch with these later emigrants from Jewry in foreign countries. These members of the old Jewish community are some of them men of great eminence like members of the Rothschild family; they are great men, and patriotic Englishmen, but they are not the men who will really have the confidence of these people, and who will understand their point of view and be patient with them. I hope very much indeed that those who will be selected will include representatives of the Jewish community who will receive the unanimous support, not only of the old-established Jewish families in this land, but also of the newcomers who are still to a large extent foreign and not so thoroughly and entirely British in patriotism and public service as, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) sitting there.
  I will not burden the Home Secretary with too much of my advice on this matter, but I will warn him that he is playing with fire. I believe this matter has got into the position that it has done because of an anti-Semite agitation which has taken place in certain papers. The "New Witness," and other such papers, have brought about a bitter feeling in the East End, which the right hon. Gentleman now has to cope with. He is playing with fire in regard to this anti-Semite agitation, and a very dangerous fire it is. I trust that whatever happens there will be no countenance given to the feeling that if we allowed foreigners in our midst to continue

  255
  peaceful avocation while we went to war, it was only natural that there should be raids and attacks upon them. That is not the sort of spirit we should be shown by the man who is in charge of the police of London. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in this House entirely unworthy of him and of the high office he adorns. The remarks I have made come from a deep feeling of conviction of the gravity of the subject, and of the possibly effects of the mistakes that he may be making. I sincerely hope that he will have caution and discretion, and that he will carry, as far as possible, the whole of the Jewish community, as well as the general public, with him in the various steps he thinks right to take. If he does that no one will be more pleased, and no one will congratulate him more heartily, than I shall.
  Mr. T. F. SYMTH: I desire to protest against the continuance of martial law and the revival of coercion in Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Sligo said, we are not unaccustomed to coercion in Ireland. In 1887, when this country was celebrating the Golden Jubilee of the late Queen Victoria, there was witnessed in Ireland the greatest coercion, but Irish Nationalism would rise phoenix-like from its ashes whatever coercion was practised on it. None of us were in sympathy with the Irish rebellion. We all deplored it, but we think that now a general amnesty should be given. If that were done it would palliate us in some way for the treatment we have recently endured. If we have been misled badly it is another in-instance of promises to Ireland being broken by distinguished British statesmen. This rebellion was to be deplored very much, but if, now it is all over, the Prime Minister would do as General Botha did in South Africa, give a general amnesty and an act of clemency for the men imprisoned it would be one of the best day's work done by the British Government in the interests of the British Empire. When that great pillar of Liberalism, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man proposed to give Home Rule to South Africa, the present First Lord of the Admiralty stated that he did not think it would be wise to grant Home Rule to that colony. I am sure that no Gentleman in this House, no matter in what part of it he sits, would now say that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was foolish in what
  256
  he did. If we were treated in Ireland in the same way as our Colonies were treated there would be no more loyal sons of the Empire anywhere than would be found in Ireland. During the past two years the Irish party, under the distinguished leadership of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, went through Ireland and did what we could to get recruits for the Army, with the result that at present 150,000 Irishmen are fighting for the Empire. Had Home Rule been granted at that time the position of the Empire would be much stronger to-day, because it would have more troops from Ireland and you would have far more sympathy and support from the different Colonies of the Empire. If the Government could introduce an Amnesty Act and release these; prisoners who were deported to English gaols it would be the best day's work they could do in the interests of Ireland and of the Empire.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Acts in Schedule.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HAZLETON: I would make an appeal to the Government not to go on with the further Orders on the Paper now. It will be in the recollection of the House that my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo made an appeal to the Prime Minister not to take the Consolidated Fund Bill to-day, in view of the fact that there were two or three other Orders on the Paper. The Prime Minister met my hon. Friend in a very reasonable spirit. He said that if my hon. Friend pressed his objection he would not take the Consolidated Fund Bill to-day—
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): No. The Prime Minister did not say that. He said the Special Commissions Bill.
  Mr. HAZLETON: That is so, and on the assurance of the Prime Minister that the

  257
  Special Commissions Bill would only take about an hour my hon. Friend withdrew his objection. As a matter of fact, instead of it taking an hour, the Special Commissions Bill took well over three hours, and I think the Government might very well be satisfied with the progress they have made to-day, and defer these further Orders at this hour of the morning until the next sitting. Therefore, I think I would be only acting in what Members would consider a reasonable spirit if I moved, Mr. Maclean, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Question put, "That Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I appeal to the hon. Member to allow us to make some progress with these small Bills. As usual, there are a certain number of small Bills which have to be gone through at the end of the Session. This is not a contentious measure. I am sure my hon. Frend will admit that we have had a very long discussion and that we have not been lacking in patience with regard to that discussion. I hope he will allow us to take these Orders, which are not contentious, and make some progress at this late part of the Session with these Bills.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill comprises? Has he seen the Bill? I have before me a copy of the Bill which has been introduced by the Secretary to the Treasury, and, from a casual observation, I find that it comprises at least twenty or thirty Bills, some of which are not only controversial but are obnoxious to us Irishmen. There is one Bill, for instance, the Glebe Lands (Ireland) Purchase Bill of 1870, and this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill makes provision for the continuance of that Bill in operation. Does the right hon. Gentleman know anything about the working of that Bill in connection with land purchase in Ireland? And is he aware that there are between 10,000 and 15,000 tenants who bought under that Bill?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now arguing questions which relate to the Bill itself. It is not out of order to say that there are controversial things in the Bill, but he must not go into detail.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I do not want to go into details at all, but I want to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the number of Bills which are renewed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that affect Ireland? I was surprised to hear his statement that Bills contained in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill were not of a controversial character. I can remember that Bills have been included which in the past have excited a great deal of discussion. His statement shows that, after all, Ministers have very little knowledge as to whether Bills relating to Ireland are or are not of a controversial character. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that if we are not to report Progress now, I shall certainly feel it my duty to raise a discussion on several of these Bills.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is apparently going to carry his intention into effect on this Motion. We had better wait until we arrive at the Bills to which he refers.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Very well.
  Mr. HAZLETONAs the right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me, I think I ought to meet him in a reasonable spirit. I do not know how far my hon. Friends intend to take exception to the Bills contained in this measure which the Government now wish to press forward. Our ground of objection is to going on with them at this hour of the morning. There is no hurry at all, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in saying that at this late period of the Session we ought to allow the Government to take Bills of this nature at four o'clock in the morning. We are not within sight of the end of the Session. The Prime Minister told us that after the 17th or 19th of this month the House was to adjourn for six weeks' holiday, and that we were then to come back and resume the Session. In view of this fact I would appeal to the Government not to press measures at this hour.
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: The Bill to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention cannot be a Bill of so highly controversial a character as he gave the Committee to-understand, because it has been passed by this House year after year for nearly half a century. It is a Bill which dates from 1870, and I think the importance of stopping that Bill to-night cannot be so

  259
  great as in the first heat of argument my hon. Friend suggested. I suggest that we might, at least, take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to-night—we have made no progress at all with these little Bills tonight—and I will agree not to take the other Bills on the Order Paper if this Bill is allowed to go through.
  Mr. FLAVIN: The intervention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Debate only supplies further evidence of the want of knowledge on the Treasury Bench of Irish legislation. Will the right hon. Gentleman show me any legislation that has ever been passed for Ireland in connection with land purchase, outside the Glebe Land Purchase Act, where the Tenant never becomes the owner in fee of his property? I know tenants under the Glebe Purchase
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. J. MASON: I feel that this cannot be allowed to go through without calling
Act who purchased twenty, thirty, or forty year ago, and I have appealed time and again to get for those people the fee simple of their land. I am certainly not going to be a party to allowing that to be on the Statute Book for another twelve months.
Mr. NUGENT: I also want to take exception to this measure going through tonight. One of the Bills mentioned in it deals with the powers of the Insurance Commissioners. I am very much interested in that Bill, and I do not think the Government will get on with the measure very satisfactorily if it is pressed to-night.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 68.

Division No. 49.]

AYES.

[3.59 a.m.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Dowd, John

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Keating, Matthew

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Meagher, Michael

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Mr. Lundon and Mr. Nugent.

Meehan, Francis E, (Leitrim, N.)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hen. Francis Dyke

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Robinson, Sidney

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Finney, Samuel

Rowlands, James

Baird, John Lawrence

Gretton, Col. John

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Baldwin, Stanley

Henry, Sir Charles

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Barrie, Hugh T.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Bigland, Alfred

Illingworth, Albert Holden

Smith, Sir Swire (keighley, Yorks)

Bliss, Joseph

King, Joseph

Spear, Sir John Ward

Boyton, James

Larmor, Sir J.

Stewart, Gershom

Brace, William

Lloyd, George Butter (Shrewsbury)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Macmaster, Donald

Toulmin, Sir George

Carew, C. R. S.

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Valentia, Viscount

Cater, John

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Whiteley, Herbert James

Chancellor, Henry George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Clyde, J. Avon

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Ceates, Major Sir E. F. (Lewisham)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Wilson, Rt. Hon, J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wing, Thomas Edward

Coote, William

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Craik, Sir Henry

Rees, Griffith C. (Carnarvonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund

Elverston, Sir Harold

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Talbot.

attention to what appears to me to be a matter of some real importance. I believe the object of this Bill is to enable the Postmaster-General to take certain powers as a war measure. That is to say, as I understand this Bill, it has been brought forward and hurried through for purposes connected with the War. I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) has justification for asking for certain powers to prevent him being forced to undertake work of a very expensive nature in connection with the position of
telegraph poles, and so forth, throughout the country. I suggest to the House, however, that this Bill goes far beyond anything that is necessary as an emergency measure in connection with the War. I believe there are certain people who are desirous of taking advantage of powers that they have to get rid of the voluntary permission to allow the Post Office to make use of their land and property, or to extract from the right hon. Gentleman better terms, or for reasons that they are dissatisfied with the Department and the Government. I admit that the Post Office should not be called upon this time to spend large sums of money or to employ a considerable amount of labour in removing these posts from such property, but it appears to me quite unnecesary in taking this precaution, which I quite admit to be desirable, that the right hon. Gentleman should take powers for the Post Office to acquire rights over private property all over the country, indefinitely or for all time, on terms which are certainly not sufficiently generous, nor which, in my opinion, safeguard the public interest. I see no reason whatever why the permanency of this Bill should be more desirable at the present moment than at any moment during the last ten years, and therefore I suggest that that part of the Bill which refers to the permanent taking of property might very well be dropped at this time. I admit that as a primary measure something may be necessary, and I think that by an Amendment to the first Clause, it should be easily provided for that the right hon. Gentleman should not be obliged to accept notice to remove telegraph lines from property, while at the same time I see no reason why the further powers making these rights over public property perpetual need be taken now in this House to-night. If this is persisted in, and the powers of a permanent nature are considered necessary, then I think that the appeal which is given to the public, the Court, first of all, which is the County Court Judge, and an appeal to the Railway Commissioners, is doubtful, it seems to me desirable that the public should have an appeal to a somewhat higher Court, and that certainly the State should bear the cost of the appeal.
I cannot see, if you are going to say to people, "We are going to place poles on your private house or your land," and those people resist that suggestion, as
262
they may reasonably do, why they should be put to the cost of going into a Court of law and, if they desire an appeal, of having to pay the costs of that appeal. I think it is necessary to point out that the hardship imposed by this Bill—or that would probably be imposed by it—is a real one in many instances. This Bill is to enable the Post Office to put up telegraph poles not only on lands but on the tops of peoples' houses, and where that happens, as is already very well known (for it has occurred for a long time) the expenses of these appeals fall upon the owners of the private houses, and a sort of necessary right of way is created through their houses to get to the poles. Where these poles already exist, the bells of the houses are being constantly rung to let the post office electricians go through the house and put the wire in order, and this gives a considerable amount of trouble to those who inhabit the houses or to the servants who look after them. I know that some years ago a considerable amount of fraud was perpetrated by people going about and representing that they were electricians sent by the Post Office. Servants who were looking after the houses were kept in a constant state of trouble and uncertainty, running about, and doubting whether or not they should let in the various people who tried to get in under the representation that they wished to attend to the telegraph. I suggest that if these powers are taken there should be a higher appeal allowed, and that the cost should not fall upon the individuals who object to this, but that in every way the interests of the owners of the property and the land or houses should be safeguarded as far as possible.
Mr. GRETTON: This Bill appears to be one of the class which is now becoming very common. It is a Bill introduced during a time of war to deal with a particular emergency, but really I think, on examination, that the Postmaster-General will find that this Bill goes very much further than he needs, and perhaps further than he suspects, because if this Bill passes as it now stands it is going absolutely to revolutionise his powers. The case, as I understand it, is that there is a difficulty in obtaining consent to the continuance of poles on certain land and houses to carry telegraph wires or telephone wires. Of course, that is a difficulty which is always growing, because the Post Office keep on making additions and alterations to its services. In the first

263
place, they ask for a small pole, and then another wire is added, until, finally, a very large pole is required, and the owner finds that his property has become seriously damaged, and that his house has been half torn down by the great load which is placed upon it. When a new arrangement is to be made there is difficulty in getting owners of property to consent to these alterations. Of course, that is very inconvenient to the Post Office, but in ordinary times these things go on, and there is no very great difficulty. Of course, the difficulty is much greater now, owing to the scarcity of labour, and no doubt a large number of cases, such as those which have been referred to, do occur, especially was that so after the recent gale in the early part of the year, which accentuated all the difficulties of the Post Office in relation to overhead wires. This Bill, as far as I can understand it, has been drawn up with references to other Acts—a most objectionable form of legislation, because the ordinary layman cannot understand anything about it, and the ordinary member of the public cannot go searching about among Acts of Parliament in order to find out. But what the Bill appears to do is to enable the Postmaster-General to pick and choose for himself where he wants lines, and when he has once chosen the only matter for reference will be what way-leaves he shall pay on behalf of the State, and what compensation may be allowed. But he has those powers, I believe, already in relation to roadways and roadway banks and hedges at a certain distance, and when this Bill is passed he will apparently have those powers almost universally.
I am sure he does not want this power. I suggest that there should only be in the Bill what he really needs, and that is, I think, that he should not be turned out where he is now established unless there be good and urgent excuse in the public interest why he should be. I do not think anyone in the House will object to what I have described, but I am afraid the Postmaster-General will find himself in some difficulty if he proceeds with the whole of the Bill, which will require considerable examination in Committee. If it is proceeded with on the broader lines which I have indicated, and which go very far beyond what he really needs, I shall, I am afraid, have to oppose it. It takes a little time to find out what is the effect of all these references, but the Bill does revolutionise the whole law with regard to the
264
laying of wires and wayleaves, and so forth. I think the matter can be met, and I am sure there is no one on this side of the House who wishes to damage the public interest at this moment. Whatever is necessary as a war measure will, I am sure, be given without difficulty, but if this is to be made permanent I shall be obliged to oppose it unless there is considerable amendment.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): I sympathise with the hon. Member who has just spoken in regard to Bills being submitted in this particular form. The draftsmen now do these things in such a way that it is almost impossible for the ordinary Member of Parliament to understand exactly what are the powers possessed by the Government and what are the powers which are sought when Bills are brought in in this particular form. I want to explain to the House that I am seeking no new powers, as I have already got the powers of doing exactly what this Bill proposes by Provisional Order, if I am driven to that course, but that course is very expensive, and it entails a great deal of delay. Under the Telegraph Act of 1878, Parliament gave powers to the Post Office to erect poles along the highways and roads, and, in the event of a highway or road authority not desiring that any pole should be erected along its road or across it, the Post Office had no right whatsoever to enter upon that road or upon any street, but had to take the case before a tribunal, which was a County Court, or, if the parties could not agree with, the decision of a County Court it would then go to the Eailway and Canal Commissioners on appeal. Since 1878 to the present time—although there has been some little extension in connection with waste land by the Acts of 1908—there has been practically no difficulty in coming to arrangements with local authorities. Local authorities have recognised that these powers could be exerted on the one side and on the other, and amicable arrangements have been the result. What we are proposing to do is to apply that simple procedure in dealing with a few isolated cases of what I can call nothing but unpatriotic landowners who are at the present time trying to bleed the Exchequer and extort money out of the Post Office in connection with wayleaves.
I think I can best show the House the difficulties we are in, if I give one or two illustrations. In the great storm of 28th

265
March last there was one individual, a large landowner, who was put to the expense of paying more money for his telegrams than he would have incurred if he had had his trunk lines intact. The storm had destroyed the trunk line of telephone, and he had to send telegrams. To make up for that expense he took the course of reducing his trunk line account by 11s., and he has refused from that time to the present to pay that 11s. to the Post Office, although we have demanded it. The next thing I get is a letter from this individual, and I naturally associate its contents with our demand for that 11s. The letter is as follows:
"To the Secretary,
General Post Office,
London.
I beg to give you hereby six months' notice, from September 29th next, to remove from all premises, buildings and land which I own or control, all telegraph poles, stays, or other material belonging to the Telegraph and Telephone Departments which I had hitherto allowed to stand on these premises. I enclose herewith schedule of the various lands to which this notice to quit will apply. Please understand that under no circumstances will I grant an interview to any official of either Department who may desire to wait on me with a view to the modification of this notice."
Then follows a schedule of all his properties, containing hundreds of poles which would cost us thousands of pounds to remove, and this at a moment when I have got no staff whatever to remove those poles, and when to remove them would inconvenience not merely the man himself, but thousands of other subscribers. I am at the mercy of this man at the present moment. I will give one or two other cases in order that Members may see why I should have these powers. A gentleman refused to pay the Income Tax and Super-tax on wayleave rents paid to him, which were already high. He insisted upon the total being raised from £9 1s. 6d. to £18, to cover the taxation. There are over fifty poles on his property, and it is impossible to remove them unless the telephone services of the district are cut off. Are the Government to give way to this method of blackmail? There is another case of an individual who rents eight telephone circuits at the unlimited rate and is annoyed at the increases of rent involved under the War Budget proposals. He gave notice that I should remove all telegraphs from his property, with the condition that they might be retained if the rents were doubled. On the Post Office objecting to the increase of rent, he said, "It is not a question of what the Postmaster-General desires, but of a notice having been served which must be carried out." The removal
266
could only be effected with difficulty and at a cost of some hundreds of pounds. Another gentleman is subject to an increase of £2 a year in the charge for his telephone service under the War Budget proposals. On receipt of notice to this effect he represented that he would have every pole and wire removed from his estate. There are thirty-eight poles on the estate, carrying wires connecting exchanges, and it would be practically impossible to remove them without cutting off other services. Another gentleman backed up his demand for increased rent by saying that it would cost the Department more to remove the poles and set them up elsewhere than to pay the rent. I admit that it would cost a great deal more, but I am here representing the interests of the taxpayer, and I am here to procure an adequate service to the public.
The cases to which I have referred are, of course, those of isolated individuals. Many hundreds of patriotic Englishmen would not think of raising their wayleaves for a cause of this kind. It is to deal with a few that I ask the House to give me these powers. I have arranged with the hon. Baronet who sits for the City of London to accept a new Clause which will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason) with reference to entering upon property for the purpose of maintaining poles, etc. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel J. Gretton), the Post Office cannot enter upon any private property unless we do it by arrangement or under the authority secured from one of the independent tribunals. The effect of the powers I seek will be not that we shall have to go before the tribunal, but that both parties will know that if they do not come to an amicable arrangement, and if either is unreasonable, the Court will give costs to the reasonable party. When once this Bill is passed I believe we shall be able to do everything amicably in connection with any attempts to go on private property. The hon. Member for Windsor made one or two suggestions. One indicated that the Bill should be limited to the period of the War. I am quite prepared to discuss any proposals of that kind on the Committee stage.
Mr. MASON: I did not suggest that the Bill should be limited to the period of the War, but that it should be restricted to the question of maintaining existing poles rather than be applied to the erection of new ones.
Mr. PEASE: I should be quite prepared to consider that on the Committee stage, but of course the difficulty in connection with that is that during the period which we are now going through extension in telephones and telegraphs is at a standstill, and hereafter we may find that there are isolated individuals who will take objection to any extension of the public service, and we want some procedure of a cheap kind which will enable us to deal with isolated unreasonable individuals, who are, happily, comparatively few in number.
I am quite prepared to consider any suggestion of that kind in committee on the Bill. I have met several individuals in connection with the proposals in the Bill, and I can assure the House, upon the legal advice I have been given, that these powers are really not so drastic as they appear to be at first sight. The position of persons interested in land will continue to be protected by the Telegraph Acts and it remains unaffected by the Bill except as to the right the Postmaster-General will have of appeal to the independent tribunal. It is only that right I seek by the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading to-night.
Mr. HAZLETON: We seem lately to have had an epidemic of these small Departmental Bills. We had an instance today when the Home Secretary introduced a Bill for changing the time in Ireland. I do not know why the Home Secretary's own time is not fully occupied. It would not seem to be when he has nothing better to do than to introduce ridiculous proposals like that in the House of Commons during the progress of a great war. Now another Minister comes forward with the Second Reading of a Bill which he has admitted is not required for the purpose he has in view. He has told us that there is not a single thing effected by the Bill that he cannot carry out by Order in Council. His only defence for coming here at this time with a Bill is that it is more expensive to get what he wants by Order in Council than by Act of Parliament. In my opinion, Ministers wish to be taking advantage of the party truce to rush departmental Bills of this kind through the House of Commons which are not required in the public service at all? What is the spectacle we witness now? The Postmaster-General has given us a very interesting explanation of this Bill. We see hon. Gentlemen above the
268
Gangway, the representatives of the landed interests, allowing no opportunity to pass of defending themselves. When a miserable departmental Bill of this kind is brought into the House of Commons they at once get up and raise a cry about vested interests in land. They tell the Postmaster-General plainly—they have told him to-night—that they will not give him the Bill unless he guarantees the landlords of the country what they want and on their own terms. I say it is an extraordinary proposal that the House of Commons should be asked to occupy its time and attention at a period like this on proposals of such a nature. Let me tell the Postmaster-General that in my opinion he would be far better employed attending to the administration of his own Department where it is so defective. He and his predecessors have gone from the year 1863 to 1916 without these powers. Does he tell the House of Commons that these powers are necessary for the better conduct of the War1? He cannot tell us-that after what he has said in reply to the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway who raised the discussion on this Bill. He said he was quite prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman on two points—first of all, that this Bill should not be permanent, but that it should operate only for the period of the War. The hon. Gentleman replied to the Postmaster-General thanking him graciously, but saying that he had never asked for that.
Mr. PEASE: That was not the point I was prepared to meet or accept.
Mr. HAZLETON: The right hon. Gentleman said distinctly in reply to the hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to consider that point when the House went into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. PEASE: I did not mean by considering that I was going to accept a proposal of that kind. I am prepared to give very good reasons why it could not be accepted.
Mr. HAZLETON: Then the right hon. Gentleman replied to a further interruption of the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, who said that he did not mean that at all, but he meant, something else, namely, that this Bill should apply only to existing telegraph and telephone poles. The hon. Gentleman is so careful of the vested interests in property in this country that he will not allow the Postmaster-General powers to put up new poles in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that is a very extraordinary thing. I

269
object to the Government taking the Bill at this time, and I tell the Postmaster-General that there are very serious complaints in Ireland about the inability of the Post Office authorities to carry out the requests of the public with regard to accommodation for the supply of telephones. The Postmaster-General may reply that there has been difficulty on account of the recent rebellion in Ireland, but I would point out to him that these complaints in Ireland go back far beyond the recent rebellion. They go back to the time of the outbreak of war since when people who have applied to the Post Office to get telephones put in have been told that the Post Office has no staff for the purpose, and cannot afford to do it. If that is so, what is the use of the Postmaster-General coming down to the House of Commons and asking for the powers in this Bill, whether they are to be temporary or permanent, seeing that even on a small Bill like this the Cabinet cannot make up its mind any more than it can on the Irish settlement? What is the use of him coming down to the House of Commons and asking for powers in a Bill of this kind if he has not the staff or the money to carry out the work? We have had enough of measures of this sort, and I hope that in future Ministers will take their responsibilities more seriously than they seem to be doing now. They are taking advantage of the party truce to rush these Bills through; but the party truce is at an end—the Government has broken it—and we will not allow them any longer to take advantage of it.
Mr. BOYTON: Although I cannot indulge in the virtuous indignation of the hon. Members below the Gangway, yet I do feel justified in protesting against a Bill of such importance—although looking such a simple little Bill—being introduced at such an hour, and I would point out that some of us have waited all night to get to this measure. Really the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General leave me cold in many respects. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have jumped at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) when he said that the right hon. Gentleman should accept an Amendment which would simply give continuing powers to his Department. He would get a simple measure saying, that there should be no increase in the wayleaves and no enforcing of contracts on the six months' notice principle of
270
taking down the poles or removing the wayleaves during the duration of the War. I did expect to see "Defence of the Realm" at the top of this Bill. I thought, seeing the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman is in with regard to labour and other matters, that he would be justified in following the principle of the Acquisition of Land Bill, and asking for the duration of the War and two years after, or perhaps even seven years after, but not to go on continuing the offence, such as it is—I do not speak with any great knowledge of the country, but I speak of the Metropolis—and the inconvenience and the eyesore of erecting these poles and putting wires on the top of houses. The Department is increasing the load annually, I have a case of my own where the pole has become so loaded with cable and wires that under the pressure of the storm of March it did considerable damage, and two top storeys of a Harley Street house had to be rebuilt—of course, at the expense of the Post Office, but that has gone on. Then there is the point of having the privacy of your house continually destroyed. I know the policy of the Department has been, so far, to get the wires put underground, and that great progress was made up to the outbreak of war. I understand that owing to labour and other difficulties that policy cannot be pursued at present, but the right hon. Gentleman asks the House to allow him for perpetuity the power of going into people's premises. If they raise objection they are to be taken before the County Court, or the body about which we have heard a good deal lately—the Railway and Canal Commission—and if the decision of either of these Courts is against them, they are to be mulct, not only in their own costs, but in the costs of the Department. It does seem an extraordinary proposal that private individuals, and the great bulk of individuals gladly give the Department facilities, after giving the facilities in one quarter, and perhaps on being asked for them in another, finding that inconvenient and saying, "I do not think I can concede that," are to be taken into Court. A number of people give many way-leaves. Personally I have given hundreds of wayleaves to the Department, but because I have said, "I do not think I can have it on that house as it is a new house, or because it is an old one which will not stand the strain," I am to be taken into Court, and if the distinguished gentlemen who form the Railway and

271
Canal Commission decide against me, or if on being dragged into an unsavoury County Court it does not agree with me but with the Department, I am not only to pay my own costs but those of the Department. It is a very unfortunate thing for anyone to find themselves fighting the Postmaster-General, and, late as the hour is, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason), and that he will go on for two or three years after the War, but will not take measures which will give him for all time the powers he seeks. It will mystify the public, because the public will not understand what goes on at five o'clock in the morning. Most of this Bill is by reference to Acts of Parliament. I cannot follow it very well, and I doubt if the outside world will understand it better than I do. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to inflict a measure such as this upon the public.
Mr. P. WHITE: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Bill, small as it is, at this hour of the morning. It is hardly fair to us. We have been kept here till this hour simply because a Minister would not accept a reasonable proposal. I strongly urge upon the Postmaster-General the desirability of accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason). It is an eminently reasonable one. It simply works for continuing powers, and not for new powers. The right hon. Gentleman has made out no case for this Bill. He said that in the majority of cases he had no difficulty in dealing with the people, and that he was able to make suitable arrangements. Only unpatriotic individuals, landowners, are to be dealt with, then! Why not introduce a Bill to deal with these unpatriotic landowners, and let the country know who these men are? Why does he take to his office not only this arbitrary power, but what will affect not only the unpatriotic men but the fair men? He admits that his Department is not in a position to construct any new lines. That being so, why does he proceed with this? If it was absolutely necessary he could do it under the Defence of the Realm Act, but it is not necessary. He is utilising the present position in which the people are ready to do things to which they would not otherwise agree. If the Coalition Government were dealing with a similar case in Ireland, I suppose Sir John Max-
272
well would deal with it under martial law. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman deal in the same way with the few unpatriotic Englishmen, the isolated individuals, of whom he speaks? Why not deal with these individuals? Let the country know who they are who are interfering with the public service, or, if he is not willing to do that because they are important landowners, and because they are dealing with a class that now sits on the Treasury Bench—and they apparently rule the Treasury Bench—let him content himself with taking continuing powers, and not seeking new powers which have not been necessary since the year 1863 up to the present time. Surely, when the country is engaged in a great, war, if the existing law was capable of dealing with this question, it is quite as competent to do so still. It is not fair to utilise the fact that the country is at war to go on with a Departmental Bill which will give arbitrary powers. I hope he will see the more reasonable attitude adopted on this side of the House by Gentlemen whose sense of reason has shown itself to-night to a much greater degree than usual, and I hope he will accept the request of the hon. Gentleman, and simply confine himself to a continuing Bill dealing with these few unpatriotic landowners who apparently live in England and not in Ireland, because if they lived in Ireland they would be dealt with under martial law.
Mr. PEASE: We have had no experience of them in Ireland.
Mr. FLAVIN: I look at this from a less disinterested standpoint We have, as I saw on Thursday, when we had a small Bill from the Munitions Department for the acquisition of land for building additional factories for the successful conclusion of this War, and when there were the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) and millionaire coal-owners on the other side of the House coming here and looking after the vested interests either of themselves or of their personal friends. We have the same combination to-night. The hon. Member sitting on the second scat above the floor of the House (Mr. J. Mason) represents either vested interests of their own or those of his friends. We have a combination of landlordism and breweryism. One of the hon. Gentlemen is interested in one of the biggest breweries in the country, and I have seen, during my twenty years of Parliamentary life, that whenever there is a land question, a licensing question, or a

273
mining question brought forward we invariably have Members above the Gangway who have a personal and direct interest, whose money is invested in these firms—the disappearance of many of which would be a benefit to the country—coming here to look, not after the interests of the ratepayers, but after their own selfish interests, or the interests of their friends. What I have to complain of is the action of the Postmaster-General, right in the middle of the War, coming here for Parliamentary powers to do what he himself admits he has already power to do. May I ask the Postmaster-General to do in this country what has been done in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Act, if he needs these powers to erect poles and to get more telegraphic communication? Has not the Postmaster-General power under the Defence of the Realm Act to get these telegraphic and telephonic communications? I think he has. Perhaps I may surprise the Postmaster-General by giving him an idea of how Ireland has been managed by the Post Office. If I am in order, I will illustrate it by a reference to my own Constituency. There we have the largest wireless station in the United Kingdom, which is, I believe, on the Poulsen system. This is controlled by the Government, and they have complete control of it. The system is not used for commercial purposes. Tralee, which is the military headquarters of county Kerry, is only fifteen miles away from this wireless station, and yet there is no telegraphic or telephonic communication between the wireless station and the military headquarters, although this is the largest wireless installation in the country. In order to get a telegram from Tralee to this station, which is only eighteen miles away as the crow flies, the message has to be sent through several places and over a distance of 200 miles.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is not entitled to bring in any general question of Post Office administration in a discussion on this Bill.
Mr. HAZLETON: May I point out that the Preamble of this Bill says it is a Bill to amend the Telegraphic Acts of 1863 to 1915, and I would submit, in view of that, that my hon. Friend is entitled to raise this question?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what the Bill does, and the proposals of this
274
Bill have already been defined in the speeches made. I must ask him, therefore, to confine himself to the proposals in the Bill.
Mr. FLAVIN: Is not the title of the Bill "to amend the Telegraphic Acts, 1863 to 1915, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraphic lines?" May I say, with all due respect to your ruling, that I was discussing the question of telegraphic and telephonic communications under the Act of 1863. With all due respect, I say that I am dealing directly with this Bill, and with the action of the Post Office in connection with the Bill which this one is going to amend.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have come to the conclusion that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are outside the scope of the Bill. I have given my ruling and I do not propose to argue the matter.
Mr. FLAVIN: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, do you really think I am not entitled to discuss any Act of Parliament which this Bill is going to amend?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do rule that the hon. Member must confine his remarks to this Bill.
Mr. HAZLETON: On that may I say that the Postmaster-General told us it was impossible for Members, owing to the way the Bill was drafted, to make out what really is in the Bill?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is immaterial to my ruling.
Mr. FLAVIN: I should also like to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to Clause 1 of this Bill. It says, "If the owner, lessee, or occupier of any land or building refuses or fails to give his consent to the placing of any telegraphic line under, in, upon, over, along, or across the land or building within one month after being required to do so by notice from the Postmaster-General a difference shall be deemed to have arisen," and so on. Now, what does this empower the Postmaster-General to do? It simply comes to this, that if I, as a poor man, being the lessee or owner or occupier of a little bungalow, have got a little kitchen garden and recreation ground, no matter how private they may be to me personally and to my family, the Postmaster-General may, under this Bill, if it becomes law, and if I refuse to give him permission to invade my privacy by putting up a telegraph pole

275
there, take the matter before an independent tribunal. Of course, it is not suggested the Postmaster-General would do an unreasonable thing; all the same, the private individual is at a disadvantage. The Postmaster-General says there must be a judicial or an independent tribunal. I want to know from him how he is going to form this tribunal? Will it be a judicial one or will it be a commercial one, and who is going to appoint it?
Mr. PEASE: It is the County Court.
Mr. FLAVIN: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect any County Court to satisfy our people in Ireland? We know County Courts are not impartial. I will relate one experience in Ireland of which I have personal knowledge. The Admiralty about nine years ago were negotiating with a certain landlord to acquire land for Admiralty purposes. And what occurred? The landlord asked £500 for this piece of land and the Admiralty agreed to give £490, but before the bargain was closed a surveyor of the Institute of Engineers in the City of London was sent down as an independent arbitrator. I ask the House to remember that the parties had agreed together upon a price within £10—that is to say, the owner of the land required £500 and the Admiralty were willing to give £490. The independent arbitrator came down and fixed the price at £2,000, and if the Admiralty records are searched to-day they will be found to contain a protest by the late First Lord against the way in which the State was being robbed by independent tribunals. If the Postmaster-General challenges the statement I will ask him to search the records of the Admiralty and he will then find that the statement I make is absolutely true. On the question of principle, I oppose this Bill. In many places in Ireland we have no telegraphic or telephonic communication where we need it, not so
276
much for our own convenience but in the interests of the State to protect Ireland from being invaded by the Germans. I say in that connection that in my Constituency there is no telegraphic or telephonic communication between the military headquarters and the constabulary, and that the military authorities have no-means of communicating with each other. I have been agitating with the Post Office for ten years to get telegraphic and telephonic communication, and the Post Office will not do it. I am going to vote against this Bill as a protest against the way the Post Office has treated many parts of Ireland. I am tired of asking questions.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is disregarding my ruling.
Mr. FLAVIN: I am finished. I will divide against the Bill.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (COPYRIGHT—No. 2) BILL.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTT-SPEAKEE adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Three minutes after Five o'clock, a.m., Wednesday, 2nd August.

WAR.
  COMMISSION ON NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  COMMISSION ON NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  His MAJESTY'S BATTLESHIP "KING EDWARD."
  His MAJESTY'S BATTLESHIP "KING EDWARD."
  HOUNSLOW REGIMENTAL PAY OFFICE (CIVILAN CLERKS).
  HOUNSLOW REGIMENTAL PAY OFFICE (CIVILAN CLERKS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  AGRICULTUBAL LABOURERS.
  AGRICULTUBAL LABOURERS.
  ARMY DISCHARGE.
  ARMY DISCHARGE.
MUNITIONS.
  BANK HOLIDAY (RATES OF WAGES).
  BANK HOLIDAY (RATES OF WAGES).
  CANADA INDIAN LEAGUE.
  CANADA INDIAN LEAGUE.
  CEYLON COURTS-MARTIAL.
  CEYLON COURTS-MARTIAL.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES).
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES).
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON.
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Grey, Baronet, K.G., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having been created Viscount Grey of Fallodon, in the County of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL. (No. 81.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL. (No. 82.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a; to-morrow (The Lord Hylton).

COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
FERNDALE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT CENTRAL AND SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

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

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (FELTWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (LILLESHALL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 25 (1916)—Further correspondence respecting the conditions of diet and nutrition in the Internment Camp at Ruhleben, and the proposed release of interned civilians (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 21 (1916)" [Cd. 8262]):
Rebellion in Ireland (Royal Commission)—Minutes of Evidence with Appendix of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland:
Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911—Fourth Report of the Scottish Land Court for the year 1915:
Licensing of Partially Disabled Men as Drivers of Public Motor Vehicles—Report of the Committee on:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Burgh of Hawick, and confirmed with amendment by the Secretary for Scotland:
Road Improvement Fund (Accounts, 1915–1916)—Abstract Account of the receipts into and payments out of the Road Improvement Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon:
Savings Banks and Friendly Societies—
(Post Office Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 31st December, 1915;
(Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 20th November, 1915;
(Friendly Societies Fund)—Account for the year ended 20th November, 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD SANDHURST: Your Lordships will remember that on the last stage of this Bill before the Third Reading one or two noble Lords suggested that its short title was hardly appropriate to a Bill which included provisions on various subjects. I have consulted the Secretary of State on the matter and also had an opportunity of seeing the Parliamentary draftsman, with the result that the Secretary of State is willing, after the word "Police," to insert "Factories." The short title will then be "Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill."
Amendment moved—
In short title, after the word ("Police"), insert ("Factories").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, before moving that the House resolves itself into Committee, perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage I made a short statement informing your Lordships of the alterations that have been made in this Bill during its passage through the Joint Committee. Paragraph (d) of Clause 2 has been omitted. The intention of this paragraph was to validate certain Indian enactments whose validity had recently been called in question by a decision of the Privy Council. Serious objection to this was raised by Chambers of Commerce and other bodies in India, both on the merits of the proposal and because it was alleged that it was of such a controversial character that it should not be inserted in the Bill at this juncture, as it had been generally understood that controversial questions should, as far as possible, be avoided during the war. The Joint Committee therefore unanimously decided to withdraw this paragraph from the Bill. Clause 3 has also been altered. This clause proposed to place chiefs and subjects of Native States, subjects of States adjacent to India, and members of frontier tribes on the same footing as natives of British India as regards eligibility for office, whether civil or military. The Joint Committee
1002
have amended this clause to the effect that persons should be declared eligible in place of classes. This will compel a greater discrimination in regard to eligibility for these appointments. Again, an alteration has been made to the effect that persons of adjacent territory, such as Nepal and Cashmere, and members of all independent tribes on the frontier, should be eligible only for military appointments and not for civil appointments. Then the Joint Committee have omitted Clause 5 of the Bill. This clause proposed to enable, under certain conditions, merchants and bankers to be appointed to Executive Councils in India. The clause was fully discussed in the Committee, and was considered to be objectionable mainly on the ground that it might have an injurious effect on the purity of administration in India. There are also several quite minor changes in the Bill of a verbal character which I will not detain your Lordships by enumerating. I will now move that the House resolves itself into Committee on the Bill to enable me to propose other Amendments.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Removal of doubts as to validity of certain Indian laws.
2.—(1) In section seventy-one of the principal Act shall be inserted the following sub-section:—
"(3A) A regulation made under this section for any territory shall not be invalid by reason only that it confers or delegates power to confer on courts or administrative authorities power to sit or act outside the territory in respect of which they have jurisdiction or functions."
(2) In section eighty-four of the principal Act, after the words "Governor-General in Legislative Council" shall be inserted the words "or a local legislature," and, at the end of the section, shall be inserted the following words:—
"A law made by any authority in British India and repugnant to any provision of this or any other Act of Parliament shall, to the extent of that repugnancy, but not otherwise, be void."
(3) This section shall apply to and shall validate laws made as well before as after the commencement of this Act.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved to add at the end of subsection (1), after the word "functions," the words "or that it confers or delegates power to confer appellate jurisdiction or functions on Courts or administrative authorities sitting or acting outside the territory." The noble Lord said: This Amendment will enable the Courts to carry out their work at the head centre instead of having to migrate into the scheduled districts. For instance, Aden is attached to the Bombay Presidency, and in cases of appellate jurisdiction and in regard to functions of Courts or administrative authorities by regulations the Amendment will enable questions to be referred to the Court sitting in Bombay. This will be a great convenience. There is a question under the present law whether there is power to carry this out; it is proposed, therefore, to make the matter quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 4, after ("functions") insert ("or that it confers or delegates power to confer appellate jurisdiction or functions on courts or administrative authorities sitting or acting outside the territory").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Qualification of rulers and subjects of certain states for office.
3. After section ninety-six of the principal Act shall be inserted the following section:—
"96A. Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, may, by notification, declare that any named person or persons falling within any of the classes in this section described shall, subject to any conditions or restrictions prescribed in the notification, be eligible for appointment to any civil or military office under the Crown to which a native of British India may be appointed, namely, (a) the ruler or subjects of any state in India, and for appointment to any such military office, (b) subjects of any state in territory adjacent to India, or (c) members of any independent race or tribe in territory adjacent to India."
LORD ISLINGTON: I have already explained to your Lordships the Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out from ("that") ["may, by notification, declare that"] to the end of the clause and insert ("subject to any conditions or restrictions prescribed in the notification, any named ruler or subject of any
1004
state in India shall be eligible for appointment to any civil or military office under the Crown to which a native of British India may be appointed, or any named subject of any state, or any named member of any independent race or tribe, in territory adjacent to India, shall be eligible for appointment to any such military office").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Removal of doubts as to validity of Orders in Council under Foreign Jurisdiction Act. 53 & 54 Vict., c. 37.
5. An Order of His Majesty in Council heretofore or hereafter made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, empowering the Governor-General of India in Council to make rules and orders in respect of courts or administrative authorities acting for any territory shall not be invalid by reason only that it confers or delegates power to confer on courts or administrative authorities power to sit or act outside the territory in respect of which they have jurisdiction or functions.
LORD ISLINGTON: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 5 is identical to the one which I proposed in Clause 2, and it will make it clear that Orders in Council for Native States may confer appellate jurisdiction.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 8, after ("functions") insert ("or that it confers or delegates power to confer appellate jurisdiction or functions on courts or administrative authorities sitting or acting outside the territory").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON had the following Amendment on the Paper to the First Schedule—
First schedule, page 6, after line 12, insert:
Section 92.—The words "or lieutenant-governor" shall be inserted after the words "a governor," wherever occurring, and the words "or Lieutenant-Governor in Council" shall be inserted after the words "Governor in Council," wherever occurring.
The noble Lord said: It was proposed to extend to Lieutenant-Governors in Council the power of appointing temporary members of their own Council, but the Government of India are strongly of opinion that these powers should be retained in the hands of the Governor-General in Council. Therefore I do not move this Amendment.
But the second Amendment standing in my name to the First Schedule I do move. It merely extends the privilege of exemption from the law in India to Lieutenant-Governors and their Councils which have come into existence since the enactment was brought into force which exempted Governors and their Councils.
Amendment moved—
First Schedule, page 6, after line 28, insert:
Section 110 (1).—The words "lieutenant-governor and chief commissioner" shall be inserted after the words "each governor," and the words "the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor or lieutenant-governor shall be substituted for the words" their respective executive councils."—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 83.)

THE ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to circulate the recent Report upon the Royal Aircraft Factory; what steps will be or have been taken to carry out its recommendations, and what alterations, if any, have been made in the higher staff at the Factory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Thursday week I deferred this Question in deference to the generally expressed wish from all sides of the House that the whole of that afternoon should be free for the debate on Mesopotamia. But, my Lords, I have come to-day to put the case before you. It has been, from my point of view, strengthened in the interval, because there has been a great effort on the part of those responsible for the Royal Aircraft Factory to put their house in order—a salutary process which is still proceeding. I desire to-day to discuss this subject in as calm and dispassionate a manner as possible, first, because I am delighted to know that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Curzon of Kedleston) and
1006
his Air Board have the matter under their serious consideration; and, secondly, because I realise, as I have said, that the authorities, now that the very irregular proceedings which were characteristic of the Royal Aircraft Factory in past months have been brought to their notice, are themselves trying to do what they can to remedy the state of things.
The Question standing in my name on the Paper has been to a large extent answered by what has happened since I originally put it down, now nearly two months ago. The Report for which I ask in my Question has been produced, largely due, probably, to interrogations in both Houses of Parliament; and no doubt the Air Board and the other members of the Executive thought it wise that it should be produced in its somewhat shortened form. Then we are given to understand, with regard to the second part of my Question referring to the higher command, that Colonel O'Gorman has been or will shortly be transferred from the Factory at Farnborough to London to act in another capacity. So that, as a matter of fact, my inquiries in the form in which they stand on the Paper have to a large extent been answered. However, I do not think it will be out of place if I give the House to-day a brief history of the growth of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and then venture upon some remarks with regard to the two Reports—the Report of Sir Richard Burbidge's Committee, and the Report thereon by the noble Earl and his colleagues on the Air Board.
The Royal Aircraft Factory as it is known to-day began in a very humble and modest way. Years ago it was the depôt of the ballooning section of the Royal Engineers, who were at that time in charge of all the ballooning and aeronautics in the Army. They found that they needed a factory, and eventually they established a depôt at Farnborough. From 1909, when military aviation in this country may be said to have begun as regards aeroplanes, the Royal Engineers still had charge of that factory, and until 1911 they practically superintended the experiments of all kinds. I and others foresaw that the Royal Engineers could not retain control of what was going to be a very important service, and it is admitted that they were not equal to the task of conducting it. Towards the end of 1911 the Royal Flying Corps was established as a separate unit, and the control of the Royal Engineers over this service vanished.
After that came what is known to-day as the Royal Flying Corps; but in those days it included the naval as well as the military wing. It was not until July, 1914, that the Royal Flying Corps became separate from the Royal Naval Air Service.
In the Spring of 1911 Colonel O'Gorman, a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, a distinguished scientific gentleman, I am proud to say a friend of my own, and one whose versatility and fertility of mind is well known, took over the charge of this Factory, largely at the instance of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary of State for War. He had during the first year of his work there, the greatest difficulty in obtaining from the Treasury sufficient money to carry on his experiments in a reasonable manner. He was starved of money remorselessly, and he could neither obtain materials nor men sufficient to make his experiments a great success. However, he struggled on; and whatever may be said of Colonel O'Gorman in his later capacity as manager of a great Factory with over 4,200 men, at that time, undoubtedly, his services were of great value to this country. About that time, or a little later, Mr. De Havilland, whose name is well known in connection with aviation, joined Colonel O'Gorman there, and brought into that establishment all the knowledge he had gained of aviation in civil life; and other officials were added from outside.
In July, 1911, the first R.A.F. aeroplane was produced; but, unfortunately, it killed its pilot, Mr. Ridge, on August 18, 1911. In saying that, I wish to remind your Lordships that experiments in regard to aviation must always involve a large toll of human life. They cause less toil, luckily, now than they did originally, but all developments in flying are bound to involve loss of life. I venture to say that the lives lost by the early pioneers in trying to perfect and in testing machines, which were far from being what they ought to have been, were just as much given to the service of this country as any lives have been during the war, because if those lives had not been sacrificed we should not have been in the position in which we were at the beginning of the war in regard to aviation. Although we then had less than one-tenth of the aeroplanes possessed by the German Army, those which we had were highly efficient and the pilots were well trained.
I pass on to 1912, when, after trials held by the aeronautical authorities, the first B E 2 plane was produced. It was a tractor biplane, and it really put up a very good performance and answered expectations. It was thought to be too slow, and so a more powerful engine was put into it; and necessarily—because we had not the same knowledge then as we have now—it became more dangerous, and killed several pilots. During 1912–13 various machines of the B E 2 type were produced. In 1914, just before the war, the Royal Aircraft Factory lost Mr. De Havilland, who went over to a private firm which is now manufacturing aeroplanes on a large scale. A few days before the war broke out our first real auto stable plane was produced—the B E 2 C. Although at the beginning of the war these machines did good work, they are admittedly out of date now. At that time this was the only machine we had in quantities, and the only really well-designed machine. Therefore I do not blame the authorities for having built them in considerable quantities. The B E 2 C was the work of Mr. Busk, who was very well known at the Factory as a skilful designer and a good pilot. Unfortunately he was killed in a B E 2 C, not from any fault of the plane, but because something went wrong with his engine and the plane caught fire and crashed to earth. I think it only fair to Mr. Busk's memory to say that the results of the examination showed that the faults were not due to any bad design in the aeroplane, but probably to faults in the air-cooled engine, now known as the 90 horse raf, which was the product of the Royal Aircraft Factory.
During this time the Navy were asked whether they would support the Royal Aircraft Factory. Personally I think they were wise in saying that they could obtain as good machines, or better, outside the Royal Aircraft Factory. Therefore they decided to have nothing to do with it. Whether that has been of advantage to the Royal Aircraft Factory I will not say; but as far as the Navy is concerned, the Navy started unhampered with official restrictions and ordered the best machines obtainable in the outside market. About that time—at the beginning of the war—the Royal Aircraft Factory began to antagonise the aircraft trade, which has supplied something like 97½ per cent. of our requirements as against 2½ per cent. produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory.
If we have to depend in this or in any other war on the product of the Government Factory, we shall be badly left behind. We have to try and establish a strong aircraft trade, and see that we enlist their sympathies, and that the aircraft trade look upon the Air Board and the Aircraft Factory as friends, not as enemies. From what I hear I think this feeling is beginning to grow again, and the spirit of antagonism is, I hope, dying out.
It was understood during the years 1911 to 1914, from every person in authority, that the Royal Aircraft Factory was an establishment for testing inventions, for research, and for experiments, and that it was not intended to be the great manufacturing establishment which it grew into. I do not mean to say that it turned cut a very large number of planes and engines, but it turned out a great many spare parts and went in very heavily for repairs, and it is rather difficult to draw the line where manufacturing begins and where it ends. If you are going to employ a couple of thousand men in doing manufacturing work, it does not matter from the point of view of the State whether you are employing them in production or in repairs. The question is whether you should run a big establishment for that sort of work at all, or whether you should not confine it mainly, as I think ought to be done, to research and experiment. Thus things drifted on during the first eighteen months of the war, and the Aircraft Factory became. I am sorry to say, less of an experimental and research, and more of a manufacturing establishment. The Royal Flying Corps had also an experimental and scientific department at Feltham, near Staines. This seems to be sufficient for Certain purposes, and it works, of course, closely in touch with the Royal National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. This laboratory carries out the scientific, mathematical, and other experiments with regard to models and engines; it carries them out mainly in model form, and it is quite right that the State should take the results of experiments in the model form and work them up on the full-size machine or engine later. For that purpose the Factory at Farnborough is very suitable, and if it had confined itself to that work the critics would not have had so much to say.
There was a great deal of discussion on this question last autumn and winter and through the spring, and when I first met Lord
1010
Derby on the Air Committee, from which we eventually felt bound to resign, I was glad to hear from him that he had taken the wise step of stating to Sir David Henderson that he thought it advisable that a Committee should be appointed to go into the question of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and he eventually was instrumental in getting the Committee appointed whose Report is incorporated in this White Paper. That Committee consisted of three distinguished persons—Sir Frederick Donaldson, who had been the head of Woolwich and whose loss in the "Hampshire" we all deplore; Sir Richard Burbidge; and Sir Charles Parsons, of turbine fame, whose great scientific reputation we all know. Those three gentlemen inquired into the Factory, and the Report which they produced is in my opinion a very valuable one, though there are here and there things in it which might have been unsaid, and things which they might have said are omitted; but considering that they did not devote a large portion of their time to this Inquiry, I think the Report on the whole is well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. I may add that I think it justifies any remarks which I have made about the Royal Aircraft Factory, and a great many of the reforms for which I have pleaded are contained in the body of the Report. That Report was made on May 12 last, but it was not issued to either House of Parliament until July 28. There may have been good reasons for this delay, but I think it was an undue time to elapse, especially as it was known that the Report had a great bearing on other Inquiries that were coming on. One can, however, understand the reluctance on the part of the Aeronautical Department to publish the Report on account of its not being wholly favourable to themselves, but I think it would have been better from every point of view had the Report been published earlier.
In this Report I notice that the Committee leave out certain facts and figures, in the place of which are placed asterisks, with the footnote "It is not considered desirable in the public interest to publish the exact figures." Nobody is keener than I am to see that the enemy get no information which could be of use to them, but in some cases the asterisk has been inserted in a quite unnecessary fashion, a great many of the figures having been already stated before the Judicial Committee. It is ridiculous that there should be any

1011
secrecy about some of these figures when the chairman, Mr. Justice Bailhache, and other members of the Judicial Committee stated the figures, and they were reported in the newspapers. For instance, the Committee say—
"The Royal Aircraft Factory has produced * new machines in all since the commencement of the war, while the trade supplies have exceeded * machines."
I think it would be valuable if the public had been given some kind of idea of the number of new machines produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory. I know the number, but I am not going to give it. I can say, however, that the proportion produced by the aircraft trade was over thirty as against one produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory, which shows the small output of the Factory compared with that of the trade. Then the Committee say—
"The approximate value of orders placed by Military Aeronautics Directorate from 1st August, 1914, to 31st March, 1916, for aeroplanes, engines, and spares of Royal Aircraft Factory design is *, and of private design about half this amount."
It would appear, on the face of this statement, that half of the amount spent has been given to the aircraft trade; but, as a matter of fact, two-thirds of the orders were given to the Royal Aircraft Factory and only one-third to the aircraft trade. I am not concerned to defend the trade—I have no interest, direct or indirect, in it—and I will leave it to your Lordships to decide whether the statement which I have quoted from the Committee's Report is suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. In these circumstances you cannot wonder that the aircraft trade is somewhat jealous of the competition of the Royal Aircraft Factory.
Then we come to the statement in the Committee's Report—
"The strength of the Royal Aircraft Factory on March 26, 1916, was stated to be *."
I will give your Lordships the missing figure, because it was stated by Mr. Justice Bailhache. It is 4,222. He said that the output was a small one for 4,222 men, and that of these men half were occupied in experimental work and half in productive work. These facts have been published in the Press, and there is no harm in giving them here. I will not state what the exact amount of wages was or the materials, though I do not think this information would help the German Army very much. But the expenditure
1012
this year will probably be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. That is a great deal of money to spend on a Factory which is theoretically doing experimental work, though it is doing a great deal of repair work also.
I pass on to the table of percentages set out on page 3 of the Report. The Air Board have made some rather cogent remarks on these percentages. The table, as we see it in the Report, shows that only 22 per cent. of the total work done was in the nature of experiments. We know from what the Air Board tell us later on that 35 per cent., in their judgment, has to be added, making 57 per cent. in all, which corresponds more or less with the number of men engaged in experimental work and in constructional work. It is stated that Colonel O'Gorman had checked his figures. Well, he must have unwittingly misled the Burbidge Committee, because they would never have put this figure down in their Report if they had thought it incorrect. I notice that in the Report, on page 4, there is another paragraph in which it is not thought advisable to give the exact number. The statement is—
"The Central Office and Stores are manned by * employees out of a total of *."
Surely this information could not help the enemy. I am sure that if I state to the House that 560 men are occupied in the Stores Department I shall not be giving any information which will be of assistance to the enemy. Although I believe that the work of checking stores and of tracing back individual parts is exceedingly accurately done, this is, in my opinion, an undue number of men to have in the Stores Department. I have nothing more to say on the Report itself. I think it is a document worthy of your Lordships' consideration. It recommends that there should be skilled civil management, that there should be management by a person accustomed to the control of large factories. If the Factory is to continue in its present form, I think that is wise; but if it is only to continue as an experimental depot, it does not matter having a skilled commercial man at the head, and I think that very likely on the staff at present there are people quite capable of managing it.
I pass to the Report made by the Air Board to the War Committee on the subject of the Royal Aircraft Factory I

1013
congratulate the Air Board on the courageous way in which they have handled the matter, and there are one or two sentences in their Report to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. There may be reasons that I do not know of, but I think it would be a pity if Colonel O'Gorman's services to the State were lost in an experimental sense. I am, therefore, glad to see the suggestion that he should be appointed as consulting engineer to the Director-General of Military Aeronautics at the War Office. But I would caution the Air Board that, in my opinion, Sir David Henderson has far too much to do. He is not only a member of the Army Council and in command of the Royal Flying Corps, but he is also the responsible head of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and it is not possible for any one to manage all these concerns efficiently. I think the time has come when this distinguished officer should choose whether he prefers to remain a member of the Army Council or the officer commanding the Royal Flying Corps, or to have nominal control of the Aircraft Factory. It is quite impossible that he can continue in the three capacities, and his continuance in them will only lead to further trouble.
There is one sentence at the end of the Air Board's Report in which I concur and to which I hope the Air Board will stick. They say—
"Any measures of reorganisation of the Royal Aircraft Factory should be adopted with the concurrence of the Air Board."
I was delighted to see that paragraph, because it appears to me that in it the Air Board take up the right position. They say that now that they are responsible to Parliament—though they have not yet, in my opinion, anything like the powers which they should possess—they think their views ought to be heard in any changes which are carried out at the Royal Aircraft Factory.
I have made a good many criticisms on the conduct of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I say, first of all, that the Farnborough Factory is quite unsuitable for being made into a large engineering factory. It is a mile and a half from a station; it has no siding and no facilities for getting its coal and iron; therefore the cost must necessarily be higher than in the case of factories which are situated near the rail. Then there is no doubt that it has been the home of numbers
1014
of "dud" mechanics, and there are any number of unmarried men of military age taking shelter there. When I have been there I have seen some of these men, who I recommend should be combed out; and I hope that my noble friend Lord Derby, who has taken such an interest in recruiting, will give some attention to this matter. It is quite clear also that discipline has been woefully slack—I do not say it is so slack now—and there has been a good deal of pilfering and excessive scrapping, and a considerable amount of private work done in Government time. I am not going into detail in regard to this last, although I have a great deal of evidence on the point. For all this somebody is responsible. Primarily Colonel O'Gorman is responsible, he having been head of the Factory; but we cannot exonerate Sir David Henderson, because, on his own admission, he is senior officer of the Factory, and Colonel O'Gorman has had to do what he was told by him. In fact, I often wonder whether there has not been too much interference from London and too little left to Colonel O'Gorman. I am sure that in the earlier days it would have been much better had Colonel O'Gorman and his staff been given a freer hand. However that may be, we cannot exonerate Colonel O'Gorman or Sir David Henderson from blame in this matter. They were jointly responsible for directing the shops, and there are serious faults in the Factory which should have been attended to long before this.
I made some statements before the Judicial Committee the other day which were shut out to a certain extent owing to the chairman of the Committee thinking that I should not bring them in at that moment as another Committee had sat on this subject. I feel that I must justify what I said in general terms on that occasion, so I have prepared a short précis of the evidence, though, of course, I will not mention names. One of the charges—if you can call it a charge—made was that unfair preparations had taken place at the Factory for the visit of His Majesty, not on the occasion when he was unable to walk very well owing to his accident, but on a subsequent occasion, and also on Committee visits. This evidence was taken down in my presence and sworn before a commissioner for oaths. The man who gave it said—
"Careful preparations were made for the King's visit. The day before, machines old, new, complete, partially wrecked, and otherwise were piled

1015
in from other shops. In certain cases the machines were just stuck together, canvas stretched across the nacelles, and wings temporarily attached. Vacant or partially filled shops were furnished with spare parts, etc., providing an appearance of tremendous congestion. Of one shop, to my knowledge, a photograph was taken for the War Office to show the congested state of the premises. I myself helped to set up machines, already condemned, for show purposes. Twenty-four hours afterwards only three machines were in one such shop."
I cannot say which officer was responsible for having what I call "faked" the Factory for the visit of the Committee, but it was not a fair or right thing to have done. The evidence of another man is as follows—
"I am aware that instructions were given previous to the visits to the shops of the Royal Flying Corps Investigation Committee, called to me the Munitions Committee, on April 9, and that work was slackened up the night before the visit occurred in order that there might be an appearance of business the following day. I could give the name of the man who told me this, if desired, and the one from whom he received instructions; but I do not wish their names mentioned without permission. The result of this was that when the Committee came there were shops that would otherwise have been idle apparently very busy."
I have that kind of evidence ad infinitum. At the end this man said—
"There is nothing to prevent German spies walking through the Factory at any time of night or day, and on occasions of shutting down when Zeppelin raids were near no check was put on men going in and out, and signalling to the enemy might have been possible."
I believe that this has been improved lately, and that now it is difficult for any unauthorised person to go through the Factory; but at that time the words which I have read were perfectly true, and I think it reveals a slack state of things. Another man writes to say that "on the occasion of the Committee's visit an attempt was made to produce an air of activity," and so on.
The wife of a late member of this House, a lady of unimpeachable integrity, writes to me as follows—
"It occurs to me to let you know that a very valuable artisan of ours who did all the painting and plumbing on this estate has now been for nearly three months at the Aircraft Factory at Farnborough and has never yet done a full day's work. I should be far from grudging him or any other man to the national service at this time, but why should our cottages and farmhouses go unmended for this?"
This lady is anxious to keep her estate in good order, and I sympathise with the view she has expressed.
I have evidence of unsuitable people being employed on different jobs. For instance, here is a lad of about 17, unskilled and rather delicate, whose extreme value in any commercial employment is 15 s. a week. He was put on at the Royal Aircraft Factory at £2 2s. a week as over-looker, to walk round and see whether there was any smoking, and so on. Asked "Do they take any notice when you speak to them? "he replied "No." Then he was asked "What do you do then?" and he replied "I have to go and tell some one else." I submit that such work is not worth £2 2s. a week. Another man who had been junior assistant to a grocer, at perhaps 25 s. a week, took shelter in the Aircraft Factory and was put into the stores at £3 a week, with extra pay for overtime and Sundays. Again, a police constable retiring with pension was employed as doorkeeper at the Aircraft Factory. A gamekeeper, who lost his job through the shooting being unlet, makes no secret that he "gets lots of money and very little work," and says he is going to stay at the Aircraft Factory as long as he can. Two farm labourers were taken on at the Factory at a great increase of pay over their previous agricultural wages. They were said to be "urgently needed," and were told to "hurry up"; but when they got there they were employed all Sunday at double pay turning over a dungheap. I have any number of these instances. The general impression from this evidence is that there has been a great slackness of administration, and that the Aircraft Factory badly needs reform.
Then there was a case tried at Aldershot last week, a man named MacDonald being rightly convicted for having in his possession Government stores. His case was such a notable one of want of discipline in the Aircraft Factory that I will quote it. This man made no secret of the fact that he was building an aeroplane of his own design outside the Factory; and he told me—though this appears to have been wrong—that he had leave from various people in the Aircraft Factory to take away material. When I state that he took away a propeller twelve feet long, the whole of the body of a motor-car, and other parts almost as big, you cannot accuse him of taking things away secretly. In fact, it was jocularly remarked that if he had been strong enough he would have taken away the whole shed. It is clear that there has been a great want of supervision, and the chairman of the

1017
Aldershot Bench commented very strongly on the fact that such a large amount of material could have been taken away without the officials, according to their evidence, being aware of it. He criticised the officials for not having interested themselves to discover what material was being taken away, especially as they were in the position of looking after the shed in which this man was working. It is a rather curious coincidence—though I do not blame the Superintendent or Assistant-Superintendent of the Factory, who had nothing to do with it—that this man had not been back twelve hours from Westminster, after giving evidence, before he was arrested, whereas this thing had been going on for a year. I am willing to admit that this was a coincidence, but it was a very curious one; especially after we had had a pledge from Sir David Henderson, with the consent of the Committee, that witnesses who came up and gave evidence should not be victimised in any way.
There was another rather serious matter, of which I think the noble Earl would like to be aware. A gentleman came up to give evidence—a Mr. Valentine. He was at Rugby, and is a man of superior education and standing. His evidence has never been shaken to this day. Mr. Valentine went back after the Inquiry was concluded in the afternoon to get some papers which he had left behind, and as he passed Colonel O'Gorman and Captain Green he was grossly insulted. Colonel O'Gorman said, "That is the adventurer who went up and gave evidence"; and Captain Green said, "Yes, you never can tell what sort of fellows you have in the Factory in these days." I venture to say that this was highly improper conduct, and if it had taken place in a Court of Law it would have been only right to have called the Judge's attention to it, and they would, at any rate, have been in danger of being committed for contempt of Court. Your Lordships can see in this incident an attempt to browbeat and intimidate witnesses which is not in accordance with the magnificent traditions of our Courts of Law. If I had thought it worth while I should have taken it up at the time and made it public, but although it was disgraceful it was not, in my opinion, of sufficient importance to trouble about at the moment. I have brought these cases to your Lordships' notice because I think they have a great bearing on the conduct of the Factory.
Then we come to the question of what our policy should be in the future. No doubt the noble Earl will take this into careful consideration. But, as a matter of fact, I am one of those who think that the Government never does anything as well as a private individual. I do not care whether you take the history of the telegraphs, telephones, factories, armaments, or dockyards. The noble and gallant Lord by my side knows that although the dockyards are kept on, it is only for the purpose of keeping a check on private builders, and that the ships built by the private yards are as a rule the better ships of the two. [Lord BERESFORD indicated dissent.] The noble and gallant Admiral will not admit this; but a great many people in the Navy hold this opinion. At any rate, the ships built in the Government dockyards, even if they are better, are certainly more expensive ships to the country. One has only to ask any responsible official of the Treasury what his opinion is of a Government factory. The opinion is that a Government factory does less efficiently and more expensively than the private individual or the private firm. Personally I think it is an illusion to think that the personnel in a Government factory is equal to that of the ordinary well managed commercial factory. If you take the Royal Aircraft Factory and the few engines and planes they have built, the figures run to I do not know how many times as much as in the case of those built by private individuals or private firms.
I do not propose to detain the House further this afternoon. I think I may say that the Report of Sir Richard Burbidge's Committee amply justifies many things that I have said in this House and elsewhere. I have put before your Lordships on several occasions reports on the Royal Aircraft Factory and have shown that the result has been inefficiency and waste. I want to warn the House of this, that we shall have to depend more and more in coming years on the quantity and quality of our aircraft, and no Government factory will be able to give us machines in sufficient numbers unless it is a factory employing tens of thousands of men. The conclusion, therefore, that we have to come to is, first, that our object should be to encourage a strongly established aircraft trade, strong financially and strong in the power of carrying out experiments and big contracts. That has answered admirably in the case of motor transport, and I think it would

1019
also answer well in the case of aircraft. In my opinion the best machines are those produced outside the Government Factory; and nobody will deny that our pilots, with all their bravery, deserve the best machines, whether they are Government built or factory built. I sincerely trust that the noble Earl, together with his Board, will take these matters into consideration. I know that their powers are limited and hampered by inter-Departmental difficulties; but it is their duty—and I believe they realise it—to see that the bravery of our pilots at the Front is not in any way wasted by inefficiency at home. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some indication of what his Board think of this and other questions.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord has afforded a remarkable illustration of the curious, anomalous, and, as I think, grossly inconvenient practice that prevails in this House—I allude to the practice of putting down a Question upon the Paper of a narrowly limited type relating to certain specific matters upon which the opinion of the Government or information from a Department is sought, and then upon that peg hanging a long and discursive oration covering a wide field, it may be of inquiry, sometimes of controversy, to which the Minister challenged is expected, point by point, to reply, without having been given any idea in advance of the subjects that are going to be raised. All sorts of personal charges against this or that individual are brought forward; the Minister is supposed to know all about them; no intimation is given to him that these matters are to be raised; and the speaker, having occupied perhaps three-quarters of an hour of your Lordships' time, sits down with an expression of pious hope that he will receive a satisfactory reply on all these subjects.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: All these things are contained in the Report.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The greater part of his speech had nothing to do with the Report, and still less with the Question that he put upon the Paper. Now what is his Question as it appears on the Paper? It consists of three parts. First, he asks His Majesty's Government whether they
1020
are prepared to circulate the recent Report upon the Royal Aircraft Factory. As the noble Lord himself pointed out, that question has already been answered by the appearance of the Report. I do not know whether the noble Lord was disappointed at its publication, but I do know this—that only a little while ago, in an article of which he sent me a copy, he was good enough to say, "It will be interesting to see whether the Government will have the courage to publish the Burbidge Report," and he added that "there was at least a danger lest they might refuse to do so on the ground that it is not in the interest of the Public Service." And then this afternoon he led your Lordships to believe that it was due in some form or another to pressure, either from himself or from other high authorities in the House of Commons, that its publication had been decided upon.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I think the noble Earl does me an injustice. I put this Question down about two months ago.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The facts are that there never was any intention to withhold the Report. The noble Lord has spoken of the delay in publishing it. That delay was due simply to the desire of the Air Board, of which I happen to be chairman, to investigate very closely, after careful examination of the principal parties concerned, the case that was placed before them. We held that inquiry, I think, within three weeks or a month after the appearance of the Report. We then drew up our own Report upon it. That Report had to go to the War Office; it was submitted to the Army Council and accepted by them, and it has been laid before Parliament. The noble Lord has not the slightest justification for suggesting, either that there was any reluctance to publish the Report in the first place, or any undue delay in publishing it when publication did take place.
The second part of the noble Lord's Question as it appears on the Paper is, What steps will be or have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Burbidge Report? As the noble Lord was kind enough to notice, an answer to that question has been given in the Report which has been drawn up by the Air Board and which is published along with the

1021
Report of the Burbidge Committee. The third part of the Question is, What alterations, if any, have been made in the higher staff at the Factory? That also has been answered in the Papers laid before Parliament. My reply to the Question upon the Paper might therefore be delivered in a couple of minutes, and I might cease to occupy your Lordships' attention further. I will come presently to my reasons for saying a word or two in reply to the observations that fell from my noble friend. As regards the alterations in the higher staff of the Factory, the noble Lord has himself correctly indicated what they will be. Nobody knows better than he that there are two aspects of the work of a great organisation like this. One is the business and administrative aspect, the running of a great concern in which vast sums of money are involved and in which several thousands of workmen are employed. For that you want administrative ability and capacity of the highest order, and probably some previous experience of work of a similar description. Then there is the scientific and technical side of the work—quite different; and these two sets of qualifications are not necessarily or invariably found in the same person. It is for that reason that Colonel O'Gorman—the tribute paid to whom by the noble Lord I was very glad to hear, and who possesses, as your Lordships know, scientific attainments of the very highest order—is to be transferred to the War Office as an adviser on the scientific side of the case to the Director-General of Military Aeronautics; while we are now on the search for, and hope soon to find, a thoroughly first-rate and competent business organiser of the Factory as it will be at Farnborough. It is further proposed, as your Lordships will have seen in the Report, to appoint a separate head of the Design branch and a separate head of the Production branch. Those are the administrative changes that are now in course of being carried out.
The noble Lord, at one point in his speech, went a little further and included in his critical survey the present position of Sir David Henderson, the Director of Military Aeronautics. I must confess I thought he was not quite fair in what he said on that point. He gave us to understand that Sir David Henderson is a pluralist of an undesirable character, combining in his person two or three functions that ought not to be joined in the same individual. Nobody knows better
1022
than the noble Lord that General Henderson is placed upon the Army Council because he is Director of Military Aeronautics; and nobody ought to be better pleased than the noble Lord, who is always urging the claims of the Air Service, that the head of the military branch of it should be able to enforce his views by a seat on the Army Council. Then, again, is it not being a little captious to suggest that there is anything wrong in an arrangement by which this distinguished officer who is responsible for the whole Service has at the same time the responsibility for the Aircraft Factory at Farnborough? It seems to me to be an inevitable situation, and I cannot conceive of an officer being placed in the position of Director-General without that responsibility for the Aircraft Factory—a War Office organisation—which General Henderson enjoys. We know that in what the noble Lord said there was nothing personal to General Henderson; but I am bound to say, for my own part, that his criticism of the combination of several functions in a single person was not justified.
As I say, I have now answered the Question on the Paper, and I need go no further. But courtesy compels me to pay some attention to the greater part of the noble Lord's speech, little though the relevance was that it bore to the Question put to me. The noble Lord gave us, in the first place, an interesting essay upon the history of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I do not desire to question his summary of what has happened in the past. But may I say that that does not concern me ill the least. The Royal Aircraft Factory is a War Office institution. It was started, as the noble Lord himself told us, some time before the war; it has been in existence during the war, acting under the orders of the War Office; and the Air Board, for which I speak, had nothing to do with the Aircraft Factory up to the moment we came into existence. I might therefore claim not to say one word about the charges that have been made by the noble Lord relating to the past. What the Air Board are concerned to see, if they can, is, now that this Factory has been the subject of examination by a competent Committee and we ourselves have taken evidence about it, that the changes necessary shall be put into operation with as little delay as may be.
There is another fact which dispenses me from saying much about a good deal

1023
that fell from the noble Lord, and it is this. The conduct, the organisation and the management of the Aircraft Factory have been the subject only recently of a most minute and careful Inquiry by the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Bailhache. That Committee was constituted in order to examine certain charges which it was understood had been brought against the Royal Flying Corps. I am bound to say, reading the evidence that was given before that Committee from day to day, that I was astonished and even scandalised at the manner in which gossip, rumour, invention, and charges—very often wholly unsupported by evidence—were brought before that Committee. The noble Lord himself gave evidence before it. I am not suggesting for one moment that his evidence could deserve such epithets, but nobody knows better than he does that the adjectives I have employed correctly describe a great deal of the, I cannot call it evidence—a great deal of the random utterance that was heard by the Committee. This Committee has not yet reported, but I believe its Report is now under consideration; and really I was surprised to hear the noble Lord this afternoon come down and repeat in this House, as if your Lordships were a tribunal properly constituted for the purpose, a good deal of the evidence he has given before the Committee.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I say that I read out to the House evidence which was, except in one case, totally new. I asked Mr. Justice Bailhache whether I might give it before the Committee, and he said he would not take it. That is why I have brought it up here.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There were two parts to the noble Lord's speech. In one part, familiar as I am with his evidence before the Committee, I heard evidence that he had given before them. Then there are the cases to which he is now alluding, occurring since he gave evidence before the Committee. [LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULTEU indicated dissent.] It is all very well for the noble Lord to shake his head. I am alluding to the two cases which he read out at some length just now—cases which he was precluded from giving to the Committee, either because he was not allowed by the learned president to do so, or because they have occurred since. I suggest that it is
1024
a wholly improper thing for the noble Lord to come down to the House and raise matters about which nobody here knows and which I have not had an opportunity of investigating, and to take advantage of his position as a Peer to give in detail and at length charges such as I have referred to. I may say on the authority of the officials of the Air Factory, as regards certain of the charges made by the noble Lord, that they wholly deny them and say they are absolutely untrue. The noble Lord told a story about "window dressing" at Farnborough for the visit of the King with an amplitude of detail absolutely denied by the officials. He went further, and at considerable length entered into the cases of two men named Valentine and MacDonald as cases illustrating the lack of discipline and the improper things that go on at the factory. I will only so far depart from my attitude of declining to go into these matters as to give noble Lords the facts about MacDonald's case. This man asked for one day's leave, and was absent two and a half days. During his absence he gave evidence before the Committee, and on his return he boasted, in the section of the Royal Aircraft Factory where he worked, that "Me and Montagu have got them cold." Apparently he works in close co-operation with my noble friend. During MacDonald's absence the works manager had reported to the Assistant Superintendent that MacDonald was wrongly in possession of Government property. As MacDonald was a soldier, the Assistant Superintendent informed the Aldershot Command, who informed the Police. The latter visited MacDonald's house and found a complete aeroplane there which he had built, the parts having been taken from the Factory. On MacDonald's return from London he was put under military detention by the Assistant Superintendent; he was subsequently handed over to the Police and admitted to bail, and was then charged in due course. When charged he said on oath that he had taken nothing out of the Factory. The magistrate did not, as the noble Lord said in his speech, comment on the Factory at all. The man was found guilty, and fined the maximum penalty of £5. I apologise to your Lordships for troubling you with petty matters of this description, but as the noble Lord dealt at length with this particular charge I thought I ought to mention it.
I pass to the rather larger issues raised by my noble friend in his speech. The

1025
first is as to the degree to which the Royal Aircraft Factory has been or ought to be a manufacturing concern. I am very familiar with statements that have been made by the noble Lord at an earlier date in this House and elsewhere that the Aircraft Factory is departing from its proper sphere and becoming a great manufacturing concern in competition with the trade, but, as he himself admitted to-night, that is a charge that finds no support in the figures that have been published. The actual construction work of the Aircraft Factory is shown in the Report of the Air Board, to which the noble Lord referred, as having been less than 10 per cent. of the whole work. Then the noble Lord said, "But how do you account for the fact that Colonel O'Gorman is said, in the Report of the Burbidge Committee, to have given the figure at 35 per cent. for the construction of aeroplanes?" That is a misstatement on the part of the Committee. It was not an error on the part of Colonel O'Gorman. It was a mistake on the part of the Committee which we undertook in the Report of the Air Board to correct. The fact remains that the Aircraft Factory can hardly be described as having been a manufacturing concern at all. Let me tell your Lordships that since the beginning of the war it has manufactured only four engines; that the total number of aeroplanes which it has made—I think the number was given by the noble Lord himself—consisted of 50 machines constructed in the early days of the war when it was impossible to get them from elsewhere; and that a very limited number of experimental machines have been made since. Since the war began less than 2 per cent. of the total aeroplanes have been made in the Royal Aircraft Factory.
Nevertheless, in spite of the views that are held—I think rightly held—by the noble Lord as to the undesirability of turning this Factory into a considerable manufacturing concern, the Burbidge Committee, as we know, recommended that manufacture should be increased. No doubt it would be an excellent thing for the Factory and for the War Office from one point of view if that could be done, because it would give us a balance sheet better than anything we can now producer. But the reasons against it, which are really overwhelming, are, in the first place, that it is no part of the work of the Factory to undertake manufacture on a large scale. In the second place—
1026
agreeing here with the noble Lord when he said that we ought to do nothing to antagonise the trade—I am convinced in my own mind that if we undertook manufacture on a large scale we should revive and increase that hostility which he told us himself was now rapidly disappearing. In the third place, as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, it is a physical impossibility. I went down to see the Factory two or three days ago. The whole ground is congested; there is no room for more shops; there is no room at Farnborough or in the neighbourhood for the accommodation of more workmen; and these conditions preclude any expansion on the manufacturing side. The view taken by the Government and by all those concerned is that the main work of the Factory must continue to be experimental, and that it ought to be a designing rather than a manufacturing institution.
And speaking about the trade, I should like to say that I am certain it is the desire of General Henderson, as it is the express desire of the Air Board, to encourage private manufacturers by every means in our power. I quite agree with the general propositions advanced in that sense. We had a meeting of the Air Board, and asked the representatives of all the principal manufacturing firms in the country to come to us. They attended in force. We listened to everything they had to say, and I myself was rejoiced to hear how small was the area of complaint over which they travelled. Really what it came to in the last resort was, not that they were jealous of the Air Factory or that they had any complaint of unfair competition, but that they wanted more skilled labour to enable them to carry out a larger programme. We entered at once into communication with the proper Department to arrange for the release of more skilled labour from the Army. But everybody is dipping their hands into the same bin, and it is exceedingly difficult to get what you want. But I pray your Lordships to believe, so far as the trade is concerned, that there is no desire on the part of those responsible but to give them every encouragement for the development of their business, which is even more in the interests of the Government than it is in their own.
I will only deal in a sentence with the smaller charges made against the Aircraft Factory, some of which have been repeated by the noble Lord. I mean such charges

1027
as these—that there is great idleness there, that there is an excessive number of workmen employed, that it is the refuge of shirkers, that the men are extravagantly paid, and so on. I can only say that, in so far as I have been able personally to go into any of these charges, although it has been no particular part of my business, I have found great difficulty in getting them substantiated. The line which we on the Air Board felt disposed to take was this. Here you are going to make a change in the organisation of the Factory; you are going to appoint a most competent business head; let his first task be to investigate these charges of bad working in the machinery for which he will henceforth be responsible. If there are any of these matters to which the noble Lord alluded to-day about which he is satisfied that the evidence is really sound and incontestable, and if he will put his charges in a way which will admit of investigation, it shall be done. But I pray him not to come down here again and use this House for the purpose of ventilating matters too petty for your Lordships' attention and incapable of reply, because neither I nor anybody else have the material to meet him.
In the latter part of his speech the noble Lord put a perfectly legitimate question. He asked, What, in the view of the Government, are the proper functions of the Air Factory and what is the part that you expect it to play in the future? I think I may define the functions as follows:—(1) trial and experiment; (2) research; (3) preparation of drawings and designs; (4) repairs, both to planes and to engines; (5) the manufacture of "spares." I rather gathered the noble Lord to imply that the two last headings come in the class of manufacture and ought not to be undertaken by the Aircraft Factory. That certainly was not the impression left upon me by my visit. What do you see there? You see in the various sheds and places any number of engines which have come back damaged from the Front. Everybody knows how extraordinary is the amount of repairs required to be done, and nobody knows better than the noble Lord the expense of aerial warfare in the way of material used. Every day engines are coming back for repair. You must have the workmen and the staff and the machinery to undertake these repairs without delay; and just as they are coming in every day, so they are going
1028
back every day; there is a constant stream to and fro between Farnborough and France. As regards "spares," the noble Lord would see there workshops filled with every variety of article and part required in the manufacture of the aeroplane. I really do not know how our airmen would have performed the wonderful feats they have at the Front unless there had been a supply, well filled and constantly replenished, of all the oddments required in the construction of aeroplanes, which you cannot get from the trade, and which at the beginning of the war were not to be got anywhere except at the Royal Aircraft Factory.
I think the part which the Royal Aircraft Factory has played has been invaluable, and that it has been an effective instrument in enabling our airmen to play the fine part they have played. I do not think I need argue this to your Lordships. Lord Montagu admits that the experimental part of the work is necessary. You must have a place for the study and design of flying machines, and their accessories from the point of view of their flying only; you must have a place in which to give a standard in design, construction, and cost, and to supply material, raw or manufactured, which it is difficult to procure elsewhere. As regards the production of aircraft, the Factory in future will not undertake anything like bulk manufacture, but there is small special work, even machines for special trials, which the Factory must undertake because there is nobody else to do it. Surely what we want to bring about is this, that if an inventor has a good invention and sends it to the War Office, from which it goes on to one of the Committees and thence to the Aircraft Factory, he ought to be able to have it made and to have a trial of his machine conducted there. It would probably be much more quickly and more cheaply done at the Aircraft Factory than in any other way.
I hope that in my few remarks I have covered a great deal of the ground that was traversed by my noble friend; and I trust I have shown, with regard to his concluding question, that there is a very definite place in the military organisation of this country for the Royal Aircraft Factory, not only while the war is going on, but even afterwards. I believe that the Factory, improved no doubt by the criticisms to which it has been subjected and the trials through which it has gone, will take a

1029
definite and increasing part in the air defence of the future.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, though I think his strictures on what I said were unnecessarily severe. But perhaps be did not realise that this Question was put down two months ago, and therefore bad a different bearing on the position to-day. As to what the noble Earl said with regard to MacDonald, I think I ought in fairness to point out that this man's pass was extended—
[The noble LORD was here met with cries of "Order" and resumed his seat.]
The subject then dropped.

MILITARY SERVICE—BADGES OF EXEMPTION.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether Captain Mawer, the military representative at the Somerset Appeal Tribunal, was correct, as stated in the Press, in saying, in the case of a shoeing-smith who was badged while working on Government horse-shoes but had ceased to be employed, that there was no Court which could deprive a man of his badge once he had received it, and that thousands of men in the country ought not to be badged, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government would take steps to prevent men who have left or been discharged from Government employment continuing to wear their badges of exemption from military service.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this Question I allude to badged men, but I hope I shall not merit the rebuke of His Majesty's Government if I draw attention to another side of the subject—the side of the unbadged men. They are both cognate. In asking this Question I am far from a desire to criticise. I wish as far as I possibly can, in my humble way, to strengthen the hands of His Majesty's Government in making the Military Service Acts really effective. His Majesty's Government and the nation, after many searchings of heart and nearly two years consideration, passed these Acts in order to compel, where necessary, fit men within certain ages to take up work of some kind or another for the State; and I am sure your Lordships must have remarked as I have, that it is impossible to go about
1030
in the streets or to travel by train or tram without seeing numbers of young men who have no sign of being unfit, no badge, and who may be magnificent heroes, but the public cannot tell whether they are heroes or whether they are unfit. It appears to me that large numbers of men are at the present moment taking advantage of this state of affairs. What I say is without any disrespect whatever to the Government, because I think it is wonderful what the Government have clone considering that we were absolutely unprepared for war and that we never considered these questions before. At the same time there are men, I believe large numbers, who ought to be either in munition factories or fighting the common foe. But how are we to know the reason why these men are at home unless there is some general badge which every man should wear who is not fit to fight or to take some part in the prosecution of the war at home, such as the making of munitions or otherwise?
I have information—and I am sure your Lordships have also—that badges are obtained in several ways by men who have no right to them whatever. One way is this. An unfit man goes before a recruiting officer and gives him some explanation why he is not in the Army—that he has been overlooked but has desired to enlist, He goes before the medical officer, who, of course, finds him unfit—the man knew he was unfit—and he gets a badge, which he sells for five shillings to another man who ought to be in the Army. Another very common way is that munition workers hang up their overcoats or their coats during the time they are working, and a certain number of badges have been stolen in this way and sold; and I have heard of cases where an assault has been committed to obtain a badge or it has been snatched in a crowd.
Would it not be possible to organise some system by which every man who is entitled to one should have a badge? Why should not I be badged? Why should not everybody in your Lordships' House be badged who is not able to do some service to the State? And why should it be necessary for the Police to wait until they are informed that so-and-so ought to be in the Army before action is taken? Why should they not be empowered to stop in the street or anywhere any man who they thought had obtained a badge wrongly and ask for his certificate?
THE EARL OF DERBY: They are authorised to do that.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very glad to hear the noble Earl say so. Then I should like to ask him further, Is it systematically done?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am pleased to hear it, because my information is that it is done in certain districts only. Do I understand that it is done universally?
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is done systematically.
THE EARL OF MEATH: But not universally? Might I ask the noble Earl to consider whether it might be done universally as well, because until it is so done we shall never get hold of all these shirkers. This is an important question, because this war is not going to end until we have put forth every bit of strength there is in the country. We cannot afford to waste a single man. Therefore it is of importance that we should know that every man in the country who is fit to be so is employed in the service of the State. My object is solely to see whether it is not possible to make the Regulations still more stringent, so that in no circumstances whatever will it be possible for a shirker to escape the meshes of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, and, not only that, but to escape from public obloquy.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, inquiries have been made with regard to the case mentioned in the noble Earl's Question on the Paper. I am informed that the statements attributed to the military representative at the Somerset Appeal Tribunal are substantially correct, but are, of course, in a condensed form. It is a fact that no Court—in the sense of a Tribunal—can deprive a man of a war service badge issued by the Ministry of Munitions. In the case of a war service badge and certificate being held by a man considered not to be entitled to continue to hold them, machinery exists whereby the military authorities can make representations to the Ministry of Munitions for the withdrawing of that badge and certificate. It should be noted that the badge in itself does not give any immunity from military service. Immunity is secured only from
1032
the rightful holding of a certificate issued in connection with the badge. So that all the cases which the noble Earl mentioned of selling badges and that sort of thing really do not apply, because the holding of a badge without a certificate to go with it is useless. Further inquiries are being made into the particular case quoted. I can assure the noble Earl that we are doing everything we can to prevent any one escaping from the meshes. I very often find with reference to cases sent to me—the noble Earl has sent some, which I am inquiring into—that when we come to inquire into them it turns out, as a matter of fact, that the man has been medically rejected or has been properly badged as being a munition worker.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am glad to hear what the noble Earl says. But I hope he will bear in mind what I have remarked, that unless a systematic arrangement is made by which the Police shall be able to ask for the certificate—and not only be able to do it, but that it should be done—we shall never get hold of all the shirkers.

UNINTERNED ENEMY ALIENS.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government why certain aliens (Germans), a list of whom I have furnished, have not been interned. I am not going to speak about the question of spying, but there are a number of Germans living in this country in freedom and making money out of the Englishmen who are kind enough to allow them to live here and to do practically what they like. I have furnished a list of names of Germans who are carrying on business in London, and these names do not appear in any naturalisation list issued since 1844. I hope I am correct in the names and the trades that these men are carrying on. Tradesmen in London feel that they are being injured in their businesses by the competition of Germans who have in some cases been interned and have been let out again.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend answers this question I should like to ask again about the firm of Müller. I must be very careful after Lord Curzon's strictures as to presenting a pistol at the head of the Government without any notice having been given. But this

1033
case has been already brought before the House, and the Government know it very well. The Government say that it is not a ease in which they can interfere, their exact words being "It is not expedient to wind up this firm." The man was taken out of the Baltic Exchange, but the Government had him returned to the Baltic to the intense irritation of all the members there.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, so far as I am able to grasp the question asked by my noble friend who has just sat down, it has no sort of connection with that appearing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mayo. As far as I could gather from the noble and gallant Lord's remarks, it is purely a Board of Trade question, and I know nothing about it. If the noble and gallant Lord puts a Question on the Paper, I take it that it will be answered by the representative of the Board of Trade.
With reference to the Question on the Paper, Lord Mayo has furnished me with a list, and he has expressed a somewhat unfounded hope that this list is a correct one. I am sorry to disabuse my noble friend. It is anything but an accurate list. In the first place, it includes a number of names of men who are not German at all; in the second place, it includes the names of a number of men who are represented as being free, but who, as a matter of fact, have been interned for a considerable time. I cannot help thinking that my noble friend is under considerable misapprehension. I rather gathered that he is under the impression that a number of men escape internment, or are released from internment in consequence of petitions and representations brought forward by individuals. I can assure the noble Earl that this is not the case, and that a man is only released from internment by the Home Secretary after his case has been carefully considered by the Advisory Committee. The general rule is this, and so far as I know it is implicitly adhered to—that all Germans are interned unless there is a very excellent reason why they should remain at liberty. And I may say that the precautions are so great at the present moment that I believe any alien enemy who was heard uttering sentiments of a disloyal nature would very soon find himself incarcerated. The noble Earl is under a misapprehension in his belief that there are a vast number of dangerous uninterned Germans in the country at the present moment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: There is not a vast number in my list. I am not in the least saying that.
LORD NEWTON: I wonder if my noble friend has any idea of the number of un-interned hostile aliens. If not, I will tell him. There are, all told, something like 22,000 uninterned hostile aliens at the present moment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Question refers only to Germans.
LORD NEWTON: And from the figure I have given you must deduct women, children, and men over 70 years of age, and you must also deduct what are known as friendly aliens—Czechs, Poles, Armenians and such people; and when you have reduced the figure by those categories it really leaves a small number of what my noble friend would consider dangerous uninterned aliens. I should like to assure my noble friend once again that all these cases are carefully investigated; and I venture to think it is a more commonsense and practical proceeding to consider every case on its merits than to intern a man simply because he happens to be technically a hostile alien. I may be thought eccentric, but I confess to holding the view that an alien, even if he be technically a hostile alien, provided there is no suspicion whatever against him, is better employed in making boots or clothes or baking bread than being kept doing nothing in an internment camp at the expense of the taxpayers of this country.

PAY OF PRISONERS OF WAR,
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the terms of pay allowed to officers and men of the British and Indian Establishment who are now prisoners of war.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the general rule is that Staff officers receive Staff pay for 61 days, after which they receive regimental pay if of a regimental rank, or half pay if above regimental rank. Regimental officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men continue to be credited with full pay. Officers already drawing field allowance will continue to be eligible for it, and Staff officers will become eligible from the date of their coming on to regimental pay or half pay.

1035
Field allowance will continue to be dealt with by the paymaster. There is one thing I do not feel quite happy about in this answer, and that is that those above regimental rank should only receive half pay. I am going into this question to sec whether, as a matter of fact, this does not act harshly.
LORD BERESFORD: Will my noble friend go into the case particularly of the English officers?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am speaking only of the English officers. Lord Islington will answer for the Indian officers.
LORD BERESFORD: With your Lordships' permission I should like to ask about the English officers, particularly with regard to General Townshend. The only message he has received from the Government after his magnificent defence was one putting him on half pay. The English officers with him have also been put on half pay.
THE EARL OF DERBY: No, they have not. Had my noble friend been good enough to listen to my answer, he would have seen that they have not. Regimental officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men continue to be credited with full pay; so are all other officers except Staff officers, who receive their Staff pay for 61 days, and after that they lapse into regimental pay. It is just a case like General Townshend's that I think is unfair. When above regimental rank they should receive full pay.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before the fall of Kut the rules in force regarding the pay of officers taken prisoners while on the Indian Establishment were as follow:—Officers of the Indian Army should draw full pay for 61 days, and then the rates of Indian Army leave pay ordinarily given on leave out of India. These rates are sterling rates depending on length of service, and may be said to approximate roughly to about half of the officer's full pay. There was a proviso that in any case an Indian Army officer should not get less than a British Service officer, and this became operative in the cases of most junior officers.
Since the fall of Kut the Secretary of State for India, in communication with the War Office and the Government of
1036
India, has reconsidered these rules, which pending any fresh decision applied to the prisoners taken there. It has now been decided that Indian Army officer prisoners, after 61 days on full pay, will receive full pay of rank plus half the Staff pay attaching to their ordinary employment. Speaking very roughly, this will on an average give them about five-sixths of their full ordinary emoluments. Staff officers still on the cadre of a regiment will, after 61 clays, be treated as regimental officers. This follows the War Office practice.
To show my noble and gallant friend the change that has taken place, I will give him a few comparative figures. In the case of a lieutenant-colonel commanding a battalion, his emoluments on field service and for first 61 days while a prisoner amount to £1,219. Under the old rule while a prisoner, after 61 days full pay, he would receive £700 a year; under the new scheme of emoluments while a prisoner, after 61 days, he will receive £964. In the case of a captain, £510 represent his full emoluments on field service. He would receive under the old system while prisoner £370; he will receive under the new arrangement £425. A second-lieutenant, his full pay being £323, would receive while prisoner £228 under the old arrangement; under the new system he will get £280. My noble and gallant friend will see that there is a considerable addition under the new scheme.
LORD BERESFORD: I thank my noble friend for his very satisfactory reply.

STATE WOOL PURCHASES.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government when British owners of wool will be permitted to sell it. It is now about two months since an embargo was put upon the sale of British wool. I fancy that in the meantime Colonial wool has been sold in London, and the unfortunate British farmer is pressing to know when he may be able to sell his wool. I hope my noble friend will be able to give an answer to this Question.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I could give an answer in a few words, but possibly the noble Lord might like to have some explanation of what has been done. The answer to the Question is that arrangements for purchasing the 1916 clip will be

1037
completed within the next few days, and that purchases of wool on behalf of the Department are already taking place in certain districts. What has been done is this. Arrangements for handling the wool of the 1916 clip are being completed this week. Purchases of wool are already being made in the Midlands (No. 4 area) List A. Farmers in England and Wales have received census forms and explanatory leaflets of instructions. These are now being returned in considerable numbers. Local advisory committees have been selected in the majority of districts, consisting of three wool merchants and three farmers. Authorised wool merchants are being selected to purchase on behalf of the Department in each area; and as soon as the farmer returns his census, instructions are given to the authorised merchants to proceed to take over the wool.

DEATH OF TERRITORIALS IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before your Lordships adjourn perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to make any statement with regard to the Karachi troop train disaster.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I would remind the House that I informed the noble Viscount last week that the Secretary of State for India had instructed the Government of India to make a comprehensive Inquiry into the whole circumstances surrounding this calamity, and also to hold to strict account the officers who were found responsible. I will give the answer that has just been received from the Government of India—
" Your telegram of the 28th instant. July 30. We can now give a considered opinion, having received Report of Committee. The responsibility for diverting the ship from Bombay to Karachi rests with Brigadier-General Roe, who was acting as Q.M.G. at the time. He knew unacclimatised troops had never before been sent in large numbers by rail in the middle of summer through the Sind Desert. He knew, or should have known, that the Commander-in-Chief in December, 1915, had decided that Karachi should not be used as a port at which wounded and sick British troops should be landed and distributed to other stations, on account
1038
of danger of sending them in the hotseason through Sind. It follows that before the ' Ballarat ' was diverted to Karachi, acting Q.M.G. should have consulted Commander-in-Chief, and he did not do this. Having taken on himself responsibility he should certainly have warned Karachi military authorities to take special precautions for safety of troops during journey by rail. He did not do this. We therefore must hold him responsible, and propose to remove him from his appointment of Deputy Q.M.G.
" It is clear from evidence that the mischief began before disembarcation, many men having been seen on deck bareheaded in the sun. All the officers on board were quite inexperienced, and we cannot therefore hold them blameworthy. The G.O.C. at Karachi was responsible for all arrangements for railway journey in his capacity as Embarkation Officer. It is shown from evidence that on the day concerned he was very busy, but ho had ample warning of ' Ballarat's ' arrival. Though he knew responsible members of his staff, with one exception, were inexperienced, he took no steps nor gave any orders to see that the safety or comfort of the troops was provided for. In this we consider he failed in his duty, and we propose his removal.
" Special blame we consider attaches to the Assistant Director of Medical Services at Karachi, an officer of long experience of the Indian Medical Service. In the circumstances it was undoubtedly his duty to see that every precaution suggested by medical science for the safety of the troops was taken. He failed in our opinion, to do this. We therefore propose to remove him.
" A number of omissions and errors on the part of other officers were committed, but these were due partly to inexperience and partly to adherence to regulations intended to govern only the ordinary trooping in cold weather. We do not propose to take any action in these cases. The only excuses that can be urged in favour of the officers who are, in our opinion, responsible, are that many of the casualties were due to fact that in many cases the men left their carriages bare-headed, and that the temperature during the journey was unusually high. Nevertheless, though these facts may

1039
have increased the number of casualties, we are clear that there can be no doubt that the train left Karachi insufficiently equipped, overcrowded, and without experienced officers, either medical or combatant. We place for these reasons the responsibility on Brigadier-General Roe, on the G.O.C., and on the Senior Medical Officer at Karachi. All that was possible seems to have been done by the local authorities beyond Karachi throughout the journey."
I may add that we have communicated with the Government of India instructing them to formulate definite and explicit regulations for all troops arriving in India who are unacquainted with the climatic conditions, and to see that those regulations are strictly adhered to in order to prevent trouble of this character in the future.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I gathered from the noble Lord's reply that there had been an absence of preparation for trooping in a season when trooping never takes place in India, and that no regulations were issued from headquarters for trooping, whether the disembarcation was to take place at Bombay or Karachi. Unquestionably it had better have taken place at Bombay; but in either case it was happening in a season when it is quite unusual to have trooping in India. I could not gather from the noble Lord whether amongst these unfortunate men who died there were any wounded or invalids, or whether it was merely the return of men no longer required in Mesopotamia.
LORD ISLINGTON: No; these were drafts coming out from England to replenish the Territorial regiments.
LORD HARRIS: Then my remarks apply to a greater extent, because the whole system of drafting to India is laid down upon a carefully arranged plan for the cold weather. There is an interesting point which perhaps I might be allowed to notice. When I was at Bombay the Commander-in-Chief at that time told me "I am going to have all the drafts out of the troop ships taken up into the Deccan, and I am going to train them with trained troops. The doctors tell me they will get sunstroke but you will see they will not." Well, he did that for two years, and I think in the course of that time he had three
1040
cases of sunstroke but no deaths amongst the whole of the European troops. I asked him the reason, and he said "It was simple. I sent them out after they had had their breakfast and after the sun had got above the line of the eyes." He was a very practical man.
It seems to me that here there has been either a want of practical acquaintance with trooping or else an entire indifference to the fact that the trooping was taking place at a time of the year when I should think it had hardly ever taken place before. I would only further remark that the responsibility for the change from Bombay to Karachi must, I think, have rested with an officer who had no experience of Sind, because it is perfectly well known by the Bombay Government that in the hot season in Sind, amongst the very small European staff there, it is almost a certainty that you will have one death every year from heat apoplexy; and in the trains bringing down natives, if they are at all over-crowded, you will occasionally pick out a dead man from heat apoplexy. Here these unfortunate men were sent in the worst season along the valley of the Indus where the humidity is very great and the heat of the sun intense. It seems to me that the fault is not only that of the General Officer Commanding and of the medical officer at Karachi, but that the office of the Commander-in-Chief ignored altogether the change of practice from trooping in the cold weather to trooping in the hot weather. Therefore in my opinion the highest officials in the Government of India are almost, if not quite, as responsible as the Quartermaster-General.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for his information. But the effect left on the minds of your Lordships will be that owing to the large number of officers taken away from India for various Expeditions there does not seem to be available sufficient experience in the various commands. It may be impossible to replace all the officers in the various commands, but I should like the noble Lord to give us this assurance, both with regard to the experience in this particular trouble and in the Mesopotamian Expedition, that the Secretary of State will see that the highest military posts are sufficiently equipped with officers of experience to meet the enormous work which is now falling upon them.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by Lord Harris, I would repeat what I read out in the telegram, that the Deputy-Quartermaster-General, an officer of high rank and responsibility on the Headquarters Staff, was blamed by the Government of India and has been removed from his post. As regards the question of the noble Viscount, I will certainly refer it to the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that he will communicate with India on the matter. I fully appreciate the importance
1042
of what the noble Viscount said, that many of the Staffs are depleted of men with Indian experience, and that there is grave danger of troubles like this one arising owing to officers on the Staff not being conversant with the conditions of the country. I will certainly bring the point before the Secretary of State.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.